May 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

IOC/RC
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Councillors, As discussed during today's call, I would like to ask the Council for clear direction on what next steps to take on the IOC/RC DT. You will recall that on the call I suggested that we instruct the DT to continue its work and that a short message be sent to the GAC. Mary had the following suggestion on the call: Mary Wong: @Stephane, in view of the apparent confusion over the DT issue, can you respond to the GAC simply stating what the DT has done to date and indicating that the GNSO as a whole is continuing to work on the second level issue without specifically mentioning that the DT will be the group doing the work? And then including that question on the agenda for our next mtg? Please add to this discussion so that we can determine what our next steps should be. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 1

Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Final Report
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Dear GNSO Council Members, On behalf of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG), please find attached its Final Report for GNSO Council consideration. The report was agreed to by rough consensus according to the IRD-WG Charter with two-thirds of the members agreeing with the report and no members disagreeing with it. See the details below. Please note that since this is a joint working group established by the GNSO and the SSAC, the attached report also is being sent today to the SSAC for consideration. In addition, please note that prior to this Final Report the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report for public comment for 45 days on 03 October 2011 at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ird-draft-final-report-03oct11-… and presented the draft report at the ICANN meeting in Dakar. The IRD-WG analyzed the comments received in the forum and addressed them in its Report of Public Comments at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-ird-draft-final…. The comments resulted in minor and non-substantive changes to the final report. Please let me know if you have any questions that I can convey to the IRD-WG members as you consider this report. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund Policy Director ICANN IRD-WG Members who agreed to the report (11 of 16 members). For the list of members, charter and activities see the wiki at: wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration… 1. Scott Austin -- GNSO Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Commercial Stakeholder Group, Gordon & Rees LLP 2. Edmon Chung -- GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group, .ASIA 3. Rafik Dammak -- GNSO Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, Tunisia 4. Avri Doria -- GNSO Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group 5. Jim Galvin -- SSAC, Afilias 6. Bob Hutchinson 7. Andrei Kolesnikov -- Nominating Committee Appointee, .RU 8. Mark Kosters – SSAC, ARIN 9. Steven Metalitz -- GNSO Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Commercial Stakeholder Group 10. Ram Mohan, Board Liaison, SSAC, Afilias 11. Owen Smigelski, Sunrider International, Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Commercial Stakeholder Group

1 1

Internationalised Registration Data Working Group
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Councillors, As you know, time did not permit us to get to item 8 on our agenda today. I have reproduced the agenda item text below, to provide the necessary context. Item 8: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data WG (10 minutes) The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered. This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in the IRD WG's work to the Council. 8.1 WG update from Staff (Steve Cheng) 8.2 Discussion You will also recall that Steve Cheng put in question for Council in the Adobe room chat when it became obvious that we would run out of time before getting to item 8. I have reproduced the question below so that everyone remembers what it was: We have one question regarding the IRD-WG report: The IRD-WG has sent their final report to the GNSO and SSAC on March 6. We have not heard any objections from the GNSO regarding the report. Today, the IRD-WG will send a revised Final Report (incorporating SSAC's suggestions) to the Council. The question from staff is an additional two weeks enough for GNSO review? I would say that the answer is yes, two weeks is enough. If anyone disagrees, please make your objection known by Monday COB. Steve, if no-one disagrees, please consider that the 2 weeks is enough. Also, I have carried the agenda item forwards to the agenda for the Council's next meeting. If you feel that is no longer necessary Steve, please let me know. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 1

Re: Invitation to ICANN Academy WG
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Olivier, I will be representing the GNSO on the ICANN academy WG. I look forward to working with other community members on this in the weeks and months ahead. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 4 mai 2012 à 19:37, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > I am following-up on my email below. As we discussed, it is important > that people from the different SO/ACs/SGs are represented in this > working group. I gather it must have been confusing that I email both > you and Jeff separately -- and the council separately to each SG -- but > this is because I think that there should be someone (one? more?) from > the Council in the WG to explain the point of view of councillors, as > opposed to SG Chairs who have a different point of view, not from the > Council. > I look forward for you to make suggestions on a volunteer after you have > discussed it with your councillors. > Warmest regards, > > Olivier > > On 21/04/2012 15:49, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote : >> Dear Stéphane, >> >> During the ICANN meeting in San Jose, the ALAC presented the proposal >> for an ICANN Academy, a program for people selected by the various ICANN >> communities and the NomCom to be more effective when they take their >> position and that would complement other ICANN capacity building >> activities. As part of that presentation, I announced that we would be >> inviting all ICANN communities to participate in the further development >> of this proposal. >> >> The initiative for the ICANN Academy was initially conceived by At-Large >> members as a comprehensive stand-alone project, which would include a >> variety of educational offerings for all ICANN participants. On review >> of various options and based on the existence of the current ongoing >> other efforts such as Fellowship Program, Newcomers’ Tracks and Lounge, >> ICANN staff expressed an immediate need to provide a capacity building >> program for the future leaders of ICANN, those whose term starts at the >> end of 2012 AGM in Toronto. The ALAC formed a Working Group to develop a >> program to respond to this specific need and organized it as a pilot >> operation. >> >> The first draft of this pilot program for new ICANN leaders was >> presented recently at the ICANN meeting in San Jose. While the feedback >> was favorable, it also supported that there was a growing need for >> learning opportunities also among other constituencies >> >> The At-Large community views the ICANN Academy as an ICANN project >> initiated by At-Large that needs further community support in order to >> realize its full potential. As a result, we wish to invite members of >> other advisory committees, the supporting organizations and the various >> constituencies in the GNSO to join us in the Academy Working Group, to >> contribute actively in furthering the concept and curriculum. >> >> Therefore, I kindly invite you to consider the inclusion of some >> interested members of your community in the Academy Working Group to >> finalize a proposed curriculum and the faculty for this pilot operation, >> and to continue later on developing the aspects of the comprehensive >> project together with ICANN Staff. >> It is absolutely vital that at least one person from your constituency >> takes part in the designing of the academic program. Just as the best >> source of information about ALAC matters is an At-Large community >> member, we believe that the best source of information for your >> constituency's work is someone from your constituency. This will ensure >> a *fair and balanced point of view* expressed to Academy participants - >> a foundation feature of the ICANN Academy. >> I look forward to hearing from you about a volunteer from your community >> to take part in the working group as soon as possible, but certainly >> before 30 April 2012. >> >> Warmest regards, >> >> Olivier Crépin-Leblond, >> ALAC Chair >> >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >

1 0

Reconfiguring the URS?
by Neuman, Jeff May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

All, Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget document (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) just put out for comment is a note on "reconfiguring" the URS. Excerpt provided below. I guess they could not find any URS providers that could do it for the costs that they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 summits to work on a new model. My question for the Council, is whether this is really a policy issue that should be referred back to the GNSO Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the controversy around this over the past few years, any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) - $175K At present there is a significant gap between the features specified for the URS procedure and the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize URS Model in consultation with current UDRP providers and community members; and conduct RFP based on URS Model and select URS providers. The goal is have a URS program in place and providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. 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/>

6 11

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 10 May 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 10 May, 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120510-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TAS Interruption - Update (9 May 2012) | ICANN
by Glen de Saint Géry May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09may12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 9 May 2012 As we announced yesterday, ICANN has provided notice to all users to let them know whether they may have been affected by the technical glitch in the TLDapplication system, or TAS. We sent an email<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/notification-template-…> [PDF, 41 KB] to each TAS user asking them to log in to the notification system and view whether they may have been affected. Notifications were delivered to the 1,275 registered TAS users in four categories. The categories, along with links to the corresponding notification template, break down as follows: 1. Users who did not have file names or usernames viewed<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/notification-template-…>[PDF, 72 KB]: 1,163 2. Users who had one or more file names and/or user names that may have been viewed by another user<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/notification-template-…> [PDF, 73 KB]: 72. 3. Users who may have seen the file names and/or usernames of one or more other users<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/notification-template-…> [PDF, 73 KB]: 30. 4. Users who had one or more file names and/or user names that may have been viewed, and who also may have been able to see file name and/or username information of other users<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/notification-template-…> [PDF, 75 KB]: 10. Users whose file names and/or user names may have been viewed were provided with the details of the relevant information. As we announced yesterday, we are targeting 22 May 2012 as the intended reopening date for TAS, and anticipate a 30 May closing. We understand and regret the inconvenience that the glitch has caused.

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 44 Public Forum agenda
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Councillors, FYI. Please let me have any suggested topics you would like to forward to Steve. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Objet : [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 44 Public Forum agenda > Date : 9 mai 2012 17:09:35 HAEC > À : "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> > Cc : "steve.crocker(a)icann.org" <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> > > > [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] > > > Dear ICANN Community Leaders, > > We are approaching ICANN 44 in Prague. > > As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 28 June 2012, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. > > Following the practice we had in the recent meetings, we would like to build the agenda with your input again as this facilitates the forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about. > > Publishing the agenda as early as possible also facilitates more informed discussions during the Public Forum as we have experienced in recent meetings, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting actually starts. > > Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Prague, before the end of Monday, 4 June 2012. > > We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. > > Thanks for your consideration and input. > > Kind regards, > Steve Crocker > > > > _______________________________________________ > soac-infoalert mailing list > soac-infoalert(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Fwd: Invitation to ICANN Academy WG
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Councillors, Please see the follow-up message below from Olivier. I would be happy to follow this group on behalf of the Council if everyone is OK with that. Would anyone be opposed to me representing the Council on this group? As a reminder, we have a discussion point on Alac's ICANN academy scheduled for our next teleconference call. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Objet : Rép : Invitation to ICANN Academy WG > Date : 4 mai 2012 19:37:59 HAEC > À : stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com > Cc : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, sandra hoferichter <info(a)hoferichter.eu>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> > > Dear Stéphane, > > I am following-up on my email below. As we discussed, it is important > that people from the different SO/ACs/SGs are represented in this > working group. I gather it must have been confusing that I email both > you and Jeff separately -- and the council separately to each SG -- but > this is because I think that there should be someone (one? more?) from > the Council in the WG to explain the point of view of councillors, as > opposed to SG Chairs who have a different point of view, not from the > Council. > I look forward for you to make suggestions on a volunteer after you have > discussed it with your councillors. > Warmest regards, > > Olivier > > On 21/04/2012 15:49, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote : >> Dear Stéphane, >> >> During the ICANN meeting in San Jose, the ALAC presented the proposal >> for an ICANN Academy, a program for people selected by the various ICANN >> communities and the NomCom to be more effective when they take their >> position and that would complement other ICANN capacity building >> activities. As part of that presentation, I announced that we would be >> inviting all ICANN communities to participate in the further development >> of this proposal. >> >> The initiative for the ICANN Academy was initially conceived by At-Large >> members as a comprehensive stand-alone project, which would include a >> variety of educational offerings for all ICANN participants. On review >> of various options and based on the existence of the current ongoing >> other efforts such as Fellowship Program, Newcomers’ Tracks and Lounge, >> ICANN staff expressed an immediate need to provide a capacity building >> program for the future leaders of ICANN, those whose term starts at the >> end of 2012 AGM in Toronto. The ALAC formed a Working Group to develop a >> program to respond to this specific need and organized it as a pilot >> operation. >> >> The first draft of this pilot program for new ICANN leaders was >> presented recently at the ICANN meeting in San Jose. While the feedback >> was favorable, it also supported that there was a growing need for >> learning opportunities also among other constituencies >> >> The At-Large community views the ICANN Academy as an ICANN project >> initiated by At-Large that needs further community support in order to >> realize its full potential. As a result, we wish to invite members of >> other advisory committees, the supporting organizations and the various >> constituencies in the GNSO to join us in the Academy Working Group, to >> contribute actively in furthering the concept and curriculum. >> >> Therefore, I kindly invite you to consider the inclusion of some >> interested members of your community in the Academy Working Group to >> finalize a proposed curriculum and the faculty for this pilot operation, >> and to continue later on developing the aspects of the comprehensive >> project together with ICANN Staff. >> It is absolutely vital that at least one person from your constituency >> takes part in the designing of the academic program. Just as the best >> source of information about ALAC matters is an At-Large community >> member, we believe that the best source of information for your >> constituency's work is someone from your constituency. This will ensure >> a *fair and balanced point of view* expressed to Academy participants - >> a foundation feature of the ICANN Academy. >> I look forward to hearing from you about a volunteer from your community >> to take part in the working group as soon as possible, but certainly >> before 30 April 2012. >> >> Warmest regards, >> >> Olivier Crépin-Leblond, >> ALAC Chair >> >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >

4 5

Message from Kurt Pritz
by Marika Konings May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Dear All, Please find below a message from Kurt Pritz in relation to agenda item 6 (JAS WG) and item 9.3 (URS) for today's GNSO Council meeting. With best regards, Marika From: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)icann.org<mailto:kurt@icann.org>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: For the Council meeting Council Members: I am sorry that I could not join the Council meeting. Please accept the following brief report on issues that have raised by the Council leadership and through your email list. More information can be provided. Sincerely, Kurt Uniform Rapid Suspension: There is a budget line item identified as "URS Summit" Implementation work conducted on the URS to date indicates that the the implementation will not attain the cost target of $300-$500 in URS fee per case. This is based on discussions with WIPO staff, direct communication with the IPC, and examples understood from the ICM registry and Nominet. Because the fee target is a primary goal of the URS, additional work and study should be undertaken to determine if amendments to the program might attain the fee goal and retain the safeguards and other features of the program. This study must be undertaken by a community group. While the scope of the effort is not yet defined, it was necessary to reserve resources for the work in the ICANN's FY13 budget.The line item in the budget is the placeholder for those resources while the best way to accomplish the work can be designed. Again, the work will be done through a bottom-up, community discussion similar to the the work done to create and review the URS in the first instance. The timing of the budgeting process required that we create the line item before planning for this work could be drafted and worked through the community. Joint Applicant Support Working Group The GNSO Council approved an extension of the JAS charter on 22 September 2011 in order to complete other reports (Milestone 2 report) that have since been completed, and to request that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109. We continue to review implementation details with the JAS – either the entire JAS or a sub-group selected by the JAS. Most notably, JAS members have recommended that the community play a role in in the planning for the recruitment, training and operation of the "SARP," the review panels that will evaluate financial assistance applications. This planning includes the idea that the SARP include a Community Member Representative or CMR. Additional information can be provided to the GNSO to augment information provided by the JAS. A report on the details can be made directly to the GNSO Council and ALAC if the Council indicates such a preference.

1 0