June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Updated Proposed Agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 at 14:00 CEST (12:00 UTC)
by Glen de Saint Géry June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

Dear All, Please find the updated proposed agenda for GNSO Council Public Meeting in Prague 27 June 2012 at 14:00 CEST (12:00 UTC) The agenda has been updated with Item 11 - Fake Renewal Notices. 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 12:00 UTC: 05:00 Los Angeles; 08:00 Washington DC; 13:00 London; 14:00 Paris/Prague; 21:00 Tokyo; 00:00 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. 14:00- 15:00 GNSO Council Public Forum Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group Leaders (60 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 15:00 – 15:20 15:20 – 15:30 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 (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. 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 (20 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 (5 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 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 (X Y) 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 12:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 05:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 08:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 13:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Prague, Czech Repub.(CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 15:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 17:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 00:00 – 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

re batching: Invitation to informal meeting
by Thomas Rickert June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Dear all, as you will have heard, digital archery has been suspended and the ICANN Board is willing to consider proposals for batching or alternatives to the process currently being used for prioritizing the sequence of processing applications. I would like to invite you to an informal meeting to discuss options that can be proposed to the ICANN Board. Please note that the Board is not only looking for sound proposals for the evaluation batching, but also the delegation batching Please do further circulate this message. I have secured the BARCELONA meeting room on Monday from 16.30 to 18.30. Again, this is not a meeting that is part of the ICANN agenda. It is a private initiative to provide for a forum for the exchange of thoughts. Thank you, Thomas Rickert ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers ------------------------------------- eco - Association of the German Internet Industry 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

ccNSO
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Councillors, Please find attached the latest draft of our questions for the ccNSO. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

GNSO topics for Board
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Councillors, Steve, Diane, The GNSO Council has just had a discussion session to work on our topics for our discussion with the Board later on today. Please find attached the latest draft of those questions. Steve, FYI, on the questions from the Council, we have worked on those together will be able to address them as a group. On the questions from the Board, as we did not have time to go into in-depth discussions on them during our session, we have agreed that as they may be addressed by Councillors as individuals representing their groups, rather than by the Council as a whole. I hope this is helpful for everyone. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

Fwd: DRAFT revised GNSO Council/Board agenda items
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : <john(a)crediblecontext.com> > Objet : DRAFT revised GNSO Council/Board agenda items > Date : 24 juin 2012 08:08:18 HAEC > À : "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : KnobenW(a)telekom.de, "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > > Stephane, > > I have given some thought to how we might revise the items for our > meeting with the ICANN Board. Here are four (4) items for your > thoughtful consideration... > > 1. Recent decisions and actions -- thinking of the move to eliminate the > public Board meeting on the Friday of the public meeting, the > unanticipated costs of the URS and the technical glitches leading to the > suspension of TAS and Digital Archery functions of the new gTLD program > -- have triggered significant community discussion. How might ICANN's > communication be improved by tighter coordination with the GNSO Council > is light of the Council's role and reach into the community? > > 2. What decisions are being contemplated by the Board, perhaps further > changes in the public meeting or new programs and budget allocations, > where the GNSO Council can offer advance perspective? > > 3. Regarding the just established New gTLD Committee, the change in > leadership of the program inside ICANN and what we know now about the > size and scope of new domain name extensions, how will the energy of > this specific program affect the organization, profile and approach of > ICANN overall? > > 4. Conflicts of interest continue to be a persistent topic of > conversation at ICANN. How have the changes in those policies over the > last year affected the decision making capability of the Board? > > John Berard > Founder > Credible Context > 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 > San Francisco, CA 94127 > m: 415.845.4388 >

1 0

Fwd: Briefing Document: Second-Level Protections in New gTLDs
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Councillors, This just in... Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> > Objet : Briefing Document: Second-Level Protections in New gTLDs > Date : 5 juin 2012 01:30:16 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Brian Peck <brian.peck(a)icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos(a)icann.org> > > Dear Stephane: > With the closing of the application period for, and the pending delegation of new gTLDs, the ICANN community is encouraged to continue to consider the perceived need for defensive registrations at the second level, and whether additional protections for established legal rights at the second level should be developed and implemented. > In its 12 April 2012 resolution regarding defensive applications (top-level protections) , the New gTLD Committee ofthe Board acknowledged that the sense of the public discussion on this issue through the public comment forum and the public workshop at the Costa Rica Meeting “indicated that trademark protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the registration of second-level domain names.” As required by the Board’s resolution, ICANN staff members have drafted a briefing paper on this topic. > The paper suggests that the GNSO Council consider utilizing one of its available processes such as requesting an Issue Report or conducting a policy discussion to address the issue whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. > We welcome comments on this paper. Please send me any comment or questions you might have. > Best regards > Kurt Pritz > ICANN > cc: GAC – Heather Dryden > ALAC - Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > >

2 1

FW: Discussion on Accountability & Transparency Reviews, Thursday at noon
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

On Behalf Of Denise Michel =========================== Dear Community Members, We hope you will join the discussion about Accountability & Transparency Reviews led by ICANN's Board Chair on Thursday at noon in Congress I & II at the Prague ICANN meeting (remote participation is available). This 1.5 hour public discussion will address the effectiveness of ICANN's accountability and transparency projects to date, and potential issues for the next Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) to consider. ICANN is completing implementation of 27 ATRT Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability> and, later this year, we will begin the process for forming the next ATRT (AoC requires a review every 3 years). The session information is posted at <http://prague44.icann.org/node/31825> and is included below. We hope you will join us. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO Overview Public input is sought on the effectiveness of ICANN's accountability and transparency projects to date, and potential issues for the next Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) to consider. ICANN is implementing 27 ATRT Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability> and, later this year, will begin the process for forming the next ATRT. Draft Agenda 1. Opening remarks -- Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board 2. ATRT Recommendations - A review of, and community discussion about, the Recommendations to improve ICANN's accountability and transparency in the areas listed below; panelists will outline achievements to date and work in progress. · Public input & Multilingual Access -- Filiz Yilmaz & Christina Rodriguez, ICANN Staff · GAC Operations, Engagement, Interaction with Board -- Bill Graham, Member, ICANN Board & Board/GAC Working Group Co-Chair · Board Operations, Composition & Review of Decisions -- Bruce Tonkin, Member, ICANN Board 3. Tracking, Measuring Success & Next ATRT review -- Denise Michel, ICANN Staff 4. Lessons learned & feedback from (first) ATRT -- Chris Dispain, Member, ICANN Board & former ATRT member 5. Closing Remarks - Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board Background An important step toward further enhancing accountability and transparency within ICANN came with the December 2010 submission of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's (ATRT's) Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/public-comment-feb11-en.htm#atr…> and the Board's subsequent acceptance of it in 2011. This report contained 27 recommendations (now in the implementation stage) that focus on improving transparency and accountability in four areas of ICANN: · Board governance, performance, and composition, including the Nominating Committee (NomCom) processes for filling Board positions. · Review mechanisms for Board decisions. · Governmental Advisory Committee's (GAC's) role, effectiveness and Interaction with the Board. · Public input and policy development processes. Highlights of implementation actions include: To provide better access to, and insight into, Board decisions ICANN has incorporated the following into its standard operating procedures (SOP): · Posts extensive Board meeting information<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings> (including briefing materials and expanded minutes). · Publishes conditions for redaction<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-guideline…> of posted Board briefing materials. · Provides translations into the six UN Languages of approved Board resolutions and minutes<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings> of Board meetings, which are posted within the 21-day timeframe. · Posts rationales<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings> for Board actions and Board briefing materials<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings>. To improve ICANN's "Review Mechanisms for Board Decisions": · The "Reconsideration Requests" webpage<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration> has been revamped so the public has a standard timeline, format, and explanations for all Reconsideration Requests (all part of SOP). · Independent experts <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11mar12-en.htm> have been identified to serve on a committee to assess ICANN's review mechanisms. · The Board has confirmed that the Ombudsman framework is consistent with international standards. To improve the process for selecting ICANN Directors and address recommendations on Board composition: · The Nominating Committee<http://nomcom.icann.org/> (NomCom) annually consults with the ICANN community and public on skill set requirements to consider when making appointments to leadership positions. · The Board annually provides the NomCom with information on the Board's skill sets. · New NomCom guidelines<http://nomcom.icann.org/> were instituted, including internal procedures and a code of conduct. · The Board approved compensation<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm#3> to voting Directors for their services to ICANN, and revised the "ICANN Conflicts of Interest Policy and ICANN Bylaws." To help advance the effectiveness of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and its interaction with the Board: · ICANN increased funding, multilingual access services, and staff resources to support the work of the GAC. · A formal, documented process for requesting and tracking GAC advice has been created for GAC approval. · A formal GAC notification process for pending policy issues also has been created for GAC approval. · Regional plans were developed for increasing involvement in ICANN. · Board-GAC face-to-face interactions have been increased. To improve the processes ICANN uses to gain public input and develop policy: · ICANN's Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> have been translated into multiple languages. · A "Language Services Policies and Procedures<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-18may12-en.htm>" document was posted for public comment. · ICANN's Public Comment Webpage<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> was revamped to make it easier to find and understand opportunities for public comment, and a list of up-coming comment periods is posted here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/upcoming>. · A new stratified; prioritized "public notice & comment process" was implemented, including a "comment/reply cycle" for each issue under public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. To help ensure ICANN staffing arrangements are appropriately multilingual, job postings and related forms have been updated and language-training programs have been identified for ICANN staff. Finally, in terms of overarching activities, resources required to implement the ATRT Recommendations were included in the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/adopted-opplan-budget-fy11-10jul10…> [PDF, 2.51 MB], and proposed metrics and benchmarks are under development. More information · Details on these efforts and implementation of the ATRT Recommendations is available online at ICANN's "Accountability & Transparency webpage<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability>." · At a glance: ATRT Implementation Status<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/atrt-implementation-gl…> [PDF, 2.05 MB] · ATRT Implementation Summary<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/atrt-project-list-work…> [PDF, 162 KB]

1 0

FW: Ready for Distribution
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

On behalf of Diane Schroeder Dear All, Please find the agenda document for the community meetings 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

Prague - please read!
by Stéphane Van Gelder June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

7 9

Whois Access - from RAPWG Final Report
by Marika Konings June 23, 2012

June 23, 2012

Dear All, To provide some further context in relation to the discussion on Whois Access, please find below an excerpt from the RAP WG Final Report regarding Whois Access. With best regards, Marika 7. WHOIS Access 7.1 Issue / Definition The RAPWG found that the basic accessibility of WHOIS has an inherent relationship to domain registration process abuses, and is a key issue related to the malicious use of domain names. It appears that WHOIS data is not always accessible on a guaranteed or enforceable basis, is not always provided by registrars in a reliable, consistent, or predictable fashion, and that users sometimes receive different WHOIS results depending on where or how they perform the lookup. These issues interfere with registration processes, registrant decision-making, and with the ability of parties across the Internet to solve a variety of problems. WHOIS is an area within GNSO policy-making scope and has had a long history of discussion. Below, the RAPWG comments on the basic availability of and access to WHOIS data, and not the accuracy of contact data or the use of proxy contact services. To avoid duplication of effort and charter scope problems, the RAPWG decided to identify when WHOIS is seen to be a contributing factor in other problems, and not to discuss WHOIS issues for which the GNSO has already commissioned studies. (Those are: WHOIS contact data accuracy, the use of proxy contact and privacy services, implications of non-ASCII registration data in WHOIS records, and technical requirements for the WHOIS service itself – including potential replacements. For background, please see: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/) WHOIS data availability problems have been discussed in other GNSO working groups, for example: * The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group (PEDNR-WG) discussed how access to WHOIS data is essential for parties to determine if contact data has been updated upon the expiration of a domain name, and to check domain name expiration dates. A majority of the registrars polled may make substantial updates to WHOIS data upon expiration.[1] * The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part A PDP Working Group (IRTP-WG)[2] noted in its final report that gaining registrars sometimes have difficulty accessing WHOIS data, and therefore Administrative Contact e-mail addresses. * The Fast-Flux PDP Working Group (FFWG) discussed how responders must access WHOIS data when mitigating illicit uses of domain names. Published WHOIS data for domain names involved in malicious conduct is an irreplaceable part of the investigation and mitigation processes used by registrars, registry operators, registrants, security companies, brand owners, victims, and law enforcement. * The national law enforcement agencies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have recommended that “ICANN should require Registrars to have a Service Level Agreement for their Port 43 servers.” These authorities consider that this is required in order “to aid the prevention and disruption of efforts to exploit domain registration procedures by criminal groups for criminal purposes.”[3] * The Anti-Phishing Working Group’s DNS Policy Committee has stated that published WHOIS is “an invaluable resource, in fact, without which most of the cited cases would not have been successful. For cases in which legitimate machines or services have been hacked or defrauded, published domain name WHOIS information is an important tool used to quickly locate and communicate with site owners and service providers. For cases where domain names are fraudulently registered, the published domain name WHOIS information can often be tied to other bogus registrations or proven false to allow for quick shutdown.”[4] 7.2 Background ICANN’s current registry contracts require registry operators to adhere to port 43 WHOIS Service Level Agreements (SLAs). TheseSLAs require that port 43 WHOIS service be highly accessible and fast. For example, the .ORG contract requires that WHOIS service be functional at least 99.31% of the time per month (with exceptions for scheduled maintenance), and that responses be provided in less than 800 milliseconds. Failure of registries to meet these SLAs have been very rare according to monthly registry reports.[5] The majority of gTLD registries are “thick” registries, in which all authoritative WHOIS data—including contact data—is maintained at the registry. The .COM and .NET registries are “thin,” and contact data is located only at each domain name’s sponsoring registrar. Registrars are therefore responsible for providing WHOIS service for .COM/.NET names so that contactdata may be retrieved. The .COM/.NET registry contains approximately 85% of the gTLD domains in existence,[6] so registrar WHOIS accessibility is very important. When displaying WHOIS data for thick TLD domains names—especially on their Web sites—registrars often query the registry’s WHOIS, and display that output to users. The Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs)[7] require that registrars provide: * port 43 WHOIS access * a Web-based WHOIS * a listed set of information (WHOIS data fields), including: * identity of the registrar * domain name’s expiration date * nameservers associated to the domain; and * specified fields of data for the Registrant Contact, Administrative Contact, and Technical Contact. There are no service levels (SLAs) in the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs). A registrar-provided WHOIS service is not required to be online for any particular amount of time, nor provided with any particular response speed. Port 43 is designed for use with automated and machinequeries. It can also be queried manually by users who know how to perform telnet sessions and the “whois" command in Linux/Unix/macosx shell. The percentage of Internet users who are technically fluent enough to perform these types of queries (or even know about port 43 at all) is small. Thus, it is required that registrars have a Web-based WHOIS query on their sites. A sub-team of RAPWG members performed some basic research by querying the Web-based and port 43 servers of 50 registrars. This set included the top 20 registrars by gTLD market share, 15 randomly-chosen mid-sized registrars, and 15 randomly-chosen small registrars. When a registrar’s site was in a language other than English, the assistance of a native speaker was obtained. In addition to manual checks, automated queries of port 43 were performed to test availability over time. The sub-team members found WHOIS accessibility situations with 19 of the 50 registrars sampled. Four registrars may have been in violation of their contractual WHOIS access requirements: * Two did not provide a functional Web-based WHOIS. * One registrar's WHOIS listed a sponsoring registrar different from that provided by the .COM/.NET registry WHOIS. The registrar’s port 43 server provided an expiration date different from that listed in the registry. The registrar’s Web WHOIS provided two different expiration dates for the same domain name. * One registrar did not identify the sponsoring registrar of its domains. The registrar does not operate its port 43 server on the domain indicated by the .COM/.NET registry WHOIS; the registrar’s WHOIS service is evidently subcontracted to a second registrar on that registrar’s domain; and the sponsoring registrar’s Web WHOIS is provided on a third domain not branded as the sponsoring registrar. In addition, one registrar provided facially invalid registrant contact data for its own .COM name -- including a registrant contact e-mail address on the domain “icann.org”. This appears to be a violation of the RAA. Fifteen other registrars presented these situations: * Three registrars had port 43 servers that did not return replies for a notable number of queries. One was offline/nonresponsive 21% of the time, one was offline/nonresponsive 20% of the time, and one was offline/nonresponsive 14% of the time. (Based on 100 queries per registrar, spread out over several weeks). * Ten provided different WHOIS data on their port 43 servers than they did via their Web WHOIS. * Four provided only thin contact data via their Web WHOIS, while providing thick contact data only on port 43. * In two cases, registrars provided two different expiration dates for each domain name via the Web WHOISes. One of the two expiration dates did not match the expiration date provided by the .COM/.NET registry. * Two sometimes provided full contact data on their Port 43 servers, and sometimes provided just Registrant contact data (and no Admin or Tech contact data) on their port 43 servers. It is unknown if this was due to a rate-limiting activity. * One registrar did not provide registrant contact data via port 43, and did not provide Admin or Tech contact data via its Web WHOIS. * One registrar provided a required data field (Tech and Admin contact phone numbers) on port 43 but not via its Web WHOIS. * Four cut off telnet sessions to port 43 very quickly--effectively disallowing manual queries via that method. These results indicate that: 1. Some registrars appear to be in violation of their contractual WHOIS accessibility obligations; 2. Users are occasionally unable to obtain contact data due to WHOIS availability problems. 3. Registrars occasionally provide registration data that differs from that provided by the registry. 4. Users are sometimes given different registration data depending on the method they use to access the sponsoring registrar’s WHOIS. 5. Users are sometimes given different registration data depending upon who they are; perhaps depending upon whether they are being rate-limited. These issues were distributed across a notable number of registrars, with different sizes, business models, and locations around theworld. The reasons why registrars provide different data on port 43 versus their Web sites requires further investigation. Some might be attempts to prevent automated data mining by spammers, competitors, and other parties. The RAPWG notes that reasonable rate-limiting WHOIS can be a valid, prudent practice – for example it can prevent spammers from mining WHOIS information[8], and can prevent WHOIS servers from being overwhelmed by excessive queries. During Web-based WHOIS sampling, the RAPWG members observed that only some registrars employ CAPCHAs on their Web-based WHOIS services as a protectionagainst automated queries. In addition to the research conducted by working-groupmembers, the RAPWG requested information from the ICANN Compliance Department about how it monitors registrar WHOIS access. The ICANN Compliance Department noted: "ICANN has developed a Whois server audit tool which monitors access to registrars’ Whois servers over a Port 43 connection. The script developed for this task retrieves data for 4 registered domain names for each accredited registrar…. The purpose of the audit is to flag Whois servers that are down for an amount of time that is suspect and probably not just a manifestation of periodic server maintenance or scheduled update. … What is the “reasonable amount of time” for a server to be down? Probably no more than an hour or so per day, although these are ICANN internal, ‘soft metrics’, not agreed-upon timeframes with registrars. The script records the results and flags registrars that prevent access to data on registered names. Transient network problems are less of a concern, so ICANN focuses on long-term behavior, i.e., registrars which ICANN is unable to communicate with for several days in a row. ….ICANN also reaches out toregistrars that provide access to data on registered names but provide ‘thin’, not ‘thick’, Whois data. The former does not provide details on the registered name holder and additional contacts, which is required by the RAA.”[9] Over the last three years, ICANN’s Compliance Department has sent seven escalated compliance notices (e.g. notices of breach, termination, or RAA non-renewal) to seven registrars for failure to comply with WHOIS access requirements of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement: · One registrar did not have its contract renewed solely for failure to provide WHOIS access. (South America Domains dba NameFrog.com, which had less than 300 gTLD names under sponsorship at the time.) · The other six registrars were cited for both WHOIS access breaches AND at least one other contract violation, such as failure to pay ICANN fees, failure to escrow data, and/or failure to respond to WHOIS accuracy complaints. ICANN’sCompliance Department is in contact with registrars to resolve issues before escalated compliance notices become necessary. The Compliance staff noted to the RAPWG that “some registrars block incoming WHOIS queries traffic by IP address, and Compliance works with the registrars to get them unblocked when there may be a misunderstanding.” and, “Aside from metrics on informal outreach to resolve blocked Whois servers and incomplete, or ‘thin’, Whois data with registrars, which have been more than two dozen in the past 6-8 months, Compliance could provide bi-weekly statistics to the WG from here on out on the number of registrars that showed a pattern of restricting access to their Whois server over a Port 43 connection. These statistics have not been published before.” So, it appears that some contractual violations are cured in an amicable manner, and that public breach letters have apparently been used as a tool of last resort. It is unknown how many WHOIS accessibility issues have been discovered but not resolved. The last timethat ICANN published WHOIS access compliance data was 2007.[10] That year, ICANN’s Compliance Department examined every ICANN-Accredited Registrar’s Web site, and did not examine port 43 access. [11] The Compliance Department numbers indicate that WHOIS access problems are found regularly.Above and beyond those, the RAPWG research indicates that a notable percentage of registrars might not make WHOIS data available in a reliable, consistent, or predictable fashion. 7.3 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The GNSO should determine what additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion. The GNSO Council should consider how such might be related to other WHOIS efforts, such as the upcoming review of WHOIS policy and implementation required by ICANN’s new Affirmation of Commitments. The Affirmation of Commitments says: “ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate andcomplete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document [30 September 2009] and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust.”[12] The WG achieved unanimous consensus on the above recommendation. In favour (14): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Neuman (RySG), O’Connor (CBUC), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Seltzer (NCSG), Shah (MarkMonitor),Sutton (CBUC), Young (RySG). Against, or alternate views: none. Recommendation 2. The GNSO should request that the ICANN Compliance Department publish more data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis. This data should include a) the number of registrars that show a pattern of unreasonable restriction of access to their port 43 WHOIS servers, and b) the results of an annual compliance audit of compliance with all contractual WHOIS access obligations. The WG achieved unanimous consensus on the above recommendation. In favour (13): Aaron (RySG), Amadoz (RySG), Bladel (RrSG), Cobb (CBUC), Felman (MarkMonitor), Neuman (RySG), O’Connor (CBUC), Queern (CBUC), Rasmussen (Internet Identity), Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Shah (MarkMonitor), Sutton (CBUC), Young (RySG). Abstentions (1): Seltzer (NCSG). Against, or alternate views:none. ________________________________ [1] “Draft Initial Report on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process”: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/attachm… [2] “Draft Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfers Policy - Part A Policy Development Process”: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/attachments/irtp_par… [3] “Law Enforcement Recommended RAA Amendments and ICANN Due Diligence”, November 2009, https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi/LawEnforcementRAArecommendations… [4] “Issues in Using DNS Whois Data for Phishing Site Take Down,” http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/APWG_MemoOnDomainWhoisTake-Downs.pdf [5] http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/ [6] “VeriSign Domain Name Industry Brief,” September 2009, http://www.verisign.com/domain-name-services/domain-information-center/doma… [7] http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/agreements.html [8] See: “SAC 023: Is the WHOIS Service a Source for Email Addresses for Spammers?”: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac023.pdf [9] http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00454.html [10] http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00454.html [11] http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-audit-rep… [12] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm

1 0