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

RE: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

Thanks so much, will add this address to the mailing list. 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 From: Elisa Cooper [mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com] Sent: mardi 24 juillet 2012 17:36 To: Glen de Saint Géry; zahid(a)dndrc.com; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Susan Kawaguchi (susank(a)fb.com) Cc: Susan Kawaguchi Subject: RE: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team Forwarding to Susan at her correct address which is susank(a)fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com> Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389-5779 PH From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:Glen@icann.org]> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:32 AM To: zahid(a)dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; Elisa Cooper Subject: RE: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team Dear Zahid, This email address has bounced for Susan Kawaguchi skawaguchi(a)facebook.com<mailto:skawaguchi@facebook.com> Please advise. Thank you very much 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 From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com]<mailto:[mailto:zahid@dndrc.com]> Sent: mardi 24 juillet 2012 07:28 To: Glen de Saint Géry; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Subject: Re: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team Dear Glen, BC volunteers are Susan Kawaguchi and Elisa Cooper, copied on this mail. Many thanks. Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 213 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:06:24 -0700 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org%3ccouncil@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team 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

1 0

Fwd: GNSO NCA selection process
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

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 > >

2 1

Action Items from GNSO Council meeting 20 July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry July 23, 2012

July 23, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please find the actions items arising from the GNSO Council meeting on 20 July 2012. Item 3: Final Elections procedure Action Items : · The Council adopted the elections procedure http://gnso.icann.org/en/elections/gnso-council-chair-election-2012-20jul12… and each house is asked to submit its nominee for Council chair for the term beginning at the end of the 2012 ICANN annual meeting not later than 26 September 2012. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) as soon as possible after they have been selected by their house and not later than 22:00 UTC on 28 September 2012. · Stéphane van Gelder to contact the Nominating Committee chair for confirmation that the positions on the Council of the Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO Council will be designated by the Nominating Committee itself. Item 4: Thick Whois Policy Development Process PDP Action Item: Council agreed to launch the policy development process (PDP) A call for Volunteers for Drafting Team to develop Charter for 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG) will be announced. Please contact the GNSO Secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> if you would like to join the drafting team. Item 5: Whois Review Team Final Report Action Item: The GNSO Council should provide a written response to the ICANN Board by 31 August 2012 and an initial draft of the letter should be sent to the Council mailing list for further discussion before the letter is approved and sent to the Board. Brian Winterfeldt, as the lead assisted by Wendy Seltzer and Thomas Rickert, volunteered to draft the initial response which will be sent to the Council mailing list for comments. Item 7: Fake Renewal Notices Action Item : Mason Cole volunteered to confer with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and find out what solutions the Registrars can offer to deal with bad actors and return to the Council with proposals for options, or solutions, or next steps on this issue. Item 8: Internationalised Registration Data WG Final Report Action Item: · Send a letter from the GNSO chair to the ICANN Board requesting the implementation plan time-lines and clarifying that any policy implications in implementing the recommendations will have to be considered by the GNSO Council. Ching Chiao volunteered to draft the letter and send it to the Council mailing list for comments. · It was suggested that the draft letter be placed on the consent agenda for the next Council meeting. Item 9: GNSO Review Action Item: Form a small informal group to examine possible actions ahead of the 2013 ICANN bylaws-mandated review. Wolfgang Kleinwächter volunteered to lead the group along with Stéphane van Gelder, Bill Drake, Zahid Jamil and Wendy Seltzer. Others interested in joining the group should indicate their participation on the Council mailing list Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Policy Update -- July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry July 22, 2012

July 22, 2012

1 0

Council teleconference dates
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

2 1

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Friday, 20 July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Friday, 20 July, 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120720-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO NCA selection process
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

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

New Chair for the Consumer Metrics Working Group
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

All, As you likely know, Rosemary Sinclair has had to step down as chair of the Consumer Metrics WG. As the GNSO Council liaison, I wanted to let you know that Jonathan Zuck has volunteered to take over as Chair, with approval by the WG. For the record, the WG is nearing completion of its assignment. Our target schedule is as follows: July 24, 2012 - Review Public Comments July 31, 2012 - Review Public Comments / Construct next draft Advice Letter & Review August 7, 2012 - Review Final Advice Letter / Submit Final Advice Letter to GNSO Council Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388

1 0

Request for Proposals for DNS Risk Management Framework Consultant
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-16jul12-en.htm Request for Proposals for DNS Risk Management Framework Consultant 16 July 2012 ICANN is seeking expressions of interest<https://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/dns-risk-management-16jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 979 KB] for an expert consultant to assist with the development of a DNS Risk Management Framework. The consultant is expected to work with ICANN staff and existing security related efforts in ICANN while drawing upon relevant community expertise, and to deliver a report providing the Board DNS Risk Management Framework Working Group and ICANN community with informed recommendations for the implementation of a DNS Risk Management Framework. The deadline for responses is 31 August 2012, 23:59 UTC. Responses are requested for this solicitation by email to drmf-rfi(a)icann.org<mailto:drmf-rfi@icann.org>. Questions on the RFP may be submitted between 1-16 August 2012 23:59 UTC. The final deadline forsubmissions is 31 August 2012, 23:59 UTC. A confirmation email will be sent for each expression received. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Tell Us What You Think: Meeting Guide Survey
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-13jul12-en.htm Tell Us What You Think: Meeting Guide Survey 13 July 2012 ICANN staff publishes a printed meeting guide for each of its three annual public meetings. We are reviewing this practice and want your feedback. If you attended ICANN 44 in Prague, we ask that you please fill out this short survey on how useful you find the printed guide. Could the same information be provided in other ways, such as through a PDF on the meetings website? Would that be preferable? [cid:image001.png@01CD6666.EA550470] The survey contains seven questions, one broken into multiple parts so that we can evaluate your satisfaction with different components of the guide. Thank you for sharing your views with us. View the ICANN 44 Meeting Guide<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/meeting-guide-13jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 4.32 MB] Take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S8RJN7Z Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Period of 19 - 29 July 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-19jul12-en.htm Period of 19 - 29 July 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date 19 July 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates, 19-29 July 2012. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that 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 that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> Title Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time] Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time] Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04j…> 25 June 2012 [23:59] Extended to 26 July 2012 [23:59] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-…> 4 July 2012 [23:59] 25 July 2012 [23:59] ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Independent Expert Report<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/board-coi-review-report-05jun1…> 6 July 2012 [23:59] 28 July 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Public meeting in Prague
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Public Council meeting held on 27 June 2012. "If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting." on 30 July 2012. " Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Doc for Item 5 Whois Review Team Final Report
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please find attached a document for the update on the Whois Policy Review Team Report Recommendations, Item 5: Whois Review Team Final Report on the Council Meeting's agenda. It is too late for posting on the agenda, but will later be posted on the GNSO website under 'Library' then click on 'Presentations'. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slides for Agenda Item #6: Defensive Registrations Paper
by Glen de Saint Géry July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

Dear Councillors, Please find attached a few slides for the discussion on the Second Level Defensive Registrations Briefing Paper, Item #6 on the Council Meeting's agenda. They have come in too late for posting on the agenda, but will later be posted on the GNSO website under 'Library' then click on 'Presentations'. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Revised Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2012

July 19, 2012

Dear All, Please find the revised draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting, Friday, 20 July 2012 at 11:00 UTC Meeting Times 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u> http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u which is also posted on the Wiki at: (exceptionally the Council meeting is scheduled for a Friday instead of Thursday) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+20-07-2012 And on the website at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-20jul12-en.htm The main change is the order of the items and the addition of: Item 6: Next Steps for Defensive Registrations. (10 minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper {link to paper} to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss the next steps for this effort, in light of other related work (IGO Issue Report/Red Cross/IOC). 6.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next Steps Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012 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 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u> http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo. Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u 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 27 June 2012 will be approved on 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. No items on the consent agenda. Item 3: Final Elections procedure (10 minutes) At the Prague meeting, the proposed election procedure was shown to the Council. A refined version<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gnso-council-chair-election-13jul12-en.pdf> was sent to the list. This item is to discuss and approve this procedure, so that it can be started. 3.1 Presentation of procedure (Stéphane Van Gelder) http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gnso-council-chair-election-13jul12-en.pdf 3. 2 Discussion 3. 3 Call to approve procedure. Item 4: Thick Whois PDP (10 minutes) As the .com agreement has now been renewed (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2) the Council may not want to wait until November before a Drafting Team is formed to develop a charter for the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG). 4.1 Update from staff (Marika Konings) 4. 2 Discussion 4. 3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois Review Team Final Report (10 minutes) Considering the Board resolution on the Whois Review Team Final Report and the Board's call for input from the GNSO by August 31, 2012, how should the Council respond? 5.1 Update from staff (Margie Milam) 5. 2 Discussion 5. 3 Next steps. Item 6: Next Steps for Defensive Registrations. (10 minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper {link to paper} to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss the next steps for this effort, in light of other related work (IGO Issue Report/Red Cross/IOC). 6.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next Steps Item 7: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes) The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to help inform its deliberations on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). The drafting team submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 6 March 2012. 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 Drafting Team (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 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-updated-report-20jun1…) 7.1 Presentation of updated Fake Renewal Notices Report (Mikey O'Connor) http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/report-frn-update-redline-20jun12-e… 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: Internationalised Registration Data WG Final Report (10 minutes) During its June 27 Open Meeting, the GNSO Council approved a motion<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120627-1> to deliver the IRD Final Report to the ICANN Board and to "review the recommendations in the Report and shall provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications". This agenda item is to discuss next steps in light of this commitment, and to determine how the Council wishes to review and report on the IRD recommendations that may have policy implications. 8.1 Update from Staff (Julie Hedlund). 8.1 Discussion. 8.1 Next steps. Item 9: GNSO Review (10 minutes) At the wrap-up in Prague, there was discussion around forming a small group to examine possible actions ahead of the 2013 ICANN bylaws-mandated review. This is a discussion item to determine whether the Council wishes to move ahead in this way. 9.1 Report from the small group who offered to examine possible actions ahead. 9.2 Update from staff (Rob Hoggarth) 9.3 Discussion 9.4 Next steps. 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 Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revised dates for Council meetings leading up to the ICANN Toronto meetings
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2012

July 19, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reminder, if you cannot make the new dates, please let me know off the list, otherwise silence will be taken as approval. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen The following dates are being proposed for Council meetings in order to provide a balanced distribution of the work leading up to the Toronto meetings. 27 August, Monday at 15:00 UTC 20 September, Thursday at 20:00 UTC 17 October, Wednesday at 14:00 Local time (18:00 UTC) The above dates would replace the currently scheduled dates: 6 September GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC 4 October GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC 17 October GNSO Public meeting in Toronto 14:00 Local time (18:00 UTC) Please provide comments by 20 July 2012. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Revised dates for Council meetings leading up to the ICANN Toronto meetings
by Glen de Saint Géry July 19, 2012

July 19, 2012

Dear Councillors, The following dates are being proposed for Council meetings in order to provide a balanced distribution of the work leading up to the Toronto meetings. 27 August, Monday at 15:00 UTC 20 September, Thursday at 20:00 UTC 17 October, Wednesday at 14:00 Local time (18:00 UTC) The above dates would replace the currently scheduled dates: 6 September GNSO Council Teleconference 15:00 UTC 4 October GNSO Council Teleconference 20:00 UTC 17 October GNSO Public meeting in Toronto 14:00 Local time (18:00 UTC) Please provide comments by 20 July 2012. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

7 7

2012 election process
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012

All, As discussed in Prague, please find attached the final proposed election procedure. As we need to get this started soon, I have prepared an agenda item to allow us to discuss and approve this procedure at our next teleconference. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT

3 4

Fwd: ICANN Prague Meeting / Community Finance Working Session Note
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 17, 2012

July 17, 2012

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Objet : ICANN Prague Meeting / Community Finance Working Session Note > Date : 17 juillet 2012 03:06:04 HAEC > À : "lesley(a)nominet.org.uk" <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Heather <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, 'Stéphane Van Gelder' <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "jcurran(a)arin.net" <jcurran(a)arin.net>, 'Louie ' <louie(a)louie.net>, Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, "junsec(a)wide.ad.jp" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, dave sanxion <dknight-ica(a)sb.sanxion.org>, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>, "matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com" <matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com>, Charles Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Chris Chaplow <chris(a)andalucia.com>, "tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org" <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org>, 'Roelof Meijer' <roelof.meijer(a)sidn.nl>, 'Byron ' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "rbeca(a)imaginaccion.cl" <rbeca(a)imaginaccion.cl>, "bret(a)internet.pro" <bret(a)internet.pro> > Cc : Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange(a)icann.org>, Aba Diakite <aba.diakite(a)icann.org>, Carole Cornell <carole.cornell(a)icann.org>, "Maya S. Reynolds" <maya.reynolds(a)icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > > Dear Community Leaders: > > Thank you for your support and participation in the Budget Process work session that took place on Wednesday 27 June in Prague. > It was a very successful first step in our continuing efforts to improve the Budget process for both community and staff. > > For those who could not attend or send a representative, please see the attached notes on the work intended between now and October and let us know if you would like to participate in any way on either topic so that we may include you in the follow up invites. > > Sincerely, > Xavier > > Xavier Calvez > ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > CFO > Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 > Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 > E-fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >

1 0

Revised Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry July 16, 2012

July 16, 2012

Dear All, Please find the revised draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting, Friday, 20 July 2012 at 11:00 UTC which is also posted on the Wiki at: (exceptionally the Council meeting is scheduled for a Friday instead of Thursday) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+20-07-2012 And on the website at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-20jul12-en.htm The main change is the order of the items and the addition of: Item 6: Next Steps for Defensive Registrations. (10 minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper {link to paper} to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss the next steps for this effort, in light of other related work (IGO Issue Report/Red Cross/IOC). 6.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next Steps Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012 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 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u> http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo. Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u 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 27 June 2012 will be approved on 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. No items on the consent agenda. Item 3: Final Elections procedure (10 minutes) At the Prague meeting, the proposed election procedure was shown to the Council. A refined version<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gnso-council-chair-election-13jul12-en.pdf> was sent to the list. This item is to discuss and approve this procedure, so that it can be started. 3.1 Presentation of procedure (Stéphane Van Gelder) http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gnso-council-chair-election-13jul12-en.pdf 3. 2 Discussion 3. 3 Call to approve procedure. Item 4: Thick Whois PDP (10 minutes) As the .com agreement has now been renewed (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2) the Council may not want to wait until November before a Drafting Team is formed to develop a charter for the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG). 4.1 Update from staff (Marika Konings) 4. 2 Discussion 4. 3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois Review Team Final Report (10 minutes) Considering the Board resolution on the Whois Review Team Final Report and the Board's call for input from the GNSO by August 31, 2012, how should the Council respond? 5.1 Update from staff (Margie Milam) 5. 2 Discussion 5. 3 Next steps. Item 6: Next Steps for Defensive Registrations. (10 minutes) Staff has delivered a briefing paper {link to paper} to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level in response from a request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2). The New GTLD Committee requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. The Council to discuss the next steps for this effort, in light of other related work (IGO Issue Report/Red Cross/IOC). 6.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next Steps Item 7: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes) The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to help inform its deliberations on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). The drafting team submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 6 March 2012. 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 Drafting Team (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 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-updated-report-20jun1…) 7.1 Presentation of updated Fake Renewal Notices Report (Mikey O'Connor) http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/report-frn-update-redline-20jun12-e… 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: Internationalised Registration Data WG Final Report (10 minutes) During its June 27 Open Meeting, the GNSO Council approved a motion<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120627-1> to deliver the IRD Final Report to the ICANN Board and to "review the recommendations in the Report and shall provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications". This agenda item is to discuss next steps in light of this commitment, and to determine how the Council wishes to review and report on the IRD recommendations that may have policy implications. 8.1 Update from Staff (Julie Hedlund). 8.1 Discussion. 8.1 Next steps. Item 9: GNSO Review (10 minutes) At the wrap-up in Prague, there was discussion around forming a small group to examine possible actions ahead of the 2013 ICANN bylaws-mandated review. This is a discussion item to determine whether the Council wishes to move ahead in this way. 9.1 Report from the small group who offered to examine possible actions ahead. 9.2 Update from staff (Rob Hoggarth) 9.3 Discussion 9.4 Next steps. 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 Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Period of 12 - 22 July 2012: Public Comment Periods Recently Opened and Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry July 16, 2012

July 16, 2012

Period of 12 - 22 July 2012: Public Comment Periods Recently Opened and Approaching Closing Date 13 July 2012 The Following Public Comment periods have Recently Opened or are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates, 12 - 22 July 2012. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that 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 that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> Title Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time] Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey - Draft<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-surve…> 20 June 2012 [23:59] 16 July 2012 [23:59] Public Comment Solicitation for FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/travel-support-2013-01jun12-en…> 22 June 2012 [23:59] 13 July 2012 [23:59] Interisle Consulting Group's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-survey-04jun12-en.htm> 25 June 2012 [23:59] 16 July 2012 [23:59] Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04j…> 25 June 2012 [23:59] 16 July 2012 [23:59] Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssr-rt-final-report-21jun12-en…> 30 July 2012 [23:59] 29 August 2012 [23:59] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-operating-procedures-2012…> 30 July 2012 [23:59] 20 August 2012 [23:59] .name Registry Agreement Renewal<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-renewal-2012-03jul12-en.h…> 2 August 2012 [23:59] 23 August 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012

Dear All, Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012 at 11:00 UTC which is also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+20-07-2012 And on the website at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-20jul12-en.htm Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 20 July 2012 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 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u> http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo. Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u 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 27 June 2012 will be approved on 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. No items on the consent agenda. Item 3: Final Elections procedure (10 minutes) At the Prague meeting, the proposed election procedure was shown to the Council. A refined version<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gnso-council-chair-election-13jul12-en.pdf> was sent to the list. This item is to discuss and approve this procedure, so that it can be started. 3.1 Presentation of procedure (Stéphane Van Gelder) http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gnso-council-chair-election-13jul12-en.pdf 3. 2 Discussion 3. 3 Call to approve procedure. Item 4: Thick Whois PDP (10 minutes) As the .com agreement has now been renewed (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2) the Council may not want to wait until November before a Drafting Team is formed to develop a charter for the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG). 4.1 Update from staff (X Y) 4. 2 Discussion 4. 3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois RT Final Report (10 minutes) Considering the Board resolution on the Whois Review Team Final Report and the Board's call for input from the GNSO by August 31, 2012, how should the Council respond? 5.1 Update from staff (X Y) 5. 2 Discussion 5. 3 Next steps. Item 6: GNSO Review (10 minutes) At the wrap-up in Prague, there was discussion around forming a small group to examine possible actions ahead of the 2013 ICANN bylaws-mandated review. This is a discussion item to determine whether the Council wishes to move ahead in this way. 6.1 Update from staff (X Y) 6. 2 Discussion 6. 3 Next steps. Item 7: 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 program comes online and the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups are affected by this. 7.1 Discussion Item 8: 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. 8.1 Discussion Item 9: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes) The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to help inform its deliberations on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). The drafting team submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 6 March 2012. 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 Drafting Team (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 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-updated-report-20jun1…) 9.1 Presentation of updated Fake Renewal Notices Report (Mikey O'Connor) 9. 2 Discussion 9. 3 Next steps Item 10: Internationalised Registration Data WG Final Report (10 minutes) During its June 27 Open Meeting, the GNSO Council approved a motion<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120627-1> to deliver the IRD Final Report to the ICANN Board and to "review the recommendations in the Report and shall provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications". This agenda item is to discuss next steps in light of this commitment, and to determine how the Council wishes to review and report on the IRD recommendations that may have policy implications. 10.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam). 10.1 Discussion. 10.1 Next steps. Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes) 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 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 12:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 20:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and http://tinyurl.com/ccz4c9u Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review
by Neuman, Jeff July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012

I strongly believe it is way to early for a review. Let's reserve this subject for a discussion on the next Council call before setting up the group. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 12:41 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: Wendy Seltzer; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review Is there support from others for the creation of a group? I would think that the group would need to be formalised as a DT, with a charter. Although you may wish to bring the review forward Wendy, others clearly feel we should be doing exactly the opposite. With such strong divergence of views, we must ensure that the mechanism we use to discuss this issue is unambiguous and accountable. Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone4 Le 6 juil. 2012 à 16:26, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com> a écrit : > I am happy to join Wendy as apart of the small group as well. > > Best, > > Brian > > Brian J. Winterfeldt > Partner > bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com > Steptoe > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:34 AM > To: Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review > > > On 07/01/2012 07:00 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> GNSO Review >> We have discussed two possible alternatives: drafting a request to the SIC to delay the review and creating a small group to look at this issue. What do we want to do? > > I volunteer to be part of a small group discussing the review. I favor > *advancing* rather than delaying the review, as well as helping the SIC to frame it to address the challenges and barriers to consensus-building that stem from our current siloed structure. > > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ > > >

4 7

Re: [soac-discussion] [ALAC] Fwd: ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 12, 2012

July 12, 2012

An Excellent initiative, thanks for sending this Olivier. I am copying the GNSO Council for any input they might wish to provide. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 12 juil. 2012 à 09:48, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > Dear Colleagues, > > please be so kind to find my message to our at-Large lists attached below. > As a part of ICANN which has an extensive local footprint, we are asking our members to think globally but act locally. I know that several of your communities also have a wide footprint. > How can we collaborate together to make our local action more effective? > How can we work together to defend the multi-stakeholder model that we all support? > > Warmest regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: [ALAC] Fwd: ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents > Date : Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:37:34 +0200 > De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Pour : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Copie à : ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > Dear all, > > I know that several of you are following the World Congress on > Information Technology (WCIT) issues closely -- and you are right to do > so since the outcome of the WCIT discussions will directly affect our > communities. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) member > states will meet in Dubai in December 2012 to update the International > Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), last updated in the late eighties. > The big difference with the eighties is that it is proposed that the > regulations would include the Internet. > > The ALAC has a WIKI page of relevant links for all of you to learn about > the WCIT issues. There are links to further information under several > sub-headings: > > - Internet Governance > - Domain Name > - IPv6 > - Other > > Please be so kind to inform staff if you know of a good resource to list > on that WIKI page. Also, if anyone knows of a good short, easy to > understand introduction to the subject of ITU, WCIT & ITRs, please be so > kind to suggest it for inclusion on that page. It is really important > that we have resources to help our local Internet users understand what > is about to happen and why we all need to be concerned about this. > > The message attached below, forwarded from ISOC, points to at least a > partial opening of the ITU's document database and I hereby ask staff to > add the link to the WIKI. > > The Internet Society has asked its chapters around the world to find out > way to liaise with government officials in their own country and thus > bring the input of individual internet users to the discussion. I > believe that the At-Large community, which has a wide footprint by also > having a local presence in so many countries around the world, has an > important part to play in informing their governments that we actually > take part in ICANN's multi-stakeholder policy making model and that we > support the current multi-stakeholder Internet Ecosystem as being one > which promotes innovation and development better than any other top-down > system. > > You will find a list of the government officials of ITU member states > listed here: > http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=ITUstates&_langu… > > Please be so kind to find out who your government officials and local > organisation observers are and discuss locally within your organization > what you could do at local level to engage a dialogue with your local > officials and ministers for them to make sure they are aware of the > issues and not make the mistake of supporting recommendations that will > cripple their local economy by crippling the Internet's potential for > innovation. > > Also -- please email suggestions as to what we, the At-Large Community > of ICANN, could do to continue promoting the multi-stakeholder model > that we are engaged in. > > Warmest regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: [Itu2012chapters] ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to > ITR Documents > Date : Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:29:17 -0400 > De : Sally Wentworth <wentworth(a)isoc.org> > Pour : itu2012chapters(a)elists.isoc.org > > > > Hello, > > > Today, the ITU Council took up the issue of transparency of ITU WCIT > documents and Member State proposals. Karen Mulberry has, again, > offered a summary of the discussion and the decision below. In > short, the Council?s final decision is to post only CWG-WCIT TD-64 (the > draft ITRs) for public access on the WCIT-12 website > (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12) and that the ITU will have a publicly > available space on this site for all stakeholders to post opinions and > comments. There will be no consultation process as was originally > proposed by the SecGen and no other WCIT documents will be made publicly > available. The responsibility is really now with the Member States to > have an open and participatory national process to allow for a full and > transparent discussion about the WCIT. > > *============================* > > *ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents* > > 11 July 2012 the ITU Council discussed a process regarding open and > unrestricted access to WCIT and ITR proposals and documents. > > The Sec Gen presented a plan to make the CWG-WCIT document TD-64 openly > accessible to the public to address the public request for access, > openness and transparency. The SecGen also proposed that any CWG-WCIT > proposals that are made openly accessible should be posted without any > reference to their source contributor. There was also a proposal by > Japan to make CWG-WCIT TD-62 (the compilation of proposals) openly > accessible as this would assist in national consultations. However, > there were other countries that wanted all ITR proposals to be withheld > from the public and not accessible without a TIES password. In > addition, it was noted that changes to the procedures to enable the > publication of proposals to ITU conferences will need ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference consideration in 2014 before any open process > can be adopted. In the meantime, it is up to Member States to conduct > open consultations to prepare for WCIT where the Member State can freely > share its proposals and information. > > Secretary General Toure also presented a proposal for a public online > consultation to be moderated by his office where all stakeholders would > have the opportunity to submit proposals and comments on the ITRs. The > Secretary General thought that this would allow the ITU to strengthen > its credibility and reputation as well as the credibility of the WCIT > process, which have both been victim to a series of inaccurate media > reports. The SecGen also noted that proceeding with an open > consultation will continue to foster an image of the ITU as an open, > transparent and listening organization; and will provide a transparent > platform for all stakeholders to engage, participate and air their > views. Submissions to the ?Public Consultation? would be posted on the > WCIT-12 web site and MAY be considered by Member States when preparing > their proposals for the ITRs. > > After much discussion, the Council?s final decision is to post only > CWG-WCIT TD-64 (the draft ITRs) for public access on the WCIT-12 website > (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12) and that the ITU will have a publicly > available space on this site for all stakeholders to post opinions and > comments. There will be no consultation process as was originally > proposed by the SecGen and no other WCIT documents will be made publicly > available. > > > > > > Sally Wentworth > Internet Society > +1 703 439 2146 > wentworth(a)isoc.org <mailto:wentworth@isoc.org> > www.isoc.org > > > > > > > > > <Portion de message joint.txt><Portion de message joint.txt>

1 0

ICANN Announcements This Week
by Glen de Saint Géry July 9, 2012

July 9, 2012

Announcements This Week Extension to Reply Comment Period: Draft Statement of ICANN's Role and Remit in SSR<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05jul12-en.htm> Based on community feedback received during the ICANN meeting in Prague, CZ from 23-28 June, ICANN is extending the reply comment period on the Draft Statement of ICANN's role and remit in the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifier systems<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17may12-en.htm>. 5 July 2012 New gTLD Program: Technical Resources for Trademark Clearinghouse Available to Prospective New gTLD Registry Operators<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-03jul12-en.htm> In response to community request, ICANN is establishing an open mailing list to further refine and complete the technical specification of the interface between the new gTLD Registries and the Trademark Clearinghouse. 3 July 2012 .name Registry Agreement Renewal<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03jul12-en.htm> ICANN is posting today for public comment Verisign's proposed agreement for renewal of the 2007 .name Registry Agreement. 3 July 2012 ICANN Awarded Contract to Continue to Perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions<http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-02jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 199 KB] Washington, D.C... ICANN will continue to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions following the awarding of a new contract by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 2 July 2012 IANA 2012 Customer Survey Results Summary<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02jul12-en.htm> In April and May 2012 ICANN invited users of the root zone management; protocol parameters management; and Internet Number Resources management services to participate in a customer satisfaction survey. 2 July 2012 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures
by Glen de Saint Géry July 9, 2012

July 9, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jul12-en.htm Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 9 July 2012 Comment Close: 30 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jul12-en.htm> Reply Open: 31 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:gnso-operating-procedures-2012@icann.org> Reply Close: 20 August 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2012/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) has recommended adding a new section to the GNSO Operating Procedures outlining a procedure for a consent agenda as well as updating the GNSO Council Voting Results Table to bring it in line with the GNSO voting thresholds in the ICANN Bylaws which were recently updated as a result of the recent approval of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Current Status: As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes. Next Steps: Following the closing of the public comment forum, the SCI will review the comments received; revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate, and; submit these to the GNSO Council for its approval. Staff Contact: Marika Konings, Sr. Policy Director Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Modifications%20to%20GNSO%20Operating%20Procedures%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The GNSO Council requested the SCI on 20 February 2012 to develop a proposed process for a consent agenda. The SCI has reached consensus on the proposed procedure for a consent agenda and the proposed language to be incorporated in the GNSO Operating Procedures. The main elements of the proposed procedure for a consent agenda are: * When preparing the meeting agenda, the Council Chair in consultation with the Council Vice-Chairs determines whether an item belongs on the consent agenda; * Items that are not eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda are those items that are not subject to a simple majority vote and items subject to absentee voting; * If any Council member requests that an item be removed from the consent agenda, it must be removed; * If an item is removed from the consent agenda, it is added to the meeting agenda for that meeting; * When there are no more items to be removed, the Chair reads out the number of the remaining consent items. Then the Chair calls for a vote. The proposed provision to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures can be found here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/consent-agenda-09jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 40 KB]. In addition, the proposed provision can be reviewed as part of the proposed revised GNSO Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…> [PDF, 670 KB] in section 4.9. In addition, the GNSO Council Voting Results Table (Appendix 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures) required updating, following the approval of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and the subsequent modification of the ICANN Bylaws, to include the new and modified voting thresholds linked to the revised GNSO PDP such as approval of a PDP Team Charter, termination of a PDP and modification/amendment of an approved PDP recommendation. The revised GNSO Voting Results Table can be found here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/appendix-1-gnso-council-voting-results-red…> [PDF, 188 KB]. In addition, the proposed modifications can be reviewed as part of the proposed revised GNSO Operating Procedures in Appendix 1<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…> [PDF, 670 KB]. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Section II: Background The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 to be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council. For further information about the SCI and its activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home. Section III: Document and Resource Links Proposed Consent Agenda Procedure<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/consent-agenda-09jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 40 KB] Revised GNSO Voting Results Table<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/appendix-1-gnso-council-voting-results-red…> [PDF, 188 KB] Revised GNSO Operating Procedures (version 2.5)<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…> [PDF, 670 KB] ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> Section IV: Additional Information N/A (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Action items from Prague
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012

All, As a reminder, our next scheduled teleconference is on July 20th. In the meantime, there are several action items from Prague that I'd like us to stay mindful of. I have written down the following from our Prague week: Thick WHOIS PDP Now that the .COM contract has been renewed, do we want to speed up the formation of a DT to draft a charter for the thick Whois PDP WG? WHOIS RT Final Report The Board has request input on this from the SOs and ACs by August 30th ( http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#5 ). How do we want to proceed? GNSO Review We have discussed two possible alternatives: drafting a request to the SIC to delay the review and creating a small group to look at this issue. What do we want to do? Wrap-up and brain storming discussion Do we want to start the ICANN meeting week with a similar, open ended discussion, as the one we have during the wrap-up on Thursday? Welcome letter to incoming CEO It was suggested during the wrap-up that I write to Fadi to welcome him on behalf of the Council. Please see below for a proposed note I have drafted. Please voice any opposition to me sending this draft by COB Wednesday July 4. Dear Fadi, On behalf of the GNSO Council, I would like to welcome you to ICANN. Individual members of the GNSO and of the GNSO Council have said that they greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet with you informally in Prague. The GNSO Council as a whole looks forward to working with Akram Atallah as interim CEO over the next few months and with you as incoming CEO starting in October. The GNSO Council fully appreciated how difficult the task of running an organization of ICANN's complexity is. It is precisely what makes ICANN's model great - the diversity of stakeholders and interests that are all given an equal voice within that model - that also makes it so challenging. The GNSO Council remains fully committed to ICANN's bottom-up, multistakeholder model and is delighted to be able to work with you on strengthening it during your tenure as ICANN CEO. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair Lastly, I would draw your attention to the GAC Prague communiqué which Bruce sent to the Council list yesterday and which contains several pieces of advice to the Board that are either of relevance to work that the GNSO has been involved in, or topics that are also of interest to us. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT

6 13

SCI update and motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012

Dear Councilors, As discussed during the SCI update to the GNSO Council in Prague, the SCI has now approved the proposed procedure for a consent agenda as well as an updated version of the voting matrix which incorporates the new voting thresholds resulting from the recently approved revised GNSO PDP. Both these documents are intended to modify the GNSO Operating Procedures. The SCI hereby submits these documents for your consideration, approval and sending out for public comment period of 21 days. A respective motion is attached if needed. As also discussed during the Prague meeting, the SCI would like to obtain clarification from the GNSO Council on how to handle public input on these proposed changes in future. ICANN Staff has indicated that according to the ICANN Bylaws at a minimum a public comment period of 21 days should be conducted on any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. From the SCI's perspective, there are two possible options the GNSO Council may want to consider: 1. The SCI puts out the proposed changes out for public comment, following which the SCI reviews the public comments received and updates the proposed changes, if deemed appropriate. The updated proposed changes, in addition to the report of public comments received are then submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration. 2. The SCI submits the proposed changes to the GNSO Council, following which the GNSO Council opens a public comment forum on the proposed changes. Once the public comment forum closes, the GNSO Council decides how to address any comments received, which may include referring the comments back to the SCI for consideration and possible updates to the proposed changes. >From the SCI's perspective, its members are happy to follow either procedure (or alternative the GNSO Council may want to propose), so that it is clear what the required steps are for any future proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures the SCI may propose. With best regards, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

3 4

SSAC Letter to Board on New gTLD Process
by Bruce Tonkin July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012

Hello All, SSAC has written to the Board with some comments on new gTLDs: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/faltstrom-to-icann-board-02jul1… I have attached a copy of the letter. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council Letter to ICANN CEOs
by Stéphane Van Gelder July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012

Dear Akram, On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached a letter to Fadi and yourself. As Fadi does not yet have an ICANN email address that I know of, could you please be kind enough to pass the letter on to him? Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT

2 1

FW: GNSO Proxy form
by Glen de Saint Géry July 4, 2012

July 4, 2012

FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: tony holmes [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: mercredi 4 juillet 2012 14:14 To: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: knobenw(a)telekom.de; Novoa, Osvaldo Subject: GNSO Proxy form Dear Glen The following GNSO proxy request is formally submitted on behalf of the ISPCP as Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will be unable to participate in the next GNSO call. Best Regards Tony ------------------------------- Name of Officer: * Tony Holmes Officer Email Address: * tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date Prepared: * 4th July 2012 GNSO Organization: * Internet Services Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency Officer Position or Title: * ISPCP Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will be unable to attend the 20 July 2012 GNSO Council meeting. Osvaldo Novoa will serve as Wolf-Ulrich's proxy for the meeting. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * all Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: Saturday, July 21, 2012 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Osvaldo Novoa

1 0

Document and motion Deadline 12uly for GNSO Council meeting 20 July at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry July 4, 2012

July 4, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e. THURSDAY, 12 JULY 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 July 2012 at 11:00 UTC. Please note that this meeting is exceptionally on Friday and not the usual Thursday. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+July+2012 Thank you very much. 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

Commerce Department Awards Contract for Management of Key Internet Functions to ICANN
by Bruce Tonkin July 2, 2012

July 2, 2012

From: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contr… Commerce Department Awards Contract for Management of Key Internet Functions to ICANN July 02, 2012 WASHINGTON - The U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced today that it has awarded the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IANA functions are key technical services critical to the continued operations of the Internet's underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS). Last year, in anticipation of the contract's expiration, NTIA consulted with Internet stakeholders, both domestic and international, on how best to enhance the performance of these services. Based on input from the global community, NTIA added new requirements. Those include a clear separation between the policy development associated with the IANA services, and implementation by the IANA functions contractor; a robust company-wide conflict of interest policy; a heightened respect for local national law; and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability. The process used over the last year, and the resulting new contract requirements, are tailored to ensure respect for the relevant global multi-stakeholder policy processes. This is consistent with NTIA's belief that the multi-stakeholder model is the most effective way to address Internet issues, and further internationalizes the IANA functions. The IANA Functions include: (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters; (2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management; (3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs). The current IANA contract expires on September 30, 2012. The period of performance for the contract announced today is October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2015, with two separate two-year option periods for a total contract period of seven years.

1 0