June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root Scalability,Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Objet : FW: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root Scalability,Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections > Date : 7 juin 2012 19:13:34 HAEC > À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, <ocl(a)gih.com>, <paf(a)cisco.com>, <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Cc : <maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se>, <alice(a)apc.org>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)ida.gov.sg> > > For your information. > > (and apologies if I have missed anyone) > > From: board-gtlds-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:board-gtlds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 12:32 AM > To: board-gtlds(a)icann.org > Cc: jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org; kurt.pritz(a)icann.org; jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gac(a)gac.icann.org > Subject: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root Scalability,Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections > > Dear Cherine, gTLD Committee colleagues, > > (cc GAC) > > At this time, I would like to provide the following comments on behalf of the GAC. > > The GAC believes it is important to address the concerns raised by the GAC and others about the fairness of Digital Archery, before it is launched. > > The GAC further understands that the Board gTLD Committee intends to communicate next steps for providing further information to the GAC and identifying where there are linkages between Digital Archery, Batching, Root Scalability, Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections so that there can be agreement reached, where appropriate, on the process and timelines. In essence, the GAC needs further information about ICANN’s approach in order to finalise its own processes. > > Lastly, please be informed that the GAC intends to send a letter of advice before the meeting in Prague, related to the above. > > Best, > Heather Dryden > Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee >

1 0

Draft of Weekend GNSO Council Schedule
by Neuman, Jeff June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

All, Attached is a very preliminary draft of the proposed weekend schedule for the GNSO in Prague. I have to tell you that this process has been very frustrating in that I do not have confirmation from certain ICANN staff of their availability for some of these meetings despite repeated attempts to lock them down. Apparently there are other activities scheduled for the ICANN Board during the weekend that also ties up a significant amount of staff. That said, I have included slots for a meeting with the new ICANN CEO (which is a hope and not anything that has been confirmed) as well as a new TLD session where I have asked Kurt, John, Akram and Xavier to attend. This too has not been confirmed. There are still a couple of other things I need to fit in, but I cant do so until certain things are locked in with ICANN staff. We will discuss during the Council meeting later on today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

2 1

New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Glen de Saint Géry June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en.htm New gTLD Batching Announcement 6 June 2012 Given the large number of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) applications, we will divide and evaluate them in batches. The batching system is targeted to open at 00:01 UTC on 8 June 2012, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 28 June 2012. The target date for posting the batching order is 11 July 2012. The batching process will be used to determine which applications will be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on. It will be done by: assignment of a timestamp, and the formation of batches. Timestamp assignments will be done using the TLD Application System (TAS). All applicants must use their TAS credentials to log in, read and accept the batching rules, indicate their batching preference, and select their target date and time. Once these steps are completed applicants should log back into TAS to hit the target time and generate a secondary timestamp. Users will have access to a testing feature to gauge the secondary timestamp system's response time. Batching formation considers an applicant's: (1) batching preference, (2) geographic region and secondary timestamp; and (3) contention among identical and "similar" applications. (1) Applicants stating a preference for "opting-out" will be placed last. (2) Geographic diversity is important in bringing more competition and choice into the domain name market. Applicants who opted in will be ranked within their geographic region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and North America) by their secondary timestamp score. Then applications will be selected from each ICANN region using a "round robin" approach. This approach selects the best timestamp score from each region, one region at a time, on a rotating basis. If a region runs out of opted-in applications, the "round robin" continues across the remaining regions. This process continues until the batch is formed, with the opted-out applications last. (3) ICANN will then make preliminary determinations of contention sets based upon exact match. All applications in a single contention set are placed into the batch where the earliest application in the contention set is placed. Once the string similarity panel establishes complete contention sets, "similar" strings might be reassigned to an earlier batch. No applications will be demoted as a result of the promotion of others. This could result in a batch larger than 500. ICANN has taken care to provide a secure and stable platform for the batching system. Users will connect to the Citrix XenApp high-availability cluster and will then log into the batching system. Applicants will be required to agree to a set of Batching Rules, including an agreement that "ICANN reserves the right to delay an application to the last batch or to reject an application entirely if ICANN reasonably determines that the applicant abused the batching system or intentionally interfered with the performance of the system or any other applicant's use of the system." Along with this announcement ICANN is posting several additional resources to inform applicants about the batching process. These include a: set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), video demonstration, user guide, batching details and rules, and a batching basics fact sheet, which all can be found on the Batching information webpage at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/. Information on security, infrastructure, and operations is also available in these materials. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Pre-Prague ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Glen de Saint Géry June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-16may12-en.htm REMINDER: Pre-Prague ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague remotely or in person, you're invited to an update on the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on: Thursday 14 June at 12.00 UTC (For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/cbj6eow) and Thursday 14 June at 19.00 UTC, (For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/cwx3mkt) summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: · Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy · WHOIS · RAA Improvements · Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation · Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories · Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs · Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group · Participation and Engagement activities in Prague In addition, staff will provide a briefing on the ALAC's activities related to current policy development issues of the Supporting Organizations. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC (For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/cbj6eow) or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/cwx3mkt) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment - ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Independent Expert Report
by Glen de Saint Géry June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/board-coi-review-report-05jun12… ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Independent Expert Report Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 5 June 2012 Comment Close: 6 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 7 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:board-coi-review-report@icann.org> Reply Close: 28 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/board-coi-review-report/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Board/Board Governance Committee Categories/Tags: ICANN Board/Bylaws Purpose (Brief): To receive public comment on the Report prepared by the team of independent international experts as part of their review of ICANN's conflicts of interest and ethics frameworks. Current Status: This Report will be discussed at a public session on 25 June 2012 at the Prague Meeting. The Board Governance Committee and the Board are also considering the Report and the adoption of the recommendations within the Report. Next Steps: The BGC and the Board will consider the public input to guide further Board action on the Report. Staff Contact: Amy Stathos, Deputy General Counsel Email: amy.stathos(a)icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20ICANN%20Board%20Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20Review%20-%20Independent%20Expert%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose As a part of ICANN's commitment to enhancing its overall culture of promoting superior ethics, integrity and transparency, ICANN is posting for public comment the Report developed by the team of independent international experts with recommendations on enhancing ICANN's conflicts and ethics frameworks. Section II: Background Over the past year, heightened attention and scrutiny has been placed on how the ICANN Board addresses conflicts of interest, and on enhancing ICANN's ethical culture. While ICANN has a robust conflict of interest policy and code of conduct in place, work has been ongoing with the community and experts to determine how these, or implementation of them, can be further enhanced. The work posted for public comment today represents one stage of ICANN's three-stage review. ICANN engaged a team of international ethics experts to provide recommendations for the enhancement of ICANN's ethical culture, drawing on international sources, including practices in other not-for-profit organizations. The team of experts produced the Report posted for public comment that will be discussed during the ICANN meeting in Prague. Other work arising out of this three-stage review has already been presented to the community. ICANN engaged two sets of outside counsel - one that is familiar with ICANN to perform a holistic review of our policies to identify how they can be refined; and another set that is not familiar with ICANN to provide a review and recommendations for enhancements. The Board has already adopted the recommendations from those two stages of the review. As another facet of this work, the ICANN Board has finalized and announced rules on how Directors with interests in specific New gTLD applications may participate in New gTLD-related discussions and in post-Board service activities. In addition ICANN announced stringent communication rules for its staff regarding communications with potential new gTLD applicants. Section III: Document and Resource Links The Report prepared by the team of independent ethics experts is available at: http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-ethics-coi-final… [PDF, 570 KB] Section IV: Additional Information Information and links to some of the other work arising out of this three-stage review is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15may12-en.htm (*) 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

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#96]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 6 juin 2012 07:06 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#96] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, June 5, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wolfgang Kleinwachter will be unable to attend the 7 June 2012 GNSO Council meeting. Mary wong will serve as Wolfgang's proxy for the meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, June 8, 2012 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Mary Wong

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#95]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

fyi De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 6 juin 2012 07:04 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#95] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, June 5, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wendy Seltzer will be unable to attend the 7 June 2012 GNSO Council meeting. Bill Drake will serve as Wendy's proxy for the meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, June 8, 2012 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * William Drake

1 0

Action points from May 10 meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

Councillors, We have a few action points from our last meeting that I'd like to remind us all of. On ALAC's Icann academy, I had an action to inform the ALAC CHair that I would be joining the group. That has been done. I also had an action to draft some general guideline points that the Council would feel comfortable with me portraying to the group as a GNSO position. That has been done. On the decision to cancel Fridays at Icann meetings, Wendy had an action point to draft an initial message for me to send to the Board on behalf of the GNSO. On the URS in the draft budget, Wendy had an action point to draft an initial message for me to send to the Board on behalf of the GNSO. On the IOC/RC, we have yet to determine a common Council position. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

3 5

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#94]
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 5 juin 2012 16:17 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#94] Name of Officer: * Steve DelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, June 5, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Business Constituency Officer Position or Title: * Vice chair for policy coordination Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Councilor John Berard will be airborne during the time schedule for Council call Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * Motions on WHOIS access, RAP charter drafting teams, and other business to come before Council Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, June 8, 2012 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Zahid Jamil

1 0

ICANN 44 | Prague | 24 - 29 June 2012 - Full Schedule View
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

ICANN 44 | Prague | 24 - 29 June 2012 http://prague44.icann.org/full-schedule Full Schedule View Schedule subject to change. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Independent Expert Report
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-04jun12-en.htm ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Independent Expert Report 4 June 2012 As part of ICANN's ongoing focus on improving how the ICANN Board addresses conflicts of interest, as well as enhancing ICANN's ethical culture, ICANN is posting the work of the team of international ethic experts in this regard. The team, comprised of Jermyn Brooks (former World Chair of Price Waterhouse; currently Board member of Transparency International and Chair of its Business Advisory Board; Chair of the Global Network Initiative), Mervyn King (ex-judge from South Africa, the most prominent name in corporate governance worldwide, currently honorary chair of the Global Reporting Initiative and Chair of the International Integrated Reporting Council) and Aron Cramer (president and CEO of Business for Social Responsibility, prolific speaker and writer on corporate responsibility and sustainability issues as well as advisor to many companies including the ICT industry), has prepared a Report for discussion<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-ethics-coi-final…> [PDF, 570 KB] with the ICANN Board and the community at the upcoming Prague meeting. Information on the session is available at http://prague44.icann.org/node/31635. The team's work has been conducted in coordination with the Board Governance Committee, and is the third part of ICANN's comprehensive review of its conflicts and ethics practices. Just recently<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15may12-en.htm>, ICANN adopted a Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy and additional governance documents, and also released two reports by Cooley LLC on ICANN's corporate governance practices. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RAA Negotiations - Update
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-04jun12-en.htm RAA Negotiations - Update 4 June 2012 In advance of the Prague Meeting, ICANN is posting a group of documents on the status of negotiation of amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). While ICANN and the Registrars have made progress in the negotiations, the negotiations are not complete and there remain key areas of difference. Of highest priority for ICANN are the areas of Whois verification and data retention requirements, where ICANN and Registrars are not able to agree on certain aspects of the law enforcement recommendations. Because these two areas are so important, ICANN and the registrars are not able to post consolidated, negotiated amendments in advance of the Prague meeting. The memorandum described below explains this more fully; the draft RAA posted reflects ICANN's most recent proposal. · In the RAA Negotiations Summary Memo<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-raa-negotiation-…> [PDF, 100 KB], we provide detail on the status of the negotiations and provide some discussion on topics that we propose for discussion at the 25 June 2012 public session in Prague on the negotiations. The companion Summary Chart<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-raa-negotiations…> [PDF, 68 KB] provides a short description of the status of negotiations on each of the 12 law enforcement recommendations as well as other negotiation topics. These documents each reflect ICANN's understanding of the status of negotiations. · The Draft 2012 RAA<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-draft-2012-raa-0…> [PDF, 244 KB] is ICANN's most recent proposal for a new RAA, and is not a negotiated document. While the draft incorporates many terms that have been the subject of negotiations between the ICANN and Registrar Negotiation Teams, the draft also sets forth ICANN's current negotiating position on issues such as data retention, Whois verification, reseller relationships, and others. The Draft 2012 RAA is for discussion only, and does not reflect or incorporate finalized or approved language. ICANN is not posting a redline comparison of this Draft 2012 RAA to the 2009 RAA, as major portions of the document have been re-structured or re-organized, making a redline difficult to read. Instead, to help identify the changes proposed in the Draft 2012 RAA, we are providing a Summary of Changes<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-raa-summary-chan…> [PDF, 343 KB] document that discusses the changes from the 2009 RAA<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm>. The Draft 2012 RAA is comprised ICANN's proposed language for many separate specifications that will be attached to the RAA, each attached here in ICANN's proposed draft form: o Whois Specification<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-registration-dat…> [PDF, 148 KB] - a proposed Whois SLA and other requirements o Whois Accuracy Program Specification<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-whois-accuracy-0…> [PDF, 72 KB] - a Whois validation/verification program o Data Retention Specification<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-data-retention-0…> [PDF, 57 KB] - registrar data retention obligations o Additional Registrar Operation Specification<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-registrar-op-03j…> [PDF, 70 KB] - new requirements for DNSSEC, IPv4/IPv6, and IDNs o Consensus Policy and Temporary Policy Specification<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-consensus-temp-p…> [PDF, 98 KB] - Clarifying and consolidating the allowed topics for new Consensus Policies o Registrar Information Specification<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-registrar-info-0…> [PDF, 72 KB] - the categories of information that Registrars must keep updated with ICANN, as well as public posting requirements for some of that information Because the language is not finalized within the draft, ICANN is not at this stage seeking comment on the specific terms and provisions within the Draft 2012 RAA. We do, however, welcome feedback on the discussion topics identified in the RAA Summary Negotiations Memo to help inform the community discussion in Prague. If you have general feedback you'd like to provide, please leave a comment on the RAA Negotiations Status WIKI<https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi…>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Roadmap to Implement SAC 051
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 4 June 2012 As requested by the ICANN Board, ICANN is publishing the updated Roadmap<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-roadmap-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 218 KB] for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. There are two main recommendations in SAC 051: 1) improve Whois terminology to enhance and disambiguate the discussion; and 2) replace the Whois protocol to address various technical issues (e.g., internationalization). This Roadmap is the second version of the document, which was revised to include input from the community. The Roadmap will be submitted to the ICANN Board for its consideration. Created in the 1980s, Whois began as a service used by Internet operators to identify individuals or entities responsible for the operation of a network resource on the Internet. The Whois service has since evolved into a tool used for many purposes. However, as usage of Whois service evolved, few changes have been made to the protocol that supports the service. As a result, there is growing concern that the protocol would not meet the need of the community. Beginning in 2002, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published various advisories describing deficiencies related to the WHOIS protocol, service and data schema, most recently SAC 051: SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf> [PDF, 243 KB]. SAC 051 summarizes the previous advisories, and among other things, recommends that the ICANN community evaluate and adopt a replacement protocol. Recognizing its concerns with the WHOIS protocol deficiencies, on 28 October 2011, the ICANN Board approved a resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-28oct11-en.htm#5> directing staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. On 18 February 2012, ICANN published a draft Roadmap to implement SAC 051 for public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac-051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-e…>. Most commentators agreed with the approach proposed in the draft roadmap to replace the WHOIS protocol (SSAC recommendations 2 & 3). Given the general consensus on the proposed roadmap, it was deemed not necessary to open a second round of public comment. Instead, this updated Roadmap to implement SAC 051 is being published. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment - Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 4 June 2012 Comment Close: 25 June 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 26 June 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:prelim-protection-io-names@icann.org> Reply Close: 16 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/prelim-protection-io-names/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Policy Department Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): ICANN staff is seeking community input on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in new gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.…> [PDF, 566 KB]. Current Status: This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Staff Contact: Margie Milam Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Request%20for%20Preliminary%20GNSO%20Issue%20Report%20on%20the%20Protection%20of%20International%20Organization%20Names%20in%20New%20gTLDS%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN staff is seeking community input on this Preliminary Issue Report which is being published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for an issue report as a required preliminary step before a PDP may be commenced on the topic of whether ICANN should provide additional protections to the names of certain international organizations at the first and second levels for names introduced through the New gTLD Program. In its motion requesting this Issue Report, the GNSO Council specified that the Issue Report should: 1) Define the type of organizations that should be evaluated in any related PDP for any such special protection at the top and second level; and 2) Describe how the PDP could be structured to analyze whether ICANN should adopt policies to protect such organizations at the top and second level. In addition to other elements of this Issue Report, the ICANN community is encouraged as part of the public comment forum to comment on whether a PDP - if initiated, should be focused on additional protections for: (i) only international organizations that are not-for-profit AND are afforded unique protections under international treaties or national laws in multiple jurisdictions, and/or (ii) all international governmental organizations. Section II: Background Issues related to whether certain international organizations such as Intergovernmental Organizations ("IGOs"), the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement ("RCRC") and the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") should receive special protection for their names at the top level and second level in new gTLDs have been raised throughout the development of the New gTLD program. The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special protections should be afforded to the RCRC, IOC and/or IGOs. Specifically, in its Singapore resolution, the Board authorized the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD Program "which includes the following elements: "the 30 May 2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-7-en.htm>, subject to the revisions agreed to with the GAC on 19 June 2011, including: ...(b) incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest....." In addition, the ICANN Board, on 11 March 2012, in response to a letter from the OECD and other IGOs seeking that ICANN provide protections similar to those afforded to the RCRC and IOC and a pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names at the second level, formally requested that the GNSO Council and the GAC provide policy advice on the IGO's request. With regard to providing special protections for the RCRC and IOC names, during the Dakar Meeting on 27 October 2011, the GNSO Council convened an informal drafting team to focus on the narrower issue of whether the RCRC and the IOC should receive special protections beyond those currently afforded to them in the Applicant Guidebook. This drafting team, known as the IOC-RC Drafting Team, was convened to respond to the Board's 20 June 2011 Singapore resolution with regard to the protection of names of the RCRC and the IOC during the first round of applications (the "Singapore resolution) and in particular, to a subsequent GAC proposal to permanently protect the RCRC and IOC names at both the top and second levels. The IOC-RC Drafting Team produced a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 2 Mar 2012, and were subsequently modified during the March 2012 Costa Rica ICANN Meeting before adoption by the GNSO Council at its special meeting on 26 March 2012. These recommendations, which were forwarded to the ICANN Board for consideration, are described in greater detail on Annex 3 to this Report. At its 10 April 2012 meeting the ICANN Board's New gTLD Program Committee considered the GNSO recommendations but decided not to change the Applicant Guidebook. In its rationale for this resolution, the Committee observed that although "the GNSO's recommendations were well taken, the Committee opted for preserving the status quo. As protections already exist, when balanced with the accountability and operational issues posed by changing the Applicant Guidebook at that time, the Committee noted that "the public interest will be better served by maintaining the status quo.... Nothing in the Committee's action or this rationale is intended to preclude the consideration of the GNSO recommendations for future rounds of applications within the New gTLD Program." The Preliminary Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should consider whether or not to initiate a PDP as an approach to develop any additional policy advice in response to Board requests on the topic of whether to create additional protections to only certain types of international organizations in new gTLDs. Section III: Document and Resource Links Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.…> [PDF, 566 KB] Report of Public Comments on Proposal to Protect International Red Cross and International Olympic Committee Names at the Top Level in New gTLDS<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-ioc-rcrc-propos…> [PDF, 284 KB] The ICANN Board Resolution from the Singapore Meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm> The GAC letter concerning the protection of IOC/RCRC names<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and…> [PDF, 1.05 MB] The Questions & Answers concerning the protection of IOC/RCRC names<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30343723/IOC+AND+IRC+RESER…> [PDF, 229 KB] The IGO letter to the Board<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al…> [PDF, 157 KB] The Board letter to the GNSO and GAC on the IGO issue<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/beckstrom-to-igo-counsels-11mar…> [PDF, 222 KB] The GNSO Council response to the Board's letter on the IGO issue<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-to-board-igo-names-26mar12-en.pdf> [PDF, 105 KB] Section IV: Additional Information Links to relevant background documents and resources are provided in the Preliminary Issue Report (*) 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

New gTLD Program: Updated Applicant Guidebook Available
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-4-04jun12-en.htm New gTLD Program: Updated Applicant Guidebook Available 4 June 2012 ICANN has issued today a new version of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. The Applicant Guidebook describes the requirements and procedures for submitting applications for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), as well as the criteria and procedures for evaluation. See http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about for more information about the New gTLD Program. The application submission period is now closed, and changes have not been made to the application process. However, in anticipation of the opening of the objection filing period, the relevant information has been updated in the Guidebook. A summary of the changes can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/summary-changes-applicant-guide… [PDF, 121 KB]. The summary provides the text revisions in redline, as well as a description and rationale for the changes. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment- Interisle Consulting Group's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04jun12-en.htm Interisle Consulting Group's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 4 June 2012 Comment Close: 25 June 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 26 June 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:whois-pp-survey@icann.org> Reply Close: 16 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-pp-survey/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Council - Interisle Consulting's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This survey, conducted by the Interisle Consulting Group in Boston, MA, USA, is intended to help the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council determine the feasibility of conducting an extensive analytical study ("full study") into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. Current Status: This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the community to consider the survey results detailed in this draft report, ask questions, request clarifications, and share perspectives about the feasibility of conducting a full study into WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay handling for gTLD domain names. In parallel, ICANN and Interisle will conduct a Webinar to facilitate feedback by summarizing this survey's purpose, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Next Steps: Interisle will consider all comments submitted to this Public Comment forum during the comment period, incorporate any needed clarifications, and then publish a final version of this WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Survey report. Afterwards, the GNSO Council will use this report as a foundation to determine whether and how to launch a full study into WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay handling for gTLD domain names. Staff Contact: Liz Gasster Email: policy.staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy.staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Interisle%20Consulting%20Group's%20WHOIS%20Proxy/Privacy%20Reveal%20and%20Relay%20Feasibility%20Survey%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose At the request of the GNSO Council<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104>, ICANN engaged the Interisle Consulting Group to conduct an independent third-party WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay/Reveal Survey to gather, analyze, and present data that might allow the ICANN community to determine the feasibility of launching a full study and inform the design and conduct of a full study (should one be undertaken). Specifically, this survey assessed the willingness and ability of request originators, Privacy/Proxy providers, Registrars and other interested parties to participate in and provide data to a full study, identified factors that would promote or inhibit participation in a full study, and offered individuals and organizations who might be willing to participate in a full study an opportunity to identify themselves. This draft report presents the questions posed by this multi-lingual on-line survey, responses supplied by 168 survey respondents, input obtained through follow-up interviews, and the research team's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations about concerning a possible full study. The GNSO Council is now seeking community review and feedback on the draft report. The purpose of this Public Comment period is to ensure that survey results have been communicated clearly and to solicit feedback on the goals and nature of a full study of Relay and Reveal requests (if any) that could be feasible, given the findings provided by this survey report. The draft report and supporting appendices can be accessed here: · WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-31may12-en.…> [PDF, 2.12 MB] · WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report Appendices<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-appendices-…> [PDF, 1.19 MB] Section II: Background As part of a broader effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of the gTLD WHOIS system, the GNSO Council has expressed an interest in conducting an in-depth study ("full study") that would analyze Relay and Reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domain names. At the GNSO's request, ICANN issued an RFP in September 2010 which detailed a full study to explore and analyze a sample of Relay and Reveal requests sent for Privacy/Proxy-registered domain names to document how they are processed and identify factors that may promote or impede timely communication and resolution. The highly diverse and distributed nature of these practices has made it difficult to assess the effectiveness of related policies. The study's stated objective was therefore to help the ICANN community better understand how communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for Privacy/Proxy-registered domain names are actually being handled. To some, such a study might be highly desirable, if not essential. However, RFP responses revealed concerns about how such a study could be carried out or even if it could yield meaningful results. It was not clear what data (if any) could be made available to a study team; which entities could provide that data (and on what basis); what levels of participation would be forthcoming from key groups and other members of the community; or how to design and carry out a study so that it was likely to be successful. ICANN staff therefore recommended that a survey be conducted first, to determine the feasibility of conducting a full study. The GNSO Council authorized a survey to determine whether or not a full study would be feasible, under what conditions or limitations, and how likely it would be to obtain broad participation from Relay and Reveal initiators and responders. Results of this feasibility Survey, conducted independently by Interisle, are the subject of this draft report. Section III: Document and Resource Links 1. WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-31may12-en.…> [PDF, 2.12 MB] 2. WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report Appendices<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-appendices-…> [PDF, 1.19 MB] 3. WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Relay & Reveal Studies RFP<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-privacy-relay-reveal-studies…> [PDF, 81 KB] 4. Report to the GNSO Council on WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay & Reveal studies<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…> [PDF, 247 KB] 5. gTLD WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Survey Now Live<http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/gtld-whois-privacy-and-proxy-relay-and-reveal…> Section IV: Additional Information Additional WHOIS studies are now being conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, as summarized by: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ (*) 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

Public Comment - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report
by Glen de Saint Géry June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04jun12-en.htm Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 4 June 2012 Comment Close: 4 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 5 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-c-initial-report@icann.org> Reply Close: 25 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-c-initial-report/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Working Group Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO) Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group has published its Initial Report and is looking for community input on its proposed recommendations for changes to the existing IRTP. Current Status: As a required step of the GNSO Policy Development Process, the IRTP Part C Working Group has now published its Initial Report for public comment. Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20Part%20C%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose In addition to background information, an overview of the WG's deliberations and community input received to date, the Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.23 MB] contains the following four preliminary recommendations: · Recommendation #1 (Charter Question A) - The IRTP Part C WG recommends the adoption of change of registrant consensus policy, which outlines the rules and requirements for a change of registrant of a domain name registration. At this point in time, the WG is of the view that such a policy should follow the five steps as outlined in the section 5 of the Initial Report under the heading 'proposed change of control process for gTLDs', but recognizes that there are additional details and/or steps that may need to be added and therefore requests community input on the proposed process and related notes. · Recommendation #2 (Charter Question B): the WG recommends Section 2 of the IRTP be revised to insert the following section: 2.1.4 Once obtained, an FOA is valid for (45 or 60 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e…>) calendar days, or until the domain name expires, or until there is a Change of Registrant, whichever occurs first. The WG recorded rough consensus for the above recommendation, but some noted that support was conditional on a second recommendation related to this charter question being considered by the WG, which recommends that: · Recommendation #3 (Charter Question B): the Standard FOA is enhanced to support FOAs that have been pre-authorized or auto-renewed by a Prior Registrant who has chosen to opt out of this time-limiting requirement after having received a standard notice as to the associated risks. This enhancement would introduce a modified FOA, which would serve exclusively as a notification to the Prior Registrant that their pre-authorized domain transfer had occurred. The implementation of this recommendation should be accompanied by the appropriate security measures to protect Registrants from hijacking attempts using pre-approval as the attack vector. The WG is planning to discuss the details of such security measures in further detail in the next phase of its work. · Recommendation #4 (Charter Question C): The WG recommends that all gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID in the TLD's thick WHOIS. Existing gTLD Registry operators that currently use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID. This recommendation should not prevent the use of proprietary IDs by gTLD Registry Operators for other purposes, as long as the Registrar of Record's IANA ID is also published in the TLD's thick Whois. In addition to input on these preliminary recommendations, the WG is specifically requesting feedback on a number of open items such as, amongst others: whether the proposed change of registrant policy should be accompanied by a restriction that would prevent a change of registrar immediately following a change of registrant for 60 days; whether this change of registrant policy should be incorporated as a stand-alone policy or as part of the existing IRTP; which changes to registrant information should qualify as a 'change of registrant', and; whether there are any other expected impacts of the proposed recommendations in addition to those already anticipated by the WG. Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially review section 5 of the Initial Report in further detail in order to obtain further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards to these recommendations. The WG appears to have rough consensus for all the above recommendations, but it should be noted that no formal consensus call was undertaken. Such a formal consensus call will be conducted once the recommendations are finalized following review of the public comments received on this Initial Report. The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. ________________________________ 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e…> The WG has not decided yet on the exact timeframe and would welcome community input. Section II: Background The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy through a series of Working Groups it has established to conduct these efforts. The IRTP Part C PDP Working Group has been tasked to consider the following three questions: a. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. b. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. Section III: Document and Resource Links · IRTP Part C Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.23 MB] · IRTP Part C Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf> [PDF, 625 KB] · Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers> 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

Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names
by Brian Peck June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

Dear All, In response to the GNSO Council motion calling for an issue report on the topic of whether additional protections should be provided to the names of certain international organizations at the first and second levels for names introduced through the New gTLD Program, please find attached the Preliminary Issue Report. Please note that in conjunction with the publication of the Preliminary Issue Report, a public comment forum has been opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm ). Comments can be submitted until 25 June following which the comment reply will open (replies will be accepted until 16 July). Please let us know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Brian Policy Director ICANN

1 0

Prague schedule published
by Glen de Saint Géry June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

Dear All, Please find the full schedule as published. http://prague44.icann.org/full-schedule 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

IRTP Part C Initial Report
by Marika Konings June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

Dear All, On behalf of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Working Group, please find attached the WG's Initial Report. Please note that in conjunction with the publication of the Initial Report, a public comment forum has been opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e…) Comments can be submitted until 4 July following which the comment reply period will open. The WG is planning to provide an overview of the report to the GNSO Council in Prague, but if you have any comments or questions in the meantime, please feel free to share those. With best regards, Marika Sr. Policy Director ICANN

1 0

Draft Interisle report on gTLD WHOIS Relay and Reveal requests made of proxy and privacy providers has been posted
by Liz Gasster June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

All, I would like to inform you that the Draft Interisle report on Relay and Reveal requests made of proxy and privacy providers has been posted, see: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04jun12-en.htm. Comments and input are very much encouraged and appreciated. This posting is not being made specifically for discussion during the Prague meeting, though we're happy to comment generally on the report if requested. Interisle will be conducting two webinars (date and time to be confirmed) to review the content of the draft report with interested community members, and to encourage comment and input before the comment period closes on 25 June (replies accepted until 16 July). A final report from Interisle will be posted shortly thereafter. More information about the webinars will be announced shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Liz

1 0

Public Comment Solicitation for FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines
by Glen de Saint Géry June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/travel-support-2013-01jun12-en.… Public Comment Solicitation for FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 1 June 2012 Comment Close: 22 June 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-4-01jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 23 June 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:travel-support-2013@icann.org> Reply Close: 13 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-2013/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Travel Support Categories/Tags: Operations-Finances Purpose (Brief): Purpose to provide community members with the opportunity to review and comment upon proposed FY13 community travel support guidelines. Current Status: Pending review and comments. Changes in guidelines this year include: (1) New proposed booking and reimbursement procedures; and (2) Inclusion of data on FY13 special SO/AC budget requests approved (one time approvals, not ongoing support). Next Steps: There will be a Constituency Travel meeting on 26-June-2012 during the Prague meeting to further discuss proposed procedural changes for future travel bookings and reimbursements. Staff Contact: Steve Antonoff Email: steve.antonoff(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.antonoff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Public%20Comment%20Solicitation%20for%20FY13%20Community%20Travel%20Support%20Guidelines%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The proposed travel guidelines are posted each year for community review and comment prior to the next fiscal year. The purpose is to invite comments and questions specifically from the SO/AC community. Section II: Background Every year during planning for the next fiscal year budget, the community member travel support guidelines are posted for public review and comment. Section III: Document and Resource Links Proposed FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/travel-support/draft-travel-support-g…> [PDF, 316 KB] Section IV: Additional Information One addition to this year guidelines is discussion of SO/AC Special Requests for FY13. In addition, a number of modifications to travel policy are proposed. (*) 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Protecting Trademark Rights in New gTLDs: Selection of Trademark Clearinghouse Service Providers
by Glen de Saint Géry June 2, 2012

June 2, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-01jun12-en.htm Protecting Trademark Rights in New gTLDs: Selection of Trademark Clearinghouse Service Providers 1 June 2012 ICANN is pleased to announce that it is working with Deloitte<http://www.deloitte.com/> and IBM<http://www.ibm.com/> on implementation of Trademark Clearinghouse services. The Trademark Clearinghouse will function as an information repository, offering authentication and validation services for trademark data. Trademark holders and gTLD registry operators will rely on the Clearinghouse to support rights protection mechanisms for the new gTLD space. The Clearinghouse is designed to be available globally, with capabilities for validating trademark data from multiple global regions. In accordance with the direction set by the community, the authentication and database administration functions of the Clearinghouse are separated. Upon the anticipated execution of final agreement(s), Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services (a department of Deloitte Bedrijfsrevisoren BV ovve CVBA) will serve as the authenticator/validator service provider, and IBM [International Business Machines of Belgium sprl / bvba] will provide technical database administration services. Both Parties will subcontract IPClearingHouse BVBA (aka CHIP) in order to facilitate theses services. Both providers are highly qualified, with significant experience, technical capacity, and proven ability to manage and support processes. About Deloitte: "Deloitte" is the brand under which her member firms offer a broad range of audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk and tax services to clients all over the world. In this respect, Deloitte's validation team has been provided the opportunity to manage several successful Sunrise validation processes for many ccTLDs and gTLDs, including but not limited to .ASIA, .TEL, .ME, .CO, .SO. About IBM: IBM is an industry pioneer and has deep and broad experience. IBM knows how to play the role of a strategic partner - one that will bring industry thought leadership to the table and proactively contribute to customers' business and IT strategy. IBM has one of the largest global infrastructures, which has led to economies of scale that is passed on to its customers. IBM's excellent IT professionals and ability to leverage intellectual capital has led to one of the most respected groups of IT skills in the industry. These service providers have been selected out of a process of consideration in accordance with the Request for Information<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-03oct11-en.htm> issued 3 October 2011. Requirements for candidate service providers included: a demonstrated understanding of the issues concerning global intellectual property rights and the Internet, global capability to authenticate and validate trademark information, and experience designing, building, and operating secure transaction processing systems with 24/7/365 availability. ICANN has also sought candidates with a proven ability to manage and support processes in multiple languages, in addition to fulfillment of the technical requirements. ICANN is currently working with Deloitte and IBM to build and prepare for operation of Trademark Clearinghouse services to support the new gTLDs. Both firms will take part in the public discussion refining technical and operating specifications. Information about the Trademark Clearinghouse, including the current implementation model, and estimated fees, is available at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse. This page is a new resource and will be updated on a regular basis to track progress toward launch of the Clearinghouse operations. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public comment open: ICANN's FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework
by Glen de Saint Géry June 2, 2012

June 2, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssr-fy13-01jun12-en.htm ICANN's FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 1 June 2012 Comment Close: 2 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-01jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 3 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:ssr-fy13@icann.org> Reply Close: 3 August 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ssr-fy13/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Security Team Categories/Tags: Security/Stability Purpose (Brief): ICANN is publishing its FY 13 Security, Stability & Resiliency Framework for community review. The Framework is an annual document, published in connection with ICANN's fiscal year calendar. The Framework describes ICANN's role in the ecosystem and operational priorities in security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers. Current Status: Open for public comment Next Steps: Comments will be collected and incorporated into the FY 13 SSR Framework. Staff Contact: Patrick Jones Email: patrick.jones(a)icann.org<mailto:patrick.jones@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20ICANN's%20FY%2013%20Security,%20Stability%20and%20Resiliency%20Framework%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose 1 June 2012 ICANN is publishing its FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework for community review. The Framework is an annual document, published in connection with ICANN's fiscal year calendar. The Framework describes ICANN's role in the ecosystem and operational priorities in security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers. Similar to the FY 12 version, the FY 13 SSR Framework has been published in two sections. · Part A describes the foundation for ICANN's role in coordinating the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers, an overview of the Internet ecosystem and ICANN's place in it, and developments in the ecosystem since the publication of the FY 12 Framework. · Part B describes the operational priorities for ICANN in SSR for the fiscal year commencing in July 2012, an overview of the ICANN Security team and its core areas and projects for FY 13. A new section has been added based on feedback received from the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team providing a status update on the activities described in the FY 12 SSR Framework published in May 2011. Comments on the FY 13 Framework are encouraged and may be sent to ssr-fy13(a)icann.org<mailto:ssr-fy13@icann.org> and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ssr-fy13/ through 2 July 2012 23:59 UTC (with a Reply Comment Period open from 3 July to 3 August 2012 23:59 UTC). Further community consultations will occur at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague, Czech Republic in June 2012, and during the month of July. Section II: Background FY 13 SSR Framework Part A - ICANN's Role in SSR and the Internet Ecosystem<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/ssr-plan-fy13-parta-01jun1…> [PDF, 782 KB] Part B - FY 13 Module on Operational Priorities and Activities; FY 12 Status Update<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/ssr-plan-fy13-partb-01jun1…> [PDF, 488 KB] Translations of the FY 13 SSR Framework will be posted as soon as possible. Section III: Document and Resource Links Learn more about the SSR Framework Previous versions of ICANN's Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework may be found on the ICANN Security team page (https://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security>) or below. This annual document explains the connection between ICANN's role and remit in DNS Security, Stability and Resiliency, ICANN's Strategic and Operational Planning and its related SSR programs and initiatives for each fiscal year. · FY 12 SSR Framework<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02may11-en.htm> (2 May 2011) · FY 11 SSR Plan, clean version final<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/ssr-plan-fy11-clean-23nov10-en.pdf> (23 Nov 2010) [PDF, 1.49 MB] · FY 10 Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21may09-en.htm> (May 2009) Section IV: Additional Information NA (*) 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Universal Acceptance of All TLDs - Prague Meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry June 1, 2012

June 1, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31may12-en.htm Universal Acceptance of All TLDs - Prague Meeting 31 May 2012 Universal acceptance of all top-level domains is an on-going initiative within ICANN. Our goal is to raise awareness among all Internet users about the diversity of domains on the Internet. In the 1980s and 1990s the number of top-level domains (TLDs) was small and they all shared the same basic format - two-character ASCII country code TLDs (ccTLDs) or a handful of three-character ASCII generic TLDs (gTLDs). This standard format led software vendors and web site developers to build their programs making specific assumptions about what was considered a valid TLD. As long as the software recognized the TLDs, people were able to use them. In the past decade newer ASCII gTLDs longer than three characters were introduced, plus new domains written in various non-Latin scripts - known as Internationalized domain names (IDNs) - were added. In the not so distant future we will be seeing even more TLDs, including IDN TLDs, thanks to the new gTLD program and IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. This is why ICANN is committed to raising awareness among Internet software developers so they can build their software to ensure compatibility with all domains, rather than relying on outdated assumptions. During the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica we held a roundtable discussion on TLD Acceptance. A panel of experts shared their experiences with the issue. We heard many suggestions on how to better guide our efforts in raising awareness of this initiative from the experts as well as from the community. At the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague we will not have a session specific to this topic. Instead we are reaching out to groups such as The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and others in order to schedule times to talk with them about the initiative and how they can help raise awareness. If you have any questions about this effort or would like to schedule a time during the Prague meeting to learn more about the initiative and how you can help raise awareness, please contact ICANN staff at tld-acceptance(a)icann.org<mailto:tld-acceptance@icann.org>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0