June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for Volunteers: Developing the Process for Root IDN Table Creation and Maintenance
by Glen de Saint Géry June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18jun12-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Developing the Process for Root IDN Table Creation and Maintenance 18 June 2012 * Deadline for responses is 13 July 2012 ICANN is seeking volunteers to work on advancing IDN capabilities in the DNS. The project 2.1 "Root IDN Table Process" part of the IDN Variant TLD Program, is designed to develop, in consultation with the community, the process to define: * allowed code points, * corresponding variant code points, and * related allowed states for IDN Variant TLDs. ICANN is soliciting participation from volunteers with the following areas of expertise: IDNA, DNS, Linguistics/Unicode, Policy. The project team will include additional consultant expertise to help in the process. ICANN has a limited budget to support team meetings such as travel, accommodation, and other expenses. General responsibilities for volunteers: * Contribute to developing the Process for Root IDN Table Creation and Maintenance * Research and provide input on issues discussed during meetings * Attend two face-to-face meetings (likely during the last week of August in Los Angeles, US, and mid-October 2012 in Toronto, Canada) * Participate in regular teleconferences (time to be determined) * Expected time commitment of 2 to 4 hours per week during a 4-month period IDNA Expertise qualifications: * Expertise with IDNA and preferably active on internationalization work * Participation in relevant IDNA working groups DNS Expertise qualifications: * Expertise with DNS standards * Active in related DNS technical fora (e.g., IETF DNSext, DNSop) Linguistics/Unicode expertise qualifications: * Expertise in linguistics * Familiarity with Unicode Policy expertise qualifications: * Participation in ICANN's policy development process; or * Have participated in, at least, one ICANN working group, preferably on IDN related issues Selection and Recruitment Process for Case Study Members: * Indications of interest should be sent to idnvarianttlds(a)icann.org<mailto:idnvarianttlds@icann.org> no later than 13 July 2012. * Interested experts are invited to submit a résumé (Curriculum Vitae) and an expression of interest statement demonstrating how they meet the qualifications for one or more of the areas of expertise specified above. * The ICANN IDN Variant TLD Program team will select the team members ensuring a diverse composition of the members in terms of language/script communities represented. * Applicants will be notified no later than 30 July 2012. Background on the IDN Variant TLD Program On 20 April 2011, ICANN announced the IDN Variant Issues Project to explore the benefits and risks associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone. This project was initiated in response to a 2010 ICANN Board of Directors resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2…>. Two phases of the project have been completed to date. Phase I involved the formation of six case study teams for the Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek and Latin scripts. These teams were comprised of community experts with support from ICANN that worked on identifying issues related to IDN variant TLDs for each particular script, resulting in the publication in October 2011 of six individual reports detailing their findings. Phase II focused on integrating those six case study reports into the Integrated Issues Report. To complete this phase, ICANN formed a coordination team comprised of experts from each of the case study teams. The coordination team advised ICANN on completing the Integrated Issues Report, which summarizes and categorizes the various issues related to the identification and management of IDN variant TLDs. The next phase (phase III) outlined in the proposed program plan<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program…> includes a number of activities resulting from the issues identified in the final Integrated Issues Report<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-vip-integrated-issues-final-clean…> [PDF, 2.15 MB]. The work is now focused on using the approach outlined in the Integrated Issues Report to define milestones that must be completed to manage the implementation of IDN variant TLDs. The goal of the program is to define the necessary processes that must be in place to enable the management of variant TLDs. This incorporates the creation and maintenance of IDN tables for the root zone, and updating operational processes as appropriate to allow for the implementation of the IDN variant TLDs. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Policy Update -- June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry June 17, 2012

June 17, 2012

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> Policy Update Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update Volume 12, Issue 5 — June 2012 ________________________________ Contents Across ICANN 1. ICANN 44 Preview<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#1> 2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#2> ccNSO 3. Comores and Iceland Join ccNSO<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#3> 4. Strategic and Operational Planning Working Group Submits Comments on ICANN Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#4> 5. ccNSO Council Requests Changes to Public Comment Process<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#5> 6. ccNSO Joins ICANN In Support of Protecting All Two-Letter ASCII Strings<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#6> 7. ccNSO Travel Funding for ICANN 45 Now Open <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#7> GNSO 8. GNSO Working Group Submits Initial Draft of Whois Technical Requirements Study <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#8> 9. IRTP Part C Initial Report Published: New Change of Registrant Policy, Time-Limiting Form of Authorization, Requiring Registries to use IANA IDs<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#9> 10. Community Asked to Review Draft Report on Whois Proxy/Privacy Reveal and Relay Feasibility Survey <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#10> ASO 11. ICANN Board Ratifies Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Address Blocks <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#11> At-Large 12. At-Large Community Members Prepare for ICANN’s Prague Meeting including Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the ALAC<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#12> 13. ALAC Continues High Number of Policy Statements, Comments and Communications <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#13> 14. LACRALO Engages in Organizational Strengthening Activities: Capacity Building Sessions and Working Groups<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#14> SSAC 15. Issues Active in the SSAC<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#15> GAC 16. Where to Find GAC Information<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-jun12-en.htm#16>

1 0

Document and motion Deadline Tuesday 19 June for GNSO Council meeting 27 June at 12:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e. TUESDAY, 19 June 2012) of the Prague GNSO Open Council meeting on 27 June 2012 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+2012 Thank you very much. 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

Fwd: ICANN Finance Open Session - FY13 Budget
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Councillors, FYI in case you wish to participate. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Objet : ICANN Finance Open Session - FY13 Budget > Date : 13 juin 2012 23:13:24 HAEC > À : Lesley Cowley <lesley.cowley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Heather <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "jcurran(a)arin.net" <jcurran(a)arin.net>, 'Louie ' <louie(a)louie.net>, Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, "junsec(a)wide.ad.jp" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, "dave(a)difference.com.au" <dave(a)difference.com.au>, "alain.berranger(a)gmail.com" <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>, "matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com" <matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com>, "dmaher(a)pir.org" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah(a)icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org>, Karla Valente <karla.valente(a)icann.org> > Cc : David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange(a)icann.org>, Aba Diakite <aba.diakite(a)icann.org>, "Maya S. Reynolds" <maya.reynolds(a)icann.org> > > When: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:00 AM-12:30 PM. Central Europe Standard Time > Where: Hilton Prague - Karlin I/II Room > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > > > ICANN Finance Open Session – FY13 Budget > Date: > Wednesday, June 27 > Time: > 11:00am-12:30pm (Prague), 9:00am-10:30am (UTC), 2:00am-3:30am (PDT), 5:00am-6:30am (EDT) > Other Time Zone: > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICANN+Finance+Open… > > Location: > Hilton Prague Hotel – Karlin I/II Room (http://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/content/PRGHITW/media/images/floorplans/prg…) > > > > > Dear All, > > I would like to build on the dialogue that has been started with several community members on both the overall ICANN Budget Planning process and continued discussion on the FY13 draft Budget and SO/AC requests, by inviting you or a delegate from your community to participate with me in 2 sessions at the ICANN Public Meeting in Prague. > > The Wednesday 27 June session is open to the public, with a need for SO and AC leader support and engagement, in order to finalize discussion on the public comments associated with the draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget, which includes the Additional Budget Requests for FY13 and how that process worked from a community perspective this year. Please see the attached agenda for more detail on the discussion we would like to engage in with you on this topic. > > I am aware that there are several community leaders working session proposed for Prague, including a working group on the Strategic Planning process and community discussion on Outreach, and appreciate your efforts to provide coverage with a delegate at each of the valuable sessions. > If you (or your delegates) plan to join the session remotely and need an operator to dial-out, please contact Maya Reynolds (maya.reynolds(a)icann.org) for assistance by Tuesday, June 19. > > I look forward to seeing you in Prague. > > Sincerely, > > Xavier Calvez, CFO > ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

WSWG Draft Survey Announcement
by Liz Gasster June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Dear all, On behalf of the WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG), please find attached a link to the WG's Draft Survey. Please note that in conjunction with the Survey availability, a public comment forum has been opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey…) Comments may be submitted until 20 June 2012 following which the comment reply period will open. The Working Group is seeking community feedback on the draft, which will be considered by GNSO Council and later released to the community for participation in the WHOIS survey. The Survey can be accessed here: http://icann.isoc.ug/whoissurvey/?sid=71483. You are welcome to take the survey at your convenience. By answering only the first question, you will be able to review the contents of the survey if you should choose not to provide answers. Additionally, users of the survey will see a free-form text dialogue box at the bottom of each section of the survey. You may use this space to provide specific feedback with respect to the questions loaded for that section. If you use this feature, be sure to include your identity so that we may relate your response to the public comment review process. An update could be provided in Prague if time permits and the Council would like a briefing. In the meantime, if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to share those. Best regards, Liz Gasster Survey: http://icann.isoc.ug/whoissurvey/?sid=71483 Public Comment: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey…

2 1

GAC interaction
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Councillors, You will recall that a few days ago, the GAC sent us some proposed topics for our interaction with them in Prague. You will also recall that when I posted these topics here, I explained that some seemed unclear. Heather Dryden, the GAC Chair, has now sent me additional notes on the topics in question. Please see below her comments. I suggest we respond so any proposed comments back would be useful. Thanks. I think it's more of a general request to find out about the new pdp: why have one? how it would work etc. As you might know, the GAC is particularly interested in ways to integrate GAC advice early on in the process, so that a community consensus policy could be put forward to the Board by the GNSO, wherever possible. The work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation working group (to implement the various GAC-related A&T) is also still underway and there is a recommendation about finding a way to include GAC advice early in the pdp. All this to say, that if this does not resonate with you, or the topic could be recast to make it more beneficial, then by all means make suggestions. Would you like an update from the GAC on the BGRI work? Something else? On the second topic, no major objective. GAC colleagues might not have considered how the current round could impact the GNSO and the composition of its stakeholder groups. If you could briefly talk about how the GNSO is planning for this or is it a "wait and see" approach, what are the expected impacts...? Again, happy to hear your perspective. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey - Draft
by Glen de Saint Géry June 14, 2012

June 14, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey… WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey - Draft Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 30 May 2012 Comment Close: 20 June 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30may12-en.htm> Reply Open: 20 June 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:draft-whois-requirements-survey@icann.org> Reply Close: 16 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-whois-requirements-survey/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Council - WHOIS Survey Working Group Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) requests community input on the draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey. The Working Group is soliciting input from experts on technical requirements for a new WHOIS protocol, in particular people knowledgeable about technical aspects of WHOIS who can help assess if the survey asks the right questions and in the right style to elicit technical feedback. The Working Group seeks specific suggestions on changes to language and questions that will make it clearer for experts to complete. Current Status: This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the community to share perspectives on the proposed draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey. In parallel, the WSWG will conduct a Webinar to promote the survey and solicit additional feedback. Next Steps: The WSWG will consider the comments received as part of their deliberations and creation of the final version of the WHOIS Requirements Survey. Upon submission to the GNSO Council, the survey will be announced and released for community participation. The survey will be available for 30 days. Afterwards, the WSWG will compile, analyze and report on the survey results to produce a final report outlining possible WHOIS Technical requirements. Staff Contact: Liz Gasster Email: policy.staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy.staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20WHOIS%20Technical%20Requirements%20Survey%20-%20Draft%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The WHOIS Survey Working Group produced a draft survey of WHOIS Technical Requirements at the request of the GNSO Council Resolution (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20111006-1) The Working Group is seeking community feedback on the draft, which will be considered by GNSO Council and later released to the community for participation in the WHOIS survey. The Survey can be accessed here: http://icann.isoc.ug/whoissurvey/?sid=71483 The Working Group will accept community feedback via the public comment forum. Additionally, users of the survey will see a free-form text dialogue box at the bottom of each section of the survey. Users may use this space to provide specific feedback with respect to the questions loaded for that section. If you use this feature, be sure to include your identity so that we may relate your response to the public comment review process. Section II: Background The Working Group aims to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the GNSO WHOIS Service Requirement Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-… [PDF, 633 KB]). The WHOIS Survey Working Group will produce a Report to be delivered to the GNSO Council describing the results of the survey and recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council's consideration concerning the WHOIS service requirements. Section III: Document and Resource Links 1. WHOIS Requirements Survey - http://icann.isoc.ug/whoissurvey/?sid=71483 2. PDF of WHOIS Requirements Survey - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/draft-whois-survey-31may12-en.pdf [PDF, 121 KB] 3. WSWG Charter - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf [PDF, 476 KB] 4. WSWG Wiki - https://community.icann.org/display/WSDT/WHOIS+Survey+Working+Group+-+Home 5. GNSO WHOIS Service Requirement Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-… [PDF, 633 KB] Section IV: Additional Information None (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reveal Day 13 June 2012 - New gTLD Applied-For Strings
by Glen de Saint Géry June 13, 2012

June 13, 2012

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-120… Reveal Day 13 June 2012 - New gTLD Applied-For Strings Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

UDRP Domain Name Locking WG Request
by Joy Liddicoat June 13, 2012

June 13, 2012

Dear Councillors, I've been asked to alert you to a request by the UDRP Domain Name Locking WG for clarification from the Council in relation to one aspect of its work, namely: In its review of the Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group (https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/3.+WG+Charter) the WG has noticed that no specific mention is made of the 'unlocking' of a domain name once the UDRP proceedings are completed. From the WG's perspective, this is an implicit part of the question as potential recommendations on how / when to lock a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings should also be balanced by recommendations on how a domain name can / should be unlocked once the UDRP proceedings have been completed. Therefore, the WG has requested the Council Liaison to the WG to raise this issue with the GNSO Council and confirm that the WG's interpretation of the charter is correct. The WG looks forward to receiving the Council's feedback at its meeting with the GNSO Council in Prague during which an update on the WG's activities to date will also be provided and any further questions may be answered. Can we please add this item to the agenda? Kind regards Joy Liddicoat Project Coordinator Internet Rights are Human Rights www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>

2 1

Re: Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 12, 2012

June 12, 2012

Hi Lesley, Thanks for this. I am copying the Council for their information and I agree that this would be an excellent topic for our joint meeting in Prague. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 12 juin 2012 à 22:50, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > Hi Stéphane, > > Further to your email of 15th March on cross community working groups to the chairs of the SO’s and AC’s, the ccNSO Council has now been able to review the drafting team output. > > The ccNSO Council appreciates the work done to date by the GNSO. It is our understanding that the GNSO sought input and feedback from other SO’s and AC’s on: > > 1. The principles themselves, and > 2. The route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups > > On the principles, and acknowledging they are high level, some aspects relating to the creation, working and decision-making processes relating to cross-community working groups may need additional coverage by principles, in particular: > Defining the purpose and scope of a working group; > What should be included in a charter > Decision making by the participating SO’s and AC’s, in particular in case of >> o Disagreement across participating SO’s and AC’s or >> o Between WG and (one of the) a participating SO or AC. > The ccNSO Council views are based on an analysis of both the principles and our experience with cross community working groups to date. This analysis is available. > > As to the route forward, the ccNSO Council suggests the setting-up of a cross-community working group, with the goal to arrive at common set of principles and the identification of areas of divergence in guidelines and practices across SO’s and AC’s. Such a WG should take into account the experiences of the cross community working groups to date (both those that are active and closed) and include the active participation of ICANN staff, who over time have gained significant experience with the formation and functioning of cross community working groups. > > Perhaps we could discuss next steps at the SO/AC Chair's meeting and or the ccNSO – GNSO lunch meeting in Prague? > > Kind regards, > > Lesley Cowley OBE, > Chair of the ccNSO > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Thursday, 15 March 2012 21:30 > To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net> > Subject: Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs > > Dear Colleagues, > > You may be aware that over the course of last year the GNSO Council launched a drafting team to examine the issues associated with the formation and operation of Community / Cross-Community working groups. > > The output of the drafting team was encapsulated in a set of draft principles which were accepted by the Council through a motion passed at the 14 March 2012 meeting of the GNSO Council. > > The motion is linked to here: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… > > The draft principles are linked to here: > > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf > > It is important to note here that work undertaken by the drafting team was undertaken specifically in order to develop a GNSO Council agreed perspective. > The output shared here is not in any way intended to presume that this is a broader, community agreed position. > > Accordingly we are offering this work as input into the discussion which you may wish to initiate or further develop within your organisation or committee. > > Best, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > GNSO Council Chair

1 0

Re: DSSA Phase 1 report is published
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 12, 2012

June 12, 2012

Thanks Mikey. Congratulations to you and the group on reaching this first milestone. Councillors, FYI. Please inform your groups as required. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 12 juin 2012 à 21:45, Mike O'Connor a écrit : > hi Stéphane, > > just a quick note to let you know that that DSSA has completed the "go fast" phase of its work and has a report out on its web site. could you send a note around to the Council and the Constituencies letting them know that it's out there? sorry to add to the crush of stuff to read. here's a link to the report; > > https://community.icann.org/display/AW/Phase+1+Final+Report > > thanks, > > mikey > > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >

1 0

IRD-WG Final Report Motion
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 11, 2012

June 11, 2012

Councillors, As mentioned during our last call, please find attached a motion on the IRD WG's final report. Thanks to Julie Hedlund for her help with this. A second would be appreciated. Stéphane

2 1

Managing the run-up to ICANN meetings
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 11, 2012

June 11, 2012

Hi all, In the interest of full transparency, I wanted to inform you of a Circle ID article that I wrote: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120605_icann_gets_crazy_again/ You've heard me speak of the potential for volunteer burn-out many times in the past. You've also heard me moan about the lack of pre-planning on document roll out by ICANN. This post is also voicing my opinion that the current trend is making it difficult for volunteer bodies like ours to adequately look at all issues when making policy. In actual fact, my main worry is with the Board. I am told that they get about 3 times the volume of documents to read in the run-up to ICANN meetings that we as community members get. So does that mean we're asking Board members to get to grips with so much reports and briefings and documents, and then expecting them to make quality decisions? If that's the case, I think we are asking too much of them. I note with interest a couple of the comments posted in response to this article. Avri's comments, for example, rightly point out that some of these reports do not require us to read every single page. However, I do think that is an insider's POV, and one that is deeply involved with ICANN like Avri is and has her depth of knowledge of the issues. I would wager that with so much going on, most of us need to read a full report just to remind ourselves of the subject matter's past history. I was also interested to read Kieren's comments, because I think he hits the nail on the head when he says that because there is a 15-day deadline for document publication, everything tends to come out on that deadline. I agree with him that if we are able to plan ahead more and better pre-plan, we would not end up with more than 700 pages of reading to do before we all congregate for what remains the most important item on the ICANN yearly calendar: the ICANN meeting. After all, it is in these face-to-face meetings that a lot of the crucial ICANN decisions get shaped, if not taken, so it is important that they are based on people having had sufficient time to take in and digest the documents that provide the context for them. I hope you do not feel this email is off topic. I think this is at the heart of what we do at ICANN, which is to constantly strive to do the best we can when weighing the issues that we deal with at ICANN. I would love to hear your views on this, not just as a Council, but also as individual ICANN volunteers who all have to face the same problems that are being described here: that of what bandwidth you have available to deal with ICANN-related stuff in a way which you feel does credit to the organization and what it is tasked with doing. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

4 6

Re: Request to the GNSO Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 11, 2012

June 11, 2012

Hi Amadeu, Thanks for your request. Copying the Council for their information. On your requests B and C, I think these are more staff issues than Council issues. As staff is also subscribed to the Council list, they will get this copy of your message so it's probably best to let them answer you directly (possible copying the Council as a courtesy). On your request D, I will let Councillors react before attempting to identify a potential way forward. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 11 juin 2012 à 14:05, Amadeu Abril I Abril a écrit : > Hi Stéphaone, > > As Chair of the GNSO Countil, CORE has a (hsort) number of requests for you ,-) > > A) Could you please forward the attached document to the Council list? Yes, it is about digital archery, and how to amend the current situation > > B) There has been a number of proposals and position papers being circulated. In the lack of Public Comment forum and the casual attitude of the ICANN Board and staff regarding the communications they receive, could the Councilconsider opening a public repository on this issue in its website? Lots of things are being circulate by mail, but nobody has the clear picture "who stand for what", and why > > C) Could the gNSO Council request from ICANN staff to accommodate a two-hours slot during the Prague meeting fro discussing this issue? On Monday or Wednesday. Individual participants should not manage the schedule, but the Council is the representative of a large portion of the stakeholders. This is not related only to the fact that the's impranve, but also to the fact that it has been adopted without any input from the GNSO and even without , as mentioned, a Public Comment period (and nobody will dispute that this is not purely a procedural point: whether to batch, and how the applications has clear impact on a very large portion of stakeholders, well beyond the applicants). > > D) We would also request that the Council looks at how this decision has been taken. The Board voted on a proposal from management, which is perfectly OK. Prior to that proposal, it was unavailable for any discussion. Once the proposal made, no Public Comment period was allocated. Once voted, the Board claims to be unable to discuss, or even listen any argument related to it because... ti was based on a proposal from management. So it should be discussed with management (which, indeed, is not available either for such thing, as.... it ahs been voted by the Baord ;-). No matter whether we might believe the proposal and the reslution are good or not, the procedure seems a bit odd, and the claim that Board cannot review, or even listen to opinions about, a decision they took simply because it was proposed by management, deserves some consideration within our decision-making process. > > Thanks in advance. > > Amadeu Abril i Abril > Chief Policy Advisor > CORE Internet Council of Registrars > http.//coenic.org > Amadeu.Abril(a)corenic.org > > <CORE-AmendingDigitalArchery.pdf>

1 0

Period of 07 - 17 June 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry June 10, 2012

June 10, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-08jun12-en.htm Period of 07 - 17 June 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date 8 June 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates, 07 - 17 June 2012. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment Title Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time] Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time] IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program…> 25 May 2012 [23:59] 15 June 2012 [23:59] ICANN Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm> Extended to 8 June 2012 [23:59] 15 June 2012 [23:59] WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e…> 10 June 2012 [23:59] 11 July 2012 [23:59] DRAFT Statement of ICANN's Role and Remit in Security, Stability and Resiliency of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-ssr-role-remit-17may12-en…> 16 June 2012 [23:59] 16 July 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: GNSO/GAC Session
by Glen de Saint Géry June 9, 2012

June 9, 2012

De : Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 16:27 À : Glen de Saint Géry Objet : RE: GNSO/GAC Session All, I believe we should ask for more clarity from the GAC around point number 1 on the PDP. We got very unfairly and unnecessarily grilled by the GAC in Dakar on our process and nothing has changed since then. If there are specific questions they have on the PDP process or topics they would like addressed, we can do that, but Marika gave the presentation in Dakar on the process. To do it again, I believe will waste the valuable little time we get from the GAC at each meeting. That is just my opinion. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]> On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 7:18 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] TR: GNSO/GAC Session Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda items for the Joint session in Prague. Thank you. Kind regards De : GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 02:11 À : Glen de Saint Géry Cc : Neuman, Jeff; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Objet : GNSO/GAC Session Dear Glen, The GAC would like to propose the following agenda items for the joint session in Prague, currently scheduled for Sunday 24 June at 16.30-18.00. * Update on GNSO new PDP * Expected impact of new gTLD program on GNSO constituencies * Update on GNSO Council's Consumer Trust, Choice and Competition Working Group * IOC/Red Cross - Next steps after board rejection of recommendations. Please let me know if there is anything else to be added to this agenda. Also, if you could be so kind as to point me in the direction of any briefing materials the GNSO may have on these topics so I can prepare the GAC I would be grateful. I don't need the documents compiled just perhaps a place to start! Also, if there are any other materials you would like the GAC to have in advance, please do not hesitate to send them to me and I will circulate to the list. Thank you. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers

3 2

Fwd: Consumer trust, innovation and competition
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

Councillors, I have also just sent this letter to Heather, as instructed during our call today. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Objet : Consumer trust, innovation and competition > Date : 8 juin 2012 00:42:23 HAEC > À : Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > > Dear Heather, > > During its meeting earlier today, the GNSO Council directed me, as Chair to send you the attached correspondence in your capacity as GAC Chair. > > Kind regards, > > > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT >

2 1

Fwd: Potential protection of IOC / Red Cross / Red Crescent names
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

Councillors, Please see below the email I have just sent to Heather Dryden, GAC Chair, as requested by the Council during our meeting today. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Objet : Potential protection of IOC / Red Cross / Red Crescent names > Date : 8 juin 2012 00:28:10 HAEC > À : Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > > Dear Heather, > > During its meeting earlier today, the GNSO Council directed me, as Chair to send you the attached correspondence in your capacity as GAC Chair. > > Kind regards, > > > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT >

2 1

Open-Source Reference Implementation of a Domain Name RESTful Whois Server - Responses to RFP Questions
by Glen de Saint Géry June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08jun12-en.htm Open-Source Reference Implementation of a Domain Name RESTful Whois Server - Responses to RFP Questions 8 June 2012 Respondents are requested to respond to the Request For Proposals<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-16may12-en.htm> by replying to: rws-opensource(a)icann.org<mailto:rws-opensource@icann.org>. The period to submit questions about the RFP is now closed. The final response to the RFP is due on 15 June 2012. The following 26 questions were submitted to rws-opensource(a)icann.org<mailto:rws-opensource@icann.org> between 16 May and 5 June 2012. The full set of questions and responses are being posted on ICANN's website for the benefit of all the respondents. Questions are grouped together where similar questions were received, or where the same answer is relevant to multiple questions. Requirements Question: In The "Requirements" section, the RFP contains a link to http://tools.ietf.org/id/weirds. Under this URL, quite a few drafts are listed which are not strictly related to the classic TLD domain name Whois object model (which usually allows queries for registrars, domains, hosts and contacts in the registry's local object repository). In particular, draft-fiorelli-weirds-rws refers to the RIPE database instead, draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response and draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query refer to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), draft-newton-weirds-arin-whoisrws refers to the ARIN Whois, and draft-lacnic-weirds-restwhois-redirects deals with redirection from a global Whois server. As for the RFP's requirements, may we therefore assume that only the remaining documents (draft-designteam-weirds-using-http, draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements and draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd) - two of which are also explicitly referenced in the RFP's "References" section - are relevant as requirements for the reference implementation? If not, please specify which other drafts under http://tools.ietf.org/id/weirds are also required to be supported and why. Response: Yes, that's a correct assumption. The expected scope only covers domain name registries. Question: The WEIRDS group is creating two IETF standards for querying RIR data. AND Standards for querying domain name registration data. Must the reference implementation implement all of these standards or only the standards related to the domain name registration data. Response: Given that there are only 5 RIRs and most of them are already involved in WEIRDS and working on their own implementations, we are focusing only on the domain name side. With 1k+ ICANN-accredited registrars, potentially hundreds of new gTLDs plus existing ccTLDs and given the limits on funding we decided to focus on the mainstream server population. Question: In section 2.4.4, it is stated that the implementation should include a port 43 "proxy" that uses the RESTful Whois to answer requests and translates port 43 queries and responses accordingly. While this is a possible approach, our current Whois server implementation includes a port 43 implementation that *directly* accesses the Whois server database (i.e., it does not forward requests/responses to/from a different frontend), which allows for a much better port 43 performance. Is it OK for the reference implementation to use this direct approach instead of the "proxy" approach described in the RFP, as long as the implementation provides a port-43 Whois that answers queries in the same fashion as it would in "proxy" mode? Response: No. To clarify, what we want is all the core services should be RESTful based, and realizing that some clients may still query port 43, we want the port 43 proxy to be able to translate those client requests into RESTful queries and return the result via port 43. Question: Shall the reference implementation serve both gTLDs as well as ccTLDs? Response: Correct, it is expected that the reference implementation be usable for both gTLDs and ccTLDs. Question: A WHOIS server is basically a database query system. The database is the collection of information that a registry or registrar has about the domains, the query language is whatever the WHOIS server accepts, and the output is selected from the underlying database. What does the database contain, and what queries does the query language support? While it is possible to intuit answers to these questions from the WHOIS appendixes of existing thick WHOIS registry agreements, the appendixes are not all the same. For example, the .INFO agrement specifies partial match queries, while the .BIZ agreement doesn't. The .AERO registry has an ENS_Authid field, and has privacy labels, while .ASIA has ENS_Authid but no privacy labels. The .XXX agreement refers to DNSSEC information, while earlier agreements don't. The .POST agreement refers to a Maintainer field rather than the Email field in other agreements. The .NAME agreement describes multiple levels of access and Defensive Registration objects. We understand that different registries will continue to have somewhat different requirements, but it appears that many of the differences among the agreements are due more to evolving understanding of the needs rather than deliberate decisions to be different, e.g., partial vs. exact queries, DNSSEC, and Maintainer vs. Email. Can ICANN offer some guidance about what's expected to be in the underlying database and what sorts of queries need to be supported? Response: What is in the underlying database and what queries are supported is up to the registry/registrar policy-making body as you highlighted in your description above. In other words, we'd expect this RWS open-source implementation to be able to handle (be configurable) regarding the fields that it allows querying. Question: The RFP does not clarify the output structure. Is there any expectation of data elements sequencing? If so, what are they? Response: It is expected that the output structure will be defined in the IETF protocol. Currently the Internet Drafts cited in the RFP have a structure for domain names. Question: Are there any specific requirements for the system performance? For example, is there a minimum requests-per-second requirement given specific hardware specifications? Response: At this point we only have the set of requirements described in the RFP. We'd be interested in learning the proposals on this respect that potential providers can propose. Question: Is there a specific list of supported encodings for Whois data that must be supported? For example, would it be sufficient to constrain requests and responses to UTF-8 or must there be support for a large number of encodings? Is it possible that registry/registrar data will need to be converted between encodings? Response: This is dependent on the protocol, which is not yet defined. We foresee it would require UTF-8, but may also support other encodings. Question: Is there a minimum requirement for what types of wire formats must be supported? For example, could the reference implementation only implement JSON and then allow other formats to be added on or must it support a minimum set of representations? Response: Similar to the encodings question, this is dependent on what the protocol requires. Question: Is there a minimum requirement for policy options? The RFP specifies the following: "The implementation should allow for parameter configuration of policy options" but this is fairly broad. Are there examples of the types of policies that may be required? For example, would this include policies such as request throttling, response filtering (i.e. extended details for whois requests from certain clients), etc.? Response: We'd expect configuration options for the functionality that is defined in the protocol specifications. Things that are not defined in the protocol we don't expect them to be implemented. However, we'd expect the implementation to be done in a modular way that would allow an interested registry/registrar to modify it with a minimum effort to include extra functionality. Question: Is security testing part of the requirements and if so is the contractor developing the reference implementation required to execute those security tests? Response: We expect the final implementation to be production-quality code. Therefore, we'd expect, at least, some basic security testing and we'd expect the contractor to propose it. Question: Are there any requirements about the overall management of the project or will this be left up to the contractor? For example, where will the code be hosted? What about issue tracking and development workflows? Response: No, there are no requirements on this respect outside of what is described in the RFP. Question: In order to minimize integration work, the RFP document specifies as an example that the various layers could be separated, see 2.4.2. of the RFP. Are you looking for a modular implementation so that there are separate products for the presentation, business logic and data access layer that can be used in combination or stand-alone? Response: We'd not call them separate products, but having them as separate modules could make sense, or at least being able to configure them separately would be good. Question: In terms of the parameter configuration according to section 2.5. of the RFP, shall the implementation only provide for the possibility of being configured or would ICANN be open to suggestions of e.g. an interface to configure various options that could already be included in the implementation? Could such approach be offered as an additional and optional module? Response: We are open to suggestions. Question: Shall the product, the documentation and support be in English only or shall more languages be covered? If so, please specify. Response: At least English, and it would be great if there is the possibility of having other languages. Question: The inclusion of third party code (2.6.) may lead to unpredictable costs in terms of quality control and documentation. Would ICANN be open to a cost model that includes such additional work on a time and material basis? The same would apply to the unspecified need for releases according to 2.2 or support. Response: Yes, we are open to suggestions. But to clarify the idea of inclusion of third party code is only when it makes sense (from a cost perspective) for the provider to use it instead of doing the work from scratch itself. Project Timeline Question: What is the project timeline? The RFP specifies a one-year support period however it does not specify any expectations around deadlines for the working group to create the final specification nor does it specify any time expectations for delivery of the initial implementation. Response: The current timeline in the IETF says that the specs will be ready by August 2013, however that might change. Question: What is the expected time between iterative spec releases and delivery of changes to the system? Response: We don't expect the selected provider to implement each and every one of the Internet-Drafts. We are planning to get together with the provider every time we believe it makes sense to do a new release and then agree with the provider on the delivery time and scope. Evaluation of the RFP and Contracting Question: Who is the audience reviewing the RFP? And selection committee? Response: A selection committee composed of technical experts will review the proposal. Question: Is there a budgeted amount for the project? Response: We have some budget for the remaining of this fiscal year and we requested more for next fiscal year. We'd like to review the proposals from the interested providers. Question: What is the total budget for the project? Is ICANN interested in fixed price offers or would ICANN also be open to a phased approach whereby requirements are first gathered and specified and costs are then estimated or offered on the basis of the findings of such interaction with ICANN? Response: We'd like to review the proposals from the interested providers. And we are open to hear options. Question: Is there a preferred contract type (Time & Materials, Firm Fixed Price, etc)? Response: We are open to both, but perhaps the firm fixed price could be better aimed at a release instead of the whole project in recognition of the variable timeline. Question: In the "Assessment and Award" section, the RFP notes that the exact timing of the award may depend on the IETF standardization process. In what way does ICANN expect the timing of the award to depend on the IETF process? Specifically, is the award likely to occur within, say, a month or so of the RFP response deadline, or could it be delayed until after November 2012 or August 2013 (the range of dates provided in the WEIRDS WG milestones)? Response: We intend to award the contract as soon as possible. We expect the provider to produce releases before the RFCs are out, once there are somewhat stable specifications and with previous ICANN direction. Others Questions Question: The RFP requires that "the final product must conform to the relevant RFCs that will be standardized in the IETF WEIRDS WG." Does ICANN expect or require that the contractor participate in and/or contribute to the WEIRDS WG in order to ensure that the open source project maintains alignment with the WG? Response: There is no requirement to contribute, but it would probably make sense for the contractor to, at least, follow the WEIRDS mailing list. Question: ICANN has just published a Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm) which embraces the IETF work on a new protocol but also anticipates contributions from the ICANN community, particularly ccTLD and gTLD registries and registrars and the GNSO: "[t]his roadmap recommends a multipronged approach for the adoption of a replacement for the WHOIS protocol." Is the scope of the reference implementation project limited to the protocol specifications that will be produced by the IETF? Response: Yes, it must conform to RFCs produced in the IETF, but it is also expected to be production quality. Question: Can we expect registries to be involved during development and testing processes? Response: There might be some registries/registrars involved, but the selected provider should not count on that. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: GNSO/GAC Session
by Glen de Saint Géry June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

Dear All, Please find below the proposed agenda items for the Joint session in Prague. Thank you. Kind regards De : GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 02:11 À : Glen de Saint Géry Cc : Neuman, Jeff; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO/GAC Session Dear Glen, The GAC would like to propose the following agenda items for the joint session in Prague, currently scheduled for Sunday 24 June at 16.30-18.00. * Update on GNSO new PDP * Expected impact of new gTLD program on GNSO constituencies * Update on GNSO Council's Consumer Trust, Choice and Competition Working Group * IOC/Red Cross - Next steps after board rejection of recommendations. Please let me know if there is anything else to be added to this agenda. Also, if you could be so kind as to point me in the direction of any briefing materials the GNSO may have on these topics so I can prepare the GAC I would be grateful. I don't need the documents compiled just perhaps a place to start! Also, if there are any other materials you would like the GAC to have in advance, please do not hesitate to send them to me and I will circulate to the list. Thank you. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers

1 0

UDRP Domain Locking WG
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

Michele, Alan, During its teleconference earlier on today, the GNSO Council approved your respective nominations as Chair and Vice Chair of the UDRP Domain Locking Working Group. Many thanks for volunteering for these positions and for your work as part of this group. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 1

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 7 June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry June 7, 2012

June 7, 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, 7 June, 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120607-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun 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

Motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to introduce the motion attached to the 07 June council meeting. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

5 5

GNSO Council chat transcript 7 June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

Marika Konings: GNSO Council Meeting - 7 June 2012 David Olive: Thanks, Glen Glen de Saint Gery: Good day all - welcome Mary Wong: Hello everyone - so sorry I'm late (was in another meeting). Jonathan Robinson: I agree with and support Thomas's suggestion Bill Drake: yes PDF is difficult rafik dammak: @thomas +1 Joy Liddicoat: which does not violate freedom of expression, privacy and related rights Marika Konings: Maybe to help clarify, this is from the RAP WG Final Report in relation to Whois Access: 'The RAPWG found that the basic accessibility of WHOIS has an inherent relationship to domain registration process abuses, and is a key issue related to the malicious use of domain names. It appears that WHOIS data is not always accessible on a guaranteed or enforceable basis, is not always provided by registrars in a reliable, consistent, or predictable fashion, and that users sometimes receive different WHOIS results depending on where or how they perform the lookup. There may also be issues with the enforcement of existing obligations. These issues interfere with registration processes, registrant decision-making, and with the ability of parties across the Internet to solve a variety of problems' Joy Liddicoat: Sure Stephane Marika Konings: The document up now is the one that Wolf was referring to which was sent by Kurt. Joy Liddicoat: Sure Stephane Marika Konings: The document up now is the one that Wolf was referring to which was sent by Kurt. Jeff Neuman: Sorry all, I have to drop of. Will follow up later. Jeff Neuman: Thanks! Bill Drake: a well oiled machine... Joy Liddicoat: Thanks Stephane and 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

Updated Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012 at 20:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

Dear All, Below please find the updated Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012 which is also posted on pages: https://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07jun12-en.htm The Wiki agenda (for the latest updates) is posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012 The motions before Council are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012 The items have been moved around rather than any substantive changes in the items. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 20:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeti…> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeti… Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 05:00 Tokyo next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28 May 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. 2.1 IOC/RC DT. (GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team.) Approve sending of note to GAC. 2.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC UDRP Domain Locking WG (Michele Neylon and Alan Greenberg). Item 3: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes) This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG so that next steps for the group can be determined. This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to get responses from Kurt to them. 3.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Next steps Item 4: Update on the Prague GNSO working weekend sessions (10 minutes) Discussion item in preparation of the GNSO Council's work weekend at the Prague ICANN meeting. This item will be introduced by Jeff Neuman, who is in charge of organizing our Prague agenda. 4.1 Update from Jeff Neuman 4.2 Discussion Item 5: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes) Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names. The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the May 10, 2012 meeting. Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012 5.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote Item 6: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes) The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings. A motion has been made to consider next steps. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012 6.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich KnobenWolf-Ulrich Knoben) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote Item 7: Consumer Metrics WG (10 minutes) The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it to the Council. As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A letter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair. The Council must decide whether to send that letter. 7.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair) 7.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter. Item 8: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes) The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF. A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed. This is an update item on the work of that group. 8.1 Update from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 8.2 Discussion Item 9: 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. 9.1 WG update from Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-sli…> (Steve Sheng) 9.2 Discussion 9.3 Next steps Item 10: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes) The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). The drafting team submitted its report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council decided to put the report out for public comment. A public comment forum was opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m…) and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps. 10.1 Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings) Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-no…> 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps Item 11: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes) To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un…> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809) The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any. 11.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 – next day Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 – next day Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 – next day Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 05:00 – next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 – next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 6