June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Final Prague GAC Communiqué
by Bruce Tonkin June 30, 2012

June 30, 2012

Hello All, Attached is the GAC Communiqué from the Prague meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

ALAC statement on the approval of the .com agreement
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

The statement now approved by ALAC is as follows: The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this topic on the Thursday 28 June public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum topic list. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action nor on the content of the .com agreement. The process followed by the Board is objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. To give the impression that the Board is interested in additional community comment but then make a decision five days earlier is not appropriate. It is imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

2 3

Digital Arhcery resolution is now posted
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-2-27jun… 27 June 2012 Resolved (2012.06.27.NG06), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to terminate the Digital Archery process as approved in Resolutions 2011.12.08.04-2011.12.08.07. Rationale for Resolution 2012.06.27.NG06 To remain accountable to the ICANN community, after careful consideration of the objections raised to the digital archery process, and following the suspension of the process after identification of a technical issue, the New gTLD Program Committee's decision provides finality to the community on the status of the digital archery process. This decision will not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS as a result of this decision.

1 0

Topics and notes from today's wrap-up
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Councillors, Please find attached the list of topics and my notes taken from this morning's session. There are several action items we need to take on this list. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

draft statement on .com
by Thomas Rickert June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

All, here comes my proposed language for a statement that could be made by Stéphane. Thomas The GNSO Council had discussed with the Board during its meeting on Sunday that there were several instances where the GNSO Council was not involved prior the Board made decisions to seek community input. It is with disappointment that the GNSO Council noted that a resolution on the renewal of the .com contract was passed last weekend while this very matter is a topic for today's public forum. Parts of the community may deem their contributions moot when they are not considered by the Board prior to making a decision. We would like to explicitly point this out in order to make sure that community input is sought before resolutions are made and not afterwards when future meetings are planned. Thomas ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de Web: http://www.eco.de --------------------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: Köln

4 3

Follow-up: informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions
by Thomas Rickert June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

All, you may recall I asked for feedback on the summary and conclusions I circulated earlier this week. In addition to oral responses mainly supporting the general approach I displayed, I have also received two written statements, which I have included in this e-mail. Please note that, as I had mentioned during the session on Monday as well as in my last e-mail, this is an effort in personal capacity. Thanks, Thomas Rickert Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail: > > > Thomas, > > Thank you for your summary regarding the batching discussions that took place on 25 June in Prague. My colleague who participated in the meeting, Jim Stoltzfus, and I have discussed and below, please find CSC’s feedback: > > · Overall Timing: CSC is in agreement that it is in everyone’s interest (ICANN/applicants/providers/Internet users) to facilitate the first launch asap because everybody loses if it takes 18 months to launch due to the dynamic nature of the industry and Internet itself. Further, CSC also agrees that it would be unfair and counterproductive to allow incomplete or contested applications to slow down the evaluation and delegation of uncontested, quality applications. > · Digital Archery: CSC recommends ICANN abandon Digital Archery as a method of ranking applications within geographic regions as it is technically flawed, provides an unfair advantage to those who have significant technical and financial resources and is reliant on a single action whose outcome is too heavily influenced by conditions (system latency, network traffic volume/throttling/routing, etc,) that can neither be predicted nor mitigated by diligent applicants. > · Batching: CSC recommends that ICANN conduct initial evaluation of applications in 2 batches and that ICANN require applicants to self-select which batch they would like to be processed in. Contentious strings in the total application pool should be grouped with the application in the earliest batch. > · Order of Application Review within Each Batch: CSC recommends ICANN order applications within a batch for evaluation in the following manner: > o Non-contentious strings 1st in the following order of priority - community TLDs, “closed” .BRAND TLDs, IDNs, geo TLDs, remaining “open” TLDs/generics > o Contentious strings 2nd in the following order of priority- community TLDs, “closed” .BRAND TLDs, IDNs, geo TLDs, remaining “open” TLDs/generics > · Initial Evaluation of Applications: CSC urges ICANN to streamline initial evaluation of applications by utilizing the efficiencies suggested by the community, such as single review of answer sets used across multiple applications, evaluation by same evaluator of multiple similar applications by a single applicant, expedited review of closed .brand TLDs which utilize vetted gTLD registries, etc. > · Publication of Initial Evaluation Results: CSC recommends that Initial Evaluation Results/Reports be released as evaluators complete evaluations. > · Sequencing of the Delegation of Approved Strings: CSC recommends that delegation sequencing be based on the date that all pre-requisites for delegation are completed (queue based on date of completion). Where there are multiple applicants that complete all pre-requisites on the same day and ICANN believes it is not possible to delegate all strings in the same day, priority of delegation would be based on the following factors: application score, batch number, date of contract with ICANN, time-stamp of submission of acceptable pre-delegation testing results to ICANN. > > We welcome the opportunity to continue to be part of the dialogue to craft a solution to these issues. Please continue to keep us apprised on any further discussions or proposals on this matter. > > Thanks and best regards, > Gretchen > > Gretchen M. Olive > Director, Policy & Industry Affairs > [snip] > www.cscglobal.com > > From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:09 AM > To: rickert(a)eco.de > Subject: informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions > > On Monday, June 25, an informal group of community members convened to exchange thoughts on potential answers to the questions of Batching and Digital Archery. > > The group did not neither craft nor agree on a common proposal to present to the ICANN Board since the time available did not allow for an attempt to do so. A huge number of ideas and suggestions were presented and commented on. > > With this document, I would like to briefly summarize those and more ideas that were brought to my attention in follow-up discussions and try to structure them. The conclusions I will draw do not represent the group's view, but my personal thoughts based on the cumulative input. > > The main areas of discussion were > > - Application Evaluation Batching and > - Delegation Batching. > > However, the subjects of Digital Archery as well as the impact of the letter by the GAC to the ICANN Board on any proposal were also discussed and deemed necessary factors when defining what could be a superior solution to the current approach. > > The group also felt that more data was needed to come up with a sound proposal in order to base calculations on facts rather than guesses. Apart from questions on parameters of the contracts with the firms that have been tasked to carry out the evaluation, the question of the maximum delegation rate per day or week was of interest to anticipate potential roll-out scenarios in the delegation phase. Kurt Pritz responded to this both in the informal meeting as well as during the public session. In summary, there does not seem to be a clear answer with unambiguous figures rather than the fact that the 1000 TLDs somewhat need to be distributed over the year i.e is a rate per year. > > For the evaluation phase, there seemed to be a lot of support and little or no opposition to processing all applications in a single batch. That should be done as quickly as possible. While Kurt Pritz emphasized that quality is of highest priority and that it is not easy to add more evaluators since they have been trained for months, ICANN should try to deploy more resources. There is partially identical information in applications using the same Registry Service Provider and those of portfolio applicants. For these (and I am not suggesting that these should be processed in batches), only the the differences of the applications have to be identified, i.e. the evaluator would process one in total and then be able to concentrate on the variations of the applications and the impact of those on the assessment of the application. By doing so, it should be possible to expedite the evaluation process significantly. I understand that there are other proposals currently being drafted which focus exclusively on incasing process efficiency. > > There did not seem to be an unanimous view on whether all results of initial evaluation should be published at the same time or whether they should be published as their evaluation is completed. A proposal was made to publish the results for individual applications as the initial evaluation is completed and then queue them for delegation as they are ready to go until the delegation rate limit of 1000 TLDs per year is reached. > > Numerous proposals have been made to establish a sequence of processing and then delegating TLDs. > > These can roughly be grouped into the following categories: > > - Clustering > > Several participants argued for different treatment for different types of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs, Community TLDs, grouping by competitors (applicants should tell who should not be delegated earlier than their application), grouping not only by contention sets, but also by synonyms (i.e. .music should be grouped with .hiphop). > > - Financial > > Proposals were made to provide financial incentives to those who agree to be processed later or to give each applicant one point and that such points can be traded. > > - Choice > > Applicants should get the opportunity to opt-out and portfolio applicants could volunteer to prioritize their own applications. > > - Natural sequencing > > Several attendees pointed to the fact that there will be a natural sequencing because of contention sets, objections, extended evaluations, GAC Advice, differences of time required for contract negotiation and execution. > > In addition to that, withdrawals or rejections of applications will further reduce the number of TLDs that need to be delegated. > > Another idea was to use the quality of the applications as a basis for sequencing them, eg. by scoring them or taking into account the requirement to get back to the applicant for additional information. > > Conclusions: > > It seems like creating groups of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs etc., is not an approach that gets broad community support. No matter how legitimate the reasons brought forward may be to either prioritize those or at least ensure that they are not processed at the end of the queue, it seems unrealistic to serve all these groups. > > Thus, it will be difficult to establish a new methodology for clustering applications as the basis for creating an order for processing and delegating them. > > A combination of various elements described above could be an eligible solution. These elements could be: > > - Resources: ICANN should hire more resources to provide for an expedient evaluation taking into account the suggestions above. > > - Choice: Applicants should say whether the earliest possible delegation is of high, medium or low priority for them. The applications will be processed in that order. > > - Complexity: In terms of complexity, a distinction needs to be made between external and internal factors. > > Internal factors: Priority is given to applications with, i.e. where no additional information has to be requested and where no extended evaluation is required. This addresses the widely welcome idea that quality should be a factor. > > External factors: Where contentions, objections or GAC advice are given, the applications are processed in the order these issues are resolved. > > The results of the initial evaluation of applications where no clarifying information had to be provided by the applicant was required, should be published at the same time. For the remaining applications, the results should be published whenever the evaluation is completed. > > The applications will then be processed whenever the respective next stage is reached. There will be a natural sequencing because of different time needed for contract negotiations and execution. > > It should also be noted that the delegation process is not under ICANN's exclusive control, which will provide for additional sequencing. > > Again, this document and the conclusion is an attempt to summarize and amalgamate proposals and feedback into what might be a possible approach. It is an effort in personal capacity which does not necessarily represent the view of the participants. > > Please circulate to those who are interested. I will collect feedback and make that available later this week. > > Thomas Rickert > > ___________________________________________________________ > Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law > Director Names & Numbers > > ------------------------------------- > eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. > > Lichtstraße 43h > 50825 Köln > > Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 > Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111 > E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de > Web: http://www.eco.de > > --------------------------------------------------- > > eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. > Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa > Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv. > Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger > Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 > Sitz des Vereins: Köln > > > > > > NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged, proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me via reply email or at (800) 927-9800 and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of any e-mail, and any printout. web: www.anwaelte.de

1 0

RE: [council] Draft language
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Thanks to David, Alan, John and Brian - this looks good to me. Cheers Mary Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com> wrote: Please see revised draft below with correction suggested by Alan and with Johns suggestion which I think is helpful. Kind regards, Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:40 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft language Brian, Note my boldface suggestion: The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 :http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware of the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of its intent to approve the contract at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Boards action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when we are all being urged to advocate for the ICANN model at time of increased global scrutiny, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> wrote: Jeff As requested, how about the below draft: The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 : http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies, stakeholder groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's closed session and adoption of the draft agreement This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Boards action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when the private sector is being urged to advocate for the ICANN model, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. Hope helpful. Kind regards Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

2 1

Draft language
by Winterfeldt, Brian June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Jeff As requested, how about the below draft: The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 : http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies, stakeholder groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's closed session and adoption of the draft agreement This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when the private sector is being urged to advocate for the ICANN model, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. Hope helpful. Kind regards Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

3 4

RE: GNSO Draft council statement on Saturday's Board decision
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Here is the comment I made to David and Brian as well as the first draft of the statement that the ALAC will consider (possibly for adoption today). Alan --------------------- David, after a more careful review, I would suggest that you change the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. The Council was given a heads up by Bruce that a discussion of the .com agreement was on the Board agenda (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13232.html) but not that there was an intent to approve it. Therefore I would suggest changing: >However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies were aware >of the Board's closed session and adoption of the draft .com renewal agreement. to >However, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware >of the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of >its intent to approve the contract at its closed session. You also have a small typo in the last sentence - ITS instead of IT. The initial draft that I am recommending to the ALAC is: >The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. > >ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve >the agreement at its closed session. > >This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

1 0

GNSO Council resolution 27 June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012

Dear All, The GNSO Council unanimously passed the following resolution to day, 27 June 2012. GNSO Council Motion to Approve Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Final Report 30 May 2012 WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037)<http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf>. WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6> requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data. WHEREAS, in September 2009 the GNSO Council approved the Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/3.+Charter> of the IRD-WG. WHEREAS, on 15 November 2010 the IRD-WG published an Interim Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-wg-final-report-15nov10-en.pdf> in the public forum for comment. WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-draft-final-report-03oct11-en.pdf> in the public forum for comment. WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11141574/Final+Internation…> that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/11141574/May+7+Internation…> that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration. WHEREAS the GNSO Council wishes to coordinate with the SSAC to jointly deliver this report to the Board in a timely way, but recognizes that further consideration of the recommendations contained in the report, especially those that may have policy implications, is needed by the GNSO Council. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council approves of the delivery of the revised Final Report to the ICANN Board and requests staff to prepare a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to transmit the Report. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council shall review the recommendations in the Report and shall provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the IRD-WG members for their diligence and persistence on this important topic and upon the agreement of the SSAC disbands the WG. Please let me know if you have any questions. 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