June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

WhoIs motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

No comments have been received so far. Glen, could you please update the motion by the revised version attached? Thanks Wolf-Ulrich ______________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 01:06 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: WhoIs motion All, following the council discussion last weekend on the WhoIs motion the ISPCP constituency discussed today the matter and came to the conclusion to provide this motion in an amended form as attached. I hope this brings more clarity on the reference as well as on the target. As there is still room for discussion I would appreciate your comments. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 3

Re: [council] Updated Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 at 15:00 CEST (13:00 UTC)
by Alan Greenberg 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

I will unfortunately have to leave the meeting early this afternoon. If a way can be found to defer this discussion until the next Council meeting, I would appreciate it. Given the schedule change, perhaps this will happen in any case. Alan At 26/06/2012 12:53 PM, Glen de Saint GÃ©ry wrote: >Item 11: 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 ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>report >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…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m…) >and has now closed. At its last meeting, the >GNSO Council requested the DT to review the >comments received, update the report if deemed >appropriate and report back accordingly. The DT >has reviewed the comments received and submitted >its updated report to the GNSO Council on 21 >June (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13234.html>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13234.html). > > * Presentation of updated Fake Renewal Notices Report (Mikey O'Connor) > * Discussion and open microphone > * Next steps

4 5

Re: [council] Room for our Open Council Meeting tomorrow
by Mason Cole 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

Glen, is the group photo still at 1:30? ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org To: council(a)gnso.icann.org List Cc: Nancy Lupiano ; David Olive ; Chris Mondini Sent: Tue Jun 26 07:39:49 2012 Subject: Re: [council] Room for our Open Council Meeting tomorrow Councillors, As a follow-up to this, a solution has been found. The Council meeting will be in Congress II and start at the later time of 3pm. I have asked for the schedule to be updated to reflect this change. I want to thank Nancy Lupiano, David Olive and Chris Mondini for their extremely valuable help in resolving this situation. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 26 juin 2012 à 14:51, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : Councillors, Just wanted to let you know that over the past couple of days, the Leadership has been working extremely hard with ICANN meeting staff to ensure that our Council meeting is set in the appropriate room tomorrow. I will skip over the details of these discussions, just to say that we have been able to find a resolution for our meeting to be in the main meeting room here, Congress II, with a few operational caveats which are set out below in the latest email we had from the meeting staff. I want to thank Nancy and the rest of the meeting staff for accommodating our requests to keep our meeting in the main room. Please let me know if you have any questions. We can offer you the Congress II room for tomorrow's GNSO Council ; however, as mentioned previously, the room will not have the large U for 28 with microphones and plasma screens. The room will be set theater style with a head table for 12 on the stage with 6 microphones. This will be the same set up that we had for the Welcome and following meetings on Monday. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 1

WhoIs motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

All, following the council discussion last weekend on the WhoIs motion the ISPCP constituency discussed today the matter and came to the conclusion to provide this motion in an amended form as attached. I hope this brings more clarity on the reference as well as on the target. As there is still room for discussion I would appreciate your comments. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Updated Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 at 15:00 CEST (13:00 UTC)
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

Dear All, Please find a further updated proposed agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 at 15:00 CEST (13:00 UTC). The main update is the room and time change, from 12:00UTC to 15:00 UTC in Congress II Thank you. Kind regards. Glen http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#jun http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27jun12-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+27+June+2012 Reference to ICANN Schedule http://prague44.icann.org/node/31781 Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 Date: 27 June 2012 Reference to ICANN Schedule http://prague44.icann.org/node/31781 Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace.<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin…> As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. 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 12:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/7m62mzy> http://tinyurl.com/7m62mzy Coordinated Universal Time 13:00 UTC: 06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington DC; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris/Prague; 22:00 Tokyo; 01:00 Wellington next day) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who cannot physically attend the meeting. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. 15:00- 15:45 GNSO Council Public Forum Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group Leaders (45 minutes) * Registries Stakeholder Group – David Maher * Registrars Stakeholder Group – Matt Serlin * Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Robin Gross * Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency – Alain Berranger. * Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade * Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) –Steve Metalitz * Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes Break 15:45 – 16:00 16:00 – 16:10 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 7 June 2012 approved on 28 June 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13224.html 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 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. No Consent agenda items Item 3: WHOIS Access recommendation (15 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 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+2012 This motion was deferred from the June 7, 2012 GNSO Council meeting. 3.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 3.2 Discussion and open microphone. 3.3 Vote Item 4: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data Working Group (IRD WG) (10 minutes) The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. This report was requested by the Board in June 2009. The first three recommendations are as follows: 1. ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. 2. The GNSO council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information. 3. ICANN staff should work with the community to identify a Registration Data Access Protocol that meets the needs of internationalization. Since then, the SSAC has recommended some substantial changes, including adding a fourth recommendation suggesting that ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD registries and registrars and to persuade ccTLD Registries and registrars to support various standards described in the report. The Council now needs to decide whether to accept the report and forward it to the Board along with the SSAC or whether more work may now be needed by the IRD to address any GNSO questions or concerns before the final report can be approved by the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council will now consider a motion to approve the IRD WG Final Report. Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+27+June+2012 4.1 Reading of the motion (Stéphane van Gelder) 4.2 Discussion and open microphone 4.3 Vote Item 5: Update on the GNSO-Requested WHOIS Studies and the draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey being developed by the WHOIS Survey Working Group (20 minutes) The Whois Studies Working Group (WSWG) has a draft survey out for public comment at the moment and a draft report from Interisle on the feasibility of conducting a full study on Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal cases has also been posted for public comment. This agenda item is to update the Council on these initiatives. Interisle Consulting Group draft Report – Public comment announcement -- http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-survey-04jun12-en.htm Whois Studies Working Group (WSWG) Public comment announcement -- http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey… General updated information on WHOIS Studies: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies 5.1 Update from Staff (Liz Gasster) 5.2 Discussion and open microphone Item 6: Update on the RAA negotiations (10 minutes) ICANN staff has posted the status report on the RAA negotiations Staff is currently pursuing with the Registrar Stakeholder Group. This agenda item is to inform the Council on the status of these negotiations. 6.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 6.2 Discussion and open microphone. Item 7: GNSO Council leadership elections (15 minutes) Between this Open Council meeting and the next, in Toronto, the GNSO Council will have started another election cycle. The election is for the new Council Chair, the current Chair being term limited and unable to stand again. Each house will also nominate its Vice Chair. This agenda item aims to provide a short overview of the process and proposed timing. 7.1 Update from Chair (Stéphane Van Gelder) 7.2 Discussion and open microphone. Item 8: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) on Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes) At its meeting on 6 October, 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: indentify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its report on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April. Refer to the report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un… The Council must now decide what next steps to take, if any. 8.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings) 8.2 Discussion and open microphone 8.3 Next steps Item 9: Impact of new gTLD program on existing GNSO structure (10 minutes) The new gTLD program may impact the GNSO's Contracted Parties. This item aims to initiate a discussion of potential issues to look at as the new gTLD comes online and the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups are affected by this. 9.1 Discussion and open microphone. Item 10: Management of work (10 minutes) Recent discussions on the Council list have raised concerns about the volume of documents published prior to an ICANN meeting and how these can best be managed by the volunteer community that makes up the GNSO Council as it struggles to read a substantial amount of reports and other documents in order to better inform its own decision making processes with regards to policy. 10.1 Discussion and open microphone. Item 11: 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. At its last meeting, the GNSO Council requested the DT to review the comments received, update the report if deemed appropriate and report back accordingly. The DT has reviewed the comments received and submitted its updated report to the GNSO Council on 21 June (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13234.html). 1. Presentation of updated Fake Renewal Notices Report (Mikey O'Connor) 2. Discussion and open microphone 3. Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 12.1 New GNSO Website<http://gnso.icann.org/en/> Reactions, comments and any suggestions for improvements/changes Item 13: Open Microphone 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 13:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 09:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 10:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 11:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 14:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 14:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Prague, Czech Repub.(CEST) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 16:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 18:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 21:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 22:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 01:00 – 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

1 0

Revised Draft Council Minutes 7 June 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 7 June 2012 as suggested by Bill Drake http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13233.html On Item 6, it's not obvious to me that this bit of editorializing is necessary: "The community appears to be confused about the term Whois access." The minutes would read just fine without it. Since there were no comments, the draft minutes have been revised accordingly. "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 " 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

1 0

GAC-Board discussion on 2nd level protection of IOC/RCRC and IGOs
by Zahid Jamil 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

It seems the Board has been expecting the GNSO to come back with 2nd level protections for IOC/RCRC and IGOs. And the reason for the Board not providing an outcome to the GAC on this is that GNSO hasn't gotten back to the Board. Seems to me that we need to consider where we are and how to expedite this matter. Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 213 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

1 0

Room for our Open Council Meeting tomorrow
by Stéphane Van Gelder 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

Councillors, Just wanted to let you know that over the past couple of days, the Leadership has been working extremely hard with ICANN meeting staff to ensure that our Council meeting is set in the appropriate room tomorrow. I will skip over the details of these discussions, just to say that we have been able to find a resolution for our meeting to be in the main meeting room here, Congress II, with a few operational caveats which are set out below in the latest email we had from the meeting staff. I want to thank Nancy and the rest of the meeting staff for accommodating our requests to keep our meeting in the main room. Please let me know if you have any questions. We can offer you the Congress II room for tomorrow's GNSO Council ; however, as mentioned previously, the room will not have the large U for 28 with microphones and plasma screens. The room will be set theater style with a head table for 12 on the stage with 6 microphones. This will be the same set up that we had for the Welcome and following meetings on Monday. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

2 2

informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions
by Thomas Rickert 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

Councillors, this is a follow-up to the invitation that I sent to the list earlier. Please feel free to share the document with your respective groups. Thomas On Monday, June 25, an informal group of community members convened to exchange thoughts on potential answers to the questions of Batching and Digital Archery. The group did not neither craft nor agree on a common proposal to present to the ICANN Board since the time available did not allow for an attempt to do so. A huge number of ideas and suggestions were presented and commented on. With this document, I would like to briefly summarize those and more ideas that were brought to my attention in follow-up discussions and try to structure them. The conclusions I will draw do not represent the group's view, but my personal thoughts based on the cumulative input. The main areas of discussion were - Application Evaluation Batching and - Delegation Batching. However, the subjects of Digital Archery as well as the impact of the letter by the GAC to the ICANN Board on any proposal were also discussed and deemed necessary factors when defining what could be a superior solution to the current approach. The group also felt that more data was needed to come up with a sound proposal in order to base calculations on facts rather than guesses. Apart from questions on parameters of the contracts with the firms that have been tasked to carry out the evaluation, the question of the maximum delegation rate per day or week was of interest to anticipate potential roll-out scenarios in the delegation phase. Kurt Pritz responded to this both in the informal meeting as well as during the public session. In summary, there does not seem to be a clear answer with unambiguous figures rather than the fact that the 1000 TLDs somewhat need to be distributed over the year i.e is a rate per year. For the evaluation phase, there seemed to be a lot of support and little or no opposition to processing all applications in a single batch. That should be done as quickly as possible. While Kurt Pritz emphasized that quality is of highest priority and that it is not easy to add more evaluators since they have been trained for months, ICANN should try to deploy more resources. There is partially identical information in applications using the same Registry Service Provider and those of portfolio applicants. For these (and I am not suggesting that these should be processed in batches), only the the differences of the applications have to be identified, i.e. the evaluator would process one in total and then be able to concentrate on the variations of the applications and the impact of those on the assessment of the application. By doing so, it should be possible to expedite the evaluation process significantly. I understand that there are other proposals currently being drafted which focus exclusively on incasing process efficiency. There did not seem to be an unanimous view on whether all results of initial evaluation should be published at the same time or whether they should be published as their evaluation is completed. A proposal was made to publish the results for individual applications as the initial evaluation is completed and then queue them for delegation as they are ready to go until the delegation rate limit of 1000 TLDs per year is reached. Numerous proposals have been made to establish a sequence of processing and then delegating TLDs. These can roughly be grouped into the following categories: - Clustering Several participants argued for different treatment for different types of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs, Community TLDs, grouping by competitors (applicants should tell who should not be delegated earlier than their application), grouping not only by contention sets, but also by synonyms (i.e. .music should be grouped with .hiphop). - Financial Proposals were made to provide financial incentives to those who agree to be processed later or to give each applicant one point and that such points can be traded. - Choice Applicants should get the opportunity to opt-out and portfolio applicants could volunteer to prioritize their own applications. - Natural sequencing Several attendees pointed to the fact that there will be a natural sequencing because of contention sets, objections, extended evaluations, GAC Advice, differences of time required for contract negotiation and execution. In addition to that, withdrawals or rejections of applications will further reduce the number of TLDs that need to be delegated. Another idea was to use the quality of the applications as a basis for sequencing them, eg. by scoring them or taking into account the requirement to get back to the applicant for additional information. Conclusions: It seems like creating groups of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs etc., is not an approach that gets broad community support. No matter how legitimate the reasons brought forward may be to either prioritize those or at least ensure that they are not processed at the end of the queue, it seems unrealistic to serve all these groups. Thus, it will be difficult to establish a new methodology for clustering applications as the basis for creating an order for processing and delegating them. A combination of various elements described above could be an eligible solution. These elements could be: - Resources: ICANN should hire more resources to provide for an expedient evaluation taking into account the suggestions above. - Choice: Applicants should say whether the earliest possible delegation is of high, medium or low priority for them. The applications will be processed in that order. - Complexity: In terms of complexity, a distinction needs to be made between external and internal factors. Internal factors: Priority is given to applications with, i.e. where no additional information has to be requested and where no extended evaluation is required. This addresses the widely welcome idea that quality should be a factor. External factors: Where contentions, objections or GAC advice are given, the applications are processed in the order these issues are resolved. The results of the initial evaluation of applications where no clarifying information had to be provided by the applicant was required, should be published at the same time. For the remaining applications, the results should be published whenever the evaluation is completed. The applications will then be processed whenever the respective next stage is reached. There will be a natural sequencing because of different time needed for contract negotiations and execution. It should also be noted that the delegation process is not under ICANN's exclusive control, which will provide for additional sequencing. Again, this document and the conclusion is an attempt to summarize and amalgamate proposals and feedback into what might be a possible approach. It is an effort in personal capacity which does not necessarily represent the view of the participants. Please circulate to those who are interested. I will collect feedback and make that available later this week. Thomas Rickert ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de Web: http://www.eco.de --------------------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: Köln

1 0

GNSO Working session transcripts
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

1 0