July 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching
by Thomas Rickert Aug. 19, 2012

Aug. 19, 2012

Dear all, you will have heard that ICANN has recently published an announcement, due to which it seeks input on gTLD Batching, see https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29jul12-en.htm eco is planning to submit a comment. With this e-mail I would like to encourage all of you to provide me with input by August 5th. I will amalgamate your input into one statement and send it to this list for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, please let me know if you would like me to include other / additional contacts inside your company. Best regards, 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 3

Re: GNSO NCA selection process
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

Thanks Vanda, The Council has expressed surprise at your response as it does not seem to fit with our understanding of the situation as the NomCom explained it to us when the issue came up around Dakar time. We had understood that from now on, the NomCom would assign all three NCAs every year, regardless of whether they were just renewed or already serving. As such, the Council would appreciate getting a more in-depth explanation from you on what appears to be a change of direction on behalf of the NomCom, considering that what we were previously told seemed to be dictated by the bylaws themselves. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 23 juil. 2012 à 23:35, Vanda UOL a écrit : > > Dear Stephane > > The general understanding of the NomComm Committee 2012, and our selection process followed such understanding, was that this year the NomComm will selected, and we did so, a Non-voting member to seat at GNSO Council. > Regarding the time, as soon as the internal ICANN´s process with the selected candidates will finish, the nominee to take seat at GNSO COUNCIL as a non – voting member will be announced. We expect to have the process finished at the end of August. > The selected person have already been informed about the nomination and formally accepted the position. > As we had last year, 2013 will select two voting members for the GNSO Council. It was the understanding of the committee last year that NOMCOMM would not choose which seat the selected candidates would take, only that they were voting seats. > Hope these information are satisfactory for the Council and I remain at your disposition for any other additional information you need. > Best regards > > > Vanda Scartezini > ICANN Nominating Committee Chair - 2012 > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > Skype:vanda.scartezini > > > > De: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de julho de 2012 12:23 > Para: Vanda UOL > Cc: GNSO Council List > Assunto: GNSO NCA selection process > > Dear Vanda, > > As Chair of the GNSO Council, I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the NomCom. > You will recall that last year, the NomCom informed us that on on top of selecting the candidates themselves, the NomCom would now be selecting which NCA is seated where on the GNSO Council. > The Council wishes to confirm what your plans are in this regard as we are now in the final preparations for our upcoming Council leadership elections at the 2012 AGM. > Could you please let me know what recommendations or assignments you plan to make with regards to the GNSO Council NCAs this year, and when you plan to confirm these to the Council? > Thanks, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > European RrSG representative on the GNSO Council > GNSO Council Chair >

1 0

Bulk Transfer of Domain Names from Planet Online and Name For Name to NamesBeyond
by Glen de Saint Géry July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jul12-en.htm Bulk Transfer of Domain Names from Planet Online and Name For Name to NamesBeyond 27 July 2012 ICANN has authorized the bulk transfer of Planet Online Corp's gTLD domain names to 2030138 Ontario Inc. dba NamesBeyond.com ("NamesBeyond") due to a compliance action taken by ICANN that resulted in the de-accreditation of registrar Planet Online Corp. ICANN has also authorized the bulk transfer of Name For Name, Inc.'s .com and .net names (which represent all gTLDs currently sponsored by Name For Name) to NamesBeyond as the result of the termination of Name For Name's registry-registrar agreement with Verisign Inc. The affected gTLD registries are processing the bulk transfers. Former registrant-customers of Planet Online and Name For Name should soon receive notices from NamesBeyond of the transfer. Customer questions about the transfer should be directed to NamesBeyond, using the contact details provided below. Additional information about these bulk transfers is provided below. FAQs Q. Why were these transfers authorized by ICANN? A. Planet Online's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) was terminated by ICANN on 6 July 2012 because of Planet Online's failure to comply with the requirements of the RAA. (The notice of termination is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/burnette-to-zolfonoon-12jun12-e…<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/burnette-to-zolfonoon-12jun12-…> [PDF, 222 KB]) As a result, Planet Online is no longer permitted to register or manage gTLD registrations. Name For Name's Registry-Registrar Agreement (RRA) with Verisign to register .com and .net names was terminated by Verisign on 16 July 2012. Name For Name currently has only five gTLD registrations under management, all in com and net. ICANN has notified Name For Name that it is in breach of its RAA with ICANN, which will be terminated on 2 August 2012 if the breaches are not cured. (The notice of breach is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/burnette-to-taame-12jul12-en.pdf<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/burnette-to-taame-12jul12-en.p…> [PDF, 250 KB].) ICANN authorized these bulk transfers pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy to ensure that the registrant-customers of these registrars would not be harmed by their registrars' discontinued ability to manage the registrations. Q. How was the gaining registrar selected? A. ICANN followed its De-Accredited Registrar Transition Procedure (see http://www.icann.org/en/processes/registrars/de-accredited-registrar-transi…<https://www.icann.org/en/processes/registrars/de-accredited-registrar-trans…> [PDF, 119 KB]) to identify a gaining registrar for Planet Online. Through this competitive process, NamesBeyond was selected. Due to the small size of Name For Name (5 domain names) NamesBeyond was asked to also accept these names. Q. Will NamesBeyond attempt to contact the affected registrants? What should former Planet Online and Name For Name customers do? A. Former customers of both registrars should receive a notice of the transfer and instructions for continued management of their names from NamesBeyond. Affected customers who do not receive notices from NamesBeyond should check the web page prepared by NamesBeyond for this bulk transfer at http://www.namesbeyond.com/planetonlinebulktransfer for additional information and contact details. Q. Do registrants have to pay a fee for the bulk transfer? A. No, there is no cost to registrants for the bulk transfer. Unlike a normal inter-registrar transfer, the registration terms will not be extended by a year. Accordingly, it is important to contact NamesBeyond if your registration will expire soon in order to maintain your registration. Q. Why do former Planet Online and Name For Name customers need to contact NamesBeyond? A. Neither Planet Online nor Name For Name participated in the bulk transfers therefore did not forward billing information to NamesBeyond. Accordingly, all registrants must provide updated billing information or transfer their names to other registrars. Q. What if affected registrants want to select a different registrar? A. Registrants will continue to be able to transfer their registrations to other registrars under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (see http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/<https://www.icann.org/en/transfers/>). Note that NamesBeyond may deny transfers for the first 60 days following the bulk transfer, at its discretion. This 60-day period is permissible under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy and is intended to help protect registrants. The registrant may need to renew names that will expire during the first 60 days following the transfer to NamesBeyond by contacting NamesBeyond at: + 1 877 321 1356 (Toll Free) + 1 817 564 2994 + 1 215 750 2660 support(a)namesbeyond.com<mailto:support@namesbeyond.com> or info(a)namesbeyond.com<mailto:info@namesbeyond.com> Q. How will Planet Online and Name For Name customers know if a message purportedly from NamesBeyond is legitimate? A. The message from NamesBeyond should direct you to its website hosted at http://www.namesbeyond.com or refer you to other contact information provided above. If you believe a message purportedly from NamesBeyond is not legitimate, you should navigate to their web page directly, at http://www.namesbeyond.com/planetonlinebulktransfer. For general advice about avoiding phishing email messages, you may also wish to refer to the materials prepared by the Anti-Phishing Working Group (see http://www.antiphishing.org/consumer_recs.html) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: Informal GNSO Review discussion group/drafting team
by Glen de Saint Géry July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

Dear All, The action item arising from Item 9: GNSO Review on the GNSO Council agenda of 20 July 2012 calls for forming a small group to examine possible actions ahead of the 2013 ICANN bylaws-mandated review. Wolfgang Kleinwächter volunteered to lead the group along with the other volunteers, namely Stéphane van Gelder, Bill Drake, Zahid Jamil and Wendy Seltzer. Others interested in joining the group should indicate their willingness to participate on the Council mailing list. A mailing list has been created to facilitate the work of this group and the above mentioned people have been added to the mailing list. Mailing list address : gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt@icann.org> Public archives are available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-review-dt/ Please let me know if you have any questions and whether you would like to schedule a meeting. 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

3 2

ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching
by Bruce Tonkin July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29jul12-en.htm ____________________________________ ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching 29 July 2012 Opportunity for Community Input: Processing of New gTLD Applications At the Prague ICANN meeting, the new gTLD Program Committee decided to terminate Digital Archery, and instructed ICANN staff to proceed with the initial evaluation of applications as quickly as possible. This evaluation is in progress based on a tentative project plan that foresees the processing of applications in a single batch, and simultaneous release of results. ICANN believes this approach is consistent with the constraints that various parts of the community have in performing their respective roles in the evaluation process, and with the feedback received from the community at the Prague meeting. This comment opportunity seeks input on requirements for an evaluation and delegation process consistent with previous root zone scaling discussions of smooth delegations, adding no more than 1,000 new gTLDs per year. This outcome can be achieved by the: a. timing of the release of evaluation results to applicants, b. timing of the release of applications into the pre-delegation steps of contract execution and pre-delegation testing, c. metering of delegations of new gTLDs into the root zone. ICANN is committed to executing the evaluation and delegation process in a way that is equitable and meets ICANN's commitment to ensuring the security and stability of the DNS, consistent with previously established root zone scaling goals. Please write to newgtld-input(a)icann.org with your input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be considered. Background The concept of batching has been a part of the Applicant Guidebook since its first draft. Batching accomplishes three goals: 1. Better management of the evaluation process by placing an upper bound on the number of evaluators necessary and the number of parallel evaluations occurring at any one time. 2. Release of evaluation results to applicants according to a predictable schedule. 3. Delegation of TLDs at a rate acceptable to the technical community, consistent with the root zone scaling discussion. Based on the definitive information that ICANN now has about the pool of applications, and work on the evaluations to date, this comment process seeks input to meet requirements for goals #2 and #3. Leading up to and during ICANN's meeting in Prague, the applicant and community positions on requirements for batching schemes that would control the evaluation, communication and delegation of applications were reported to be: a. The batching solution has to be equitable. b. The evaluation results have to be announced at the same time. c. Successful applications should proceed to delegation phase without undue delays. d. Delegation to the root must be at a smooth rate and must not exceed 1,000 per year. e. The GAC is planning to issue early warnings shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting in October 2012. f. Consideration by the GAC of issues concerning GAC advice on contentious applications is not expected to be finalized before the Beijing meeting in April 2013. During the root scaling discussion, it was agreed that ICANN would not delegate TLDs at a rate greater than 1,000 per year. This is because the primary challenge with maintaining root zone stability is controlling the rate of change to the root zone system and not the size of the root zone itself, meaning delegation should not occur at a rate of 1,000 delegations on a single day. In Prague, the batching and prioritization method known as Digital Archery was terminated and eliminated from further consideration. Recent Developments Initial evaluation of new gTLD applications is underway. Applications are being distributed to evaluators in a way that enables efficient processing. ICANN has conducted pilot evaluations and had discussions with evaluators to accelerate the evaluation schedule. As a result of these discussions, the evaluation teams have committed to accelerate the evaluations substantially, while processing them in a single batch. In Prague, a methodology was discussed where the smooth delegation of applications could occur by first releasing applications that passed initial evaluation without the need for clarifying questions, then releasing applications in order of the number of clarifying questions required, from fewest to highest. After analysis, this methodology proved unworkable because 80% to 90% of the total evaluation time is required to form and ask clarifying questions, so little smoothing would result. The current plan indicates that initial evaluation of all applications, processed in a "single batch", can be completed in 11-12 months, possibly less – resulting in publication of results in June-July 2013. Note: It is planned that regular updates to applicants during the evaluation period will be provided. In addition to written reports, ICANN is looking into the use of a webinar / conference call format to deliver updates. For applicants, releasing results in a single batch would mean that the first delegations would occur in late third quarter of 2013, six months later than originally expected. Implications of GAC timing: The GAC plans to "issue any Early Warnings shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting, in October 2012," meaning that Early Warnings would be received within the currently planned single evaluation period. Also, the GAC "is considering the implications of providing any GAC advice on gTLD applications. These considerations are not expected to be finalized before the Beijing meeting in April 2013." This is shortly before the currently planned announcement of initial evaluation results (i.e., the schedule without additional accelerations beyond those stated above). Statement of the Issue While there will be some natural smoothing as applications take different paths through objections and contention resolution processes, there will still be a requirement for some method of metering applications into the delegation process. This is due to the relatively high number of applications that may reach pre-delegation steps at essentially the same time. A metering method has not yet been determined and will need to be developed. Questions to be answered by comments Submitted comments should specifically answer each of the following questions: 1. Should the metering or smoothing consider releasing evaluation results, and transitioning applications into the contract execution and pre-delegation testing phases, at different times? a. How can applications be allocated to particular release times in a fair and equitable way? b. Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation rate? c. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach. 2. Should the metering or smoothing be accomplished by downstream metering of application processing (i.e., in the contract execution, pre-delegation testing or delegation phases)? a. How can applications be allocated to a particular timing in contract execution, pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable way? b. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach. 3. Include a statement describing the level of importance that the order of evaluation and delegation has for your application. Please write to newgtld-input(a)icann.org with your input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be considered.

1 0

RE: [council] Council teleconference dates
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 27, 2012

July 27, 2012

Stephane, August is culturally problematic on a global scale. I think we should cancel it and meet in September. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council teleconference dates From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, July 20, 2012 12:50 pm To: <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Thanks Mary, It appears that the August date is a problem. We could also just decide not to have a meeting in August, as originally planned, and have just the one in September and then the AGM in October... Thoughts? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 20 juil. 2012 à 20:54, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> a écrit : Hi everyone, As we were out of time today I didn't want to bring this up at the end of the call, hence this email, which is about the proposed date of 27 August for the next Council call. It would appear that 4 out of 6 NCSG Councilors as well as Jonathan will not be able to make it, as far as I know.I don't know what that would do to quorum as well as representation, but thought that I ought to bring it up to the group for discussion/decision. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

3 2

Call for comments:Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings
by Glen de Saint Géry July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 25 July 2012 Comment Close: 15 August 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm> Reply Open: 16 August 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:udrp-locking@icann.org> Reply Close: 5 September 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/udrp-locking/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Categories/Tags: * Top Level Domains * Policy Processes * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group is looking for public input in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Current Status: The GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on this topic in December 2011. A Working Group has now been formed and is looking for public input to help inform its deliberations. Next Steps: The Working Group will review the public input received and consider it as part of its deliberations on the topic and charter questions. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose As noted in the Issue Report on the state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, there currently is no requirement to lock a domain name in the period between the filing of a complaint and the commencement of proceedings. In addition, it is unclear what is meant with 'status quo' as used in the UDRP (see http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy) As a result, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. The WG Charter recommends that the Working Group as a first step, request public input on this issue in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. This public comment forum is one of the mechanisms that the Working Group is using to obtain such input. The Working Group would welcome any information, comments and/or suggestions that are deemed helpful to get a better understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. In addition, input may be provided on the following charter questions that the WG is expected to address: * Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. [Note from the WG: only the UDRP Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock based on the request by the UDRP Provider] * Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. * Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. * Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. * Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. * Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. In order to obtain further information on the current practices of registrars and experiences of UDRP Providers, the WG conducted a survey and developed a summary of findings which interested parties may want to review as you prepare your comments (see https://community.icann.org/x/l6-bAQ) Section II: Background At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112> on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "locking a domain name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice." However, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the UDRP Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments is below: * "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings." * "Need clarification of domain locking." * "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo." * "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or when they should be removed." Section III: Document and Resource Links * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/3.+WG+Charter> * Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * The state of the UDRP Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] * Working Group Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Home> Section IV: Additional Information (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
by Glen de Saint Géry July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 25 July 2012 Comment Close: 15 August 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm> Reply Open: 16 August 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:uoc-prelim-issue-report@icann.org> Reply Close: 5 September 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/uoc-prelim-issue-report/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. The Preliminary Issue Report has now been published for public comment. Current Status: This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Staff Contact: Rob Hoggarth Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Uniformity%20of%20Contracts%20to%20Address%20Registration%20Abuse%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose This Preliminary Issue Report is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Contracts, as a required preliminary step before a Policy Development Process (PDP) may be initiated. The objective of a possible PDP would be 'to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse'. Earlier reports on this topic (see October 2008 Issues Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registra…> [PDF, 297 KB] and the RAPWG Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.73 MB]), describe the lack of uniformity of abuse provisions among the currently delegated gTLD registry agreements, as well as the absence of specific abuse provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Across the spectrum of existing registry agreements, there are elements of similarity but each contract (currently) is customized to the uniqueness of the respective registry's business model and operating conditions. In an attempt to develop a complete picture of the existing abuse provisions for this Issue Report, ICANN Staff reviewed 17 different gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements, and several other publicly available documents on registry websites that relate to contractual rights and obligations associated with abuse (e.g., Acceptable Use Policies and Terms of Agreement). In general, Staff discovered: 1. Existing Registry Agreements generally do not include specific provisions to address abuse 2. To the extent existing agreements address activities that might be defined as abuse, there is little in the way of common language across agreements to identify those activities 3. Where registries include specific provisions for dealing with various types of abuse, there is evidence that the provisions can be effective 4. Regardless of whether the agreements contain registration abuse provisions, registration abuse still exists in the domain name industry Staff has confirmed that a PDP regarding the potential development of uniform baseline Registration Abuse policies for use in ICANN contracts is within the scope of the ICANN Policy Process and the GNSO. Consequently, Staff recommends that the Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic. Should the PDP proceed, Staff suggests that the working group conduct further research, as follows: * Understand if registration abuses are occurring that could be addressed more effectively if consistent registration abuse policies were established; * Determine if and how (registration) abuse is dealt with in those registries (and registrars) that do not have in place any specific provisions or policies to address abuse; and * Identify how registration abuse provisions, where they exist, are implemented in practice and whether they are effective in addressing registration abuse. If the results of this research reveals that there is value in having uniform provisions to address registration abuse, the PDP WG should also consider a set of initial benchmarks for developing an initial baseline or framework of provisions to battle registration abuse, and define potential reporting requirements to track progress toward those goals. ICANN Staff is of the view that there may be benefits to establishing a consistent framework of registration abuse prevention that is applicable across gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited Registrars. ICANN Staff would welcome community input on the findings as well as conclusions of this Preliminary Issue Report. Section II: Background The request for an Issue Report on this topic follows the work of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG). The RAPWG was tasked by the GNSO Council with defining abuse, making a determination between registration abuse versus use abuse, defining the most common forms of abuse, and understanding the effectiveness of abuse provisions within agreements in order to identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. The RAPWG identified a total of 14 recommended actions that could address various forms of registration abuse. Some recommendations addressed WHOIS access issues, fake renewal notices, UDRP Review, malicious use of domain names and several others. The specific recommendation ultimately prompting this Issue Report stated: "Evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse." Section III: Document and Resource Links Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contacts to Address Registration Abuse<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/prelim-issue-report-uoc-…> [PDF, 683 KB] Section IV: Additional Information (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Call for Volunteers for Drafting Team to develop Charter for 'thick' Whois PDP WG Introduction At its meeting on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120314-1) Following a short delay, the GNSO Council decided at its last meeting that a group of volunteers should now be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on 'thick' Whois'. The elements of the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>: Working Group identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Volunteers If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>). You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest in order to participate. Background Information on the Issue For the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries, ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through the registry agreements (ICANN 2009 Registry Agreements) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries satisfy their Whois obligations using different services. The two common models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name. A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service. With thin registries, Registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA 3.3 for those domains they sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin registries. Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 noting that the Issue Report should 'not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not'. The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN Staff on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) and in this report a number of issues are outlined that will need further consideration should a PDP proceed. The staff recommendation notes that staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO and notes that it is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that further investigation of 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not. Recommended Reading for Volunteers * Final Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines (http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

4 7

RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO NCA selection process
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

Stephane, I agree with you that Vanda's response is counter to the previous discussion. John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: GNSO NCA selection process From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Mon, July 23, 2012 7:45 pm To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Councillors, Please see below the response from the NomCom Chair. The intent of the NomCom appears to be the selection of voting or non-voting NCAs, but not their assignments. This NomCom therefore intends to select a non-voting NCA as this is the only seat that is rotating this year. It will therefore be once again up to the Council, and both houses, to agree voting NCA assignments. I would point out that this runs contrary to my understanding of what the NomCom told us after last year's assignments and that I had expected them to assign all three NCAs every year from now on, regardless of whether they were just renewed or already serving. I am happy to chase this up with the NomCom chair if the Council had the same understanding as me and wishes me to. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : De : "Vanda UOL" <vanda(a)uol.com.br> Objet : GNSO NCA selection process Date : 23 juillet 2012 23:35:34 HAEC À : <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Dear Stephane The general understanding of the NomComm Committee 2012, and our selection process followed such understanding, was that this year the NomComm will selected, and we did so, a Non-voting member to seat at GNSO Council. Regarding the time, as soon as the internal ICANN´s process with the selected candidates will finish, the nominee to take seat at GNSO COUNCIL as a non – voting member will be announced. We expect to have the process finished at the end of August. The selected person have already been informed about the nomination and formally accepted the position. As we had last year, 2013 will select two voting members for the GNSO Council. It was the understanding of the committee last year that NOMCOMM would not choose which seat the selected candidates would take, only that they were voting seats. Hope these information are satisfactory for the Council and I remain at your disposition for any other additional information you need. Best regards Vanda Scartezini ICANN Nominating Committee Chair - 2012 Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Skype:vanda.scartezini De: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 20 de julho de 2012 12:23 Para: Vanda UOL Cc: GNSO Council List Assunto: GNSO NCA selection process Dear Vanda, As Chair of the GNSO Council, I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the NomCom. You will recall that last year, the NomCom informed us that on on top of selecting the candidates themselves, the NomCom would now be selecting which NCA is seated where on the GNSO Council. The Council wishes to confirm what your plans are in this regard as we are now in the final preparations for our upcoming Council leadership elections at the 2012 AGM. Could you please let me know what recommendations or assignments you plan to make with regards to the GNSO Council NCAs this year, and when you plan to confirm these to the Council? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder European RrSG representative on the GNSO Council GNSO Council Chair

1 0