July 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

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