June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
by Neuman, Jeff June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

Ok, but why are we so concerned with a registrar SLA if they are required to pass through the accurate data to the registries and the registries have an uptime slas. If it just com and net that are the issue because not thick registries, well that is being dealt with in the thick Whois pdp already initiated which will start later this year. In short, between all of the work underway ( the protocol work, the negotiations, the thick Whois pdp, the Whois require,ends survey, the Pdp intimated by the board dealing with picket fence issues in the RAA, the Whois studies, etc.), I think everything is covered. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Neuman, Jeff; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation Thanks Jeff, very helpful! These are the documents we're also referring to. However the focus of SAC 051 and the Roadmap seems primarily protocol-related. Originally you may recall that the Council asked the WHOIS Service Requirements Survey Working Group to consider adding this “feature” as a possible technical “requirement” to be surveyed to determine the degree of community support for that capability as part of a new protocol. The WSWG concluded that WHOIS uptime or “basic availability of and access to WHOIS data” such as an SLA-type approach was not a technical protocol-level issue but rather an operational or policy issue that was not within the WSWG’s remit and no specific requirement of uptime is required today. (Recall this email from Compliance reporting on this: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html> ). Thus we do not think that there is much potential overlap with SAC 051 or the Roadmap which is also focusing at the protocol level, except possibly insofar as PDP might result at some point during the Roadmap process. Our access motion is intended to basically assure what you are describing in #3 and #4 below, which is to follow up to include the access capability in an RAA PDP in the event that an SLA doesn’t result from the RAA negotiations. This is why the motion is focusing on incorporating this access into a possible PDP if not addressed in negotiations and why we do not necessarily see a connection with the SAC 051 Roadmap. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Juni 2012 21:25 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation Wolf, This is key, but also please review: 1. SAC 51: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf 2. And the final roadmap to implement SAC 51: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm which is currently published and before the board. I do disagree with some things in the road map like the legalistic approach to standards development which is a larger issue of how ICANN sees its own self regulatory model, but nonetheless, they need to be reviewed. 3. Also, don’t forget the current discussions with the registrars on the RAA amendments: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-04jun12-en.htm which have several sections dealing with WHOIS Access. 4. And finally keep in mind that certain picket fence items not finalized in the RAA discussions, can be addressed in the PDP we approved (which I believe the motion is meant to address). The main point is that the motion came out of a group whose recommendations are 3 years old and do not take into consideration all of the work that is already underway. Given all the work already underway, what is it that the motion adds that is not being done? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:42 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation All: with regards to the a.m. motion which has been deferred to the Prague meeting I'd like to come back to the "definition of WHOIS Access" which was discussed at the last call. In this context two defining documents should be given attention: the RAP WG Final Report and the WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report. The RAP WG is pointing to "basic availability of and access to WHOIS data" which implies technical, operational and contractual aspects (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf; page 71 ff) In this context it may be helpful to make reference to the definitions in the WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report on WHOIS Data, WHOIS Protocol and WHOIS Service (see http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en; page 22 ff) I would appreciate if continuing this discussion on the list could lead to a more common understanding of the item until it comes to voting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 4

Council motion deferrals qualifying
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

See attached some statistics. I hope this answers Johns question Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Board topics
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

Dear All, This is the list that has been sent to the Board as discussion topics: 1. The GNSO Council would like to discuss the role and responsibilities of the Council with the Board. There have been several occasions on which the GNSO Council has been left out of the process. Examples that will serve as a basis for discussion on these issues are IOC/RCRC, URS, Fridays and TAS issues. 2. Specific discussions with the Board regarding the newly-estabilshed New gTLD Committee and how does it function. How can GNSO help / liaise with this committee and collaborate? 3. Our concerns center on transparency as well as effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are considering - whether in relation to changing URS, the TAS Glitch and formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on? Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Digital Archery Suspended
by Bruce Tonkin June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23jun12-en.htm Digital Archery Suspended 23 June 2012 Operation of the digital archery portion of the New Generic Top-level Domain Program has been suspended. The primary reason is that applicants have reported that the timestamp system returns unexpected results depending on circumstances. Independent analysis also confirmed the variances, some as a result of network latency, others as a result of how the timestamp system responds under differing circumstances. The timestamp window was due to close on 28 June. As of 23 June, approximately 20 percent of applications had a registered timestamp. Given public comment regarding the timestamp process and that many applicants had yet to register a timestamp, the decision was taken to suspend the system now, pending further analysis of the process. The evaluation process will continue to be executed as designed. Independent firms are already performing test evaluations to promote consistent application of evaluation criteria. The time it takes to delegate TLDs will depend on the number and timing of batches. The suspension provides time to investigate technical concerns. ICANN's staff and Board will continue to listen to community comment about digital archery and batching. The information gathered from community input to date and here in Prague will be weighed by the New gTLD Committee of the Board. The Committee will work to ensure that community sentiment is fully understood and to avoid disruption to the evaluation schedule.

1 0

Topics for discusssion with the Board on Sunday 24 at 13:00 local time
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

Dear All, GNSO Topics provided to the Board: · Specific discussions with the Board regarding the newly-estabilshed New gTLD Committee and how does it function. How can GNSO help / liaise with this committee and collaborate? · I agree with Thomas' suggestion on expansion of membership and think this could be listed as one of the topics with the Board. · discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch · "Our concerns center on transparency as well as effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on?" 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

Registrars RAA Statement
by Yoav Keren June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

Dear All, This is a statement that the registrars will be issuing in response to the draft RAA ICANN posted and related outstanding issues. Attached are also several documents which highlight our positions. Best regards, Yoav Yoav Keren CEO Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. 81 Sokolov st. Tel: +972-3-7600500 Ramat Hasharon Fax: +972-3-7600505 Israel 47238 [תיאור: C:\Users\yoav\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\DTNT.jpg] ******************************* Statement from the Registrar Stakeholder Group The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) would like to provide this statement regarding the current status of RAA negotiations and the update posted on the ICANN website on June 4, 2012. The RrSG and its representatives on the Negotiating Team (NT) have been actively involved in discussions with ICANN staff and is pleased to see substantive progress reported to the community in advance of the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague. Among the issues that have been agreed to include improved registrar response and availability to law enforcement, registrar abuse point of contact, publication of registrar information, establishment of an ICANN accreditation for privacy/proxy service as well as many other important issues which have been identified both by law enforcement and the greater community. As ICANN points out in the documents recently released, several issues remain outstanding including: - Whois verification/validation - Data retention - Future RAA amendments process - Registrar obligations to support certain technologies which today are optional - Port 43 whois access for thick registries The RrSG fully agrees that several of the open items require input and discussion from the broader community as they contemplate significant changes to the domain name ecosystem as it exists today, and will impact the expansion of the Internet to new users and new regions of the world. We believe the upcoming meeting in Prague will provide an excellent venue for initiating these discussions and the RrSG looks forward to participating in those conversations. Attached to this statement (or provided shortly thereafter) is the RrSG's specific comments and/or proposed language to many of the issues which remain open at this time. We would like to thank ICANN staff for their ongoing participation in this effort and the RrSG looks forward to continued discussions as we move toward completion of a new RAA. ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************

1 0

GAC Session with the new gTLD Program Committee - Sunday 4:30pm to 6:00pm
by Bruce Tonkin June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

Hello All, Just a note that the new gTLD program committee of the Board will be meeting with the GAC on Sunday 4:30pm to 6pm. This session will be public. See: http://prague44.icann.org/node/31681 Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Changes to New GTLD Program Management | ICANN
by Glen de Saint Géry June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-21jun12-en.htm Changes to New GTLD Program Management 21 June 2012 Kurt Pritz has been appointed to take on direct oversight of the entire New Generic Top-level Domain Program in an interim capacity. He will assume the responsibilities of New gTLD Program Director Michael Salazar, who has resigned, in addition to his responsibilities as Senior Vice President for Stakeholder Relations. Kurt will remain in this interim role, building on the significant work done to date, until a new Program Director is appointed. He is authorized to bring the full resources available to ICANN to bear on the application evaluation process to improve customer support, applicant communications, security and reporting. In this new role, Kurt will report to Akram Atallah, in addition to his current responsibilities reporting to the CEO. Several new tools soon will be provided to help applicants with any issues or questions about the evaluation process. ICANN is committed to the highest standards of professionalism, reliability and security in the New Generic Top-level Domain Program. 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 Fake Renewal Notices Report
by Marika Konings June 21, 2012

June 21, 2012

Dear All, On behalf of the Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team, please find attached their updated report which reflects their review of the public comments received as directed by the GNSO Council at its last meeting. For your convenience, you will also find attached the redline version. We are trying to see if there is some time available during the GNSO weekend schedule or the GNSO Council Open meeting on Wednesday for the DT to present its updated report and explain in further detail the changes that were made as a result of the review of public comments so the GNSO Council can take this into account as it deliberates next steps. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Draft Council Minutes 7 June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry June 21, 2012

June 21, 2012

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 7 June 2012. "If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting." on 28 June 2012. " Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1