August 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

7 Aug letter from US Senate Judiciary Committee
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

Perhaps of interest. http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/leahy-et-al-to-atallah-07a ug12-en.pdf

3 2

Correspondence from GNSO Chair to ICANN Board Chair on Whois Review Team Final Report posted on website
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

Dear Councillors, The letter from the GNSO Council Chair to Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board, ICANN and Akram Attalah, Interim CEO,ICANN on the Whois Review Team Final Report has been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence and can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/van-gelder-to-crocker-atallah-30aug… and the response from Steve Crocker to Stéphane can be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-van-gelder-30aug12-en.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Tell Us What You Think: ICANN.ORG Web Site Redesign Survey
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-29aug12-en.htm Tell Us What You Think: ICANN.ORG Web Site Redesign Survey * 简体中文<http://www.icann.org/zh/news/announcements/announcement-2-29aug12-zh.htm> * Français<http://www.icann.org/fr/news/announcements/announcement-2-29aug12-fr.htm> * Español<http://www.icann.org/es/news/announcements/announcement-2-29aug12-es.htm> * Русский<http://www.icann.org/ru/news/announcements/announcement-2-29aug12-ru.htm> * العربية<http://www.icann.org/ar/news/announcements/announcement-2-29aug12-ar.htm> 29 August 2012 The redesign of ICANN.ORG<http://www.icann.org/> was launched on 27 February 2012. As we pass the six-month mark, we'd like to get your feedback. Is the redesigned site easier to use? Do you find the new features useful? Did we effectively streamline site navigation? The new information architecture was designed to organize the resources that ICANN.ORG offers in a more logical arrangement. More than 38,000 pages and files were carefully examined and migrated into new locations following extensive consultation with the ICANN community, including: 1. Nearly 300 responses to the site survey conducted by The Revere Group 2. More than two dozen in-depth interviews with SO and AC members 3. A series of live briefings (with Q&A) across two ICANN public meetings 4. At least three briefings on process and progress to Board Directors (via the Public Participation Committee) 5. Two public webinars requesting input and concerns So now, you tell us! Were we successful? What do you like and dislike? Please take a few minutes to respond to this survey<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NK9QNTS> and let us know your thoughts. We'll publish the results and review as we continuously improve the site. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NK9QNTS Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Period of 30 August - 09 September 2012: Public Comment Periods Recently Opened and Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-30aug12-en.htm Period of 30 August - 09 September 2012: Public Comment Periods Recently Opened and Approaching Closing Date 30 August 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are Recently Opened or are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates between 30 August - 09 September 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 Title Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time] Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time] Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-recommendations-idn-cctld…> 18 October 2012 [23:59] 9 November 2012 [23:59] DRAFT Statement of ICANN's Role and Remit in Security, Stability and Resiliency of the Internet's Unique Identifier Systems<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-ssr-role-remit-17may12-en…> 16 June 2012 [23:59] Extended to 31 August 2012 [23:59] Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/udrp-locking-25jul12-en.htm> Extended to 3 September 2012 [23:59] Extended to 24 September 2012 [23:59] Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/uoc-prelim-issue-report-25jul12…> 15 August 2012 [23:59] 5 September 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Thick WHOIS / GNSO Policy Comment
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

Fellow Councillors, You may find this comment and reference to recently published board minutes of interest. Best wishes, Jonathan http://domainincite.com/10300-why-com-still-doesnt-have-a-thick-whois

1 0

GNSO schedule Toronto
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

All, Please find attached the draft agenda for the GNSO weekend in Toronto which I'm happy to present at the next council call on Sep 13. Any comments, additional requests in advance are welcome Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

ICANN 2012 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30aug12-en.htm ICANN 2012 Nominating Committee Announces Selections 30 August 2012 The 2012 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections for seven leadership positions within ICANN. The NomCom Chair, Vanda Scartezini, said; "It was a very interesting experience, especially the opportunity to work with very qualified people and a staff that is always focused on making things work. I thank them for their hard work. Due to the number of qualified candidates, we had more face to face interviews than last year, demanding a full four days of work interviewing each short-listed candidate before our retreat to make a final decision. Even with the additional interviews we ended our selection task timely and I am quite happy that the 2012 NomCom has selected the best candidates for all positions in ICANN. Thank you to all the candidates for your interest in volunteering to work with ICANN and I hope you will continue to participate in this process." The NomCom is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN's leadership. The NomCom is mandated to ensure that overall, ICANN's leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. The basic criteria is that selectees are people of integrity, objectivity and sound judgment, can support decision-making within groups, can work effectively in English, have an understanding of ICANN's mission and operation, are committed to its success, experienced in world affairs, contribute to cultural, professional and geographic expertise, and can work long and hard as volunteers in the global public trust. The NomCom evaluated 73 candidates, many of whom with exceptional qualifications in relation to the key criteria as set out in the ICANN Bylaws. With such a rich pool of candidates and very few seats to fill, the NomCom was unable to appoint all the applicants the Committee members would have desired to see on the Board and on the other ICANN bodies. Selectees listed for each ICANN body, in alphabetical order by family name. ICANN Board of Directors Olga Madruga-Forti<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#olga-madruga-forti>, Latin America/Caribbean Gonzalo Navarro<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#gonzalo-navarro>, Latin America/Caribbean George Sadowsky<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#george-sadowsky>, North America ALAC Alan Greenberg<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#alan-greenberg>, North America Jean-Jacques Subrenat<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#jean-jacques-subr…>, Europe GNSO Council Jennifer Wolfe<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#jennifer-wolfe>, North America ccNSO Council Mary Wong<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-30aug12-en.htm#mary-wong>, Asia/Pacific/Australia These individuals will take up their positions after the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting in Toronto, Canada. As noted above, this year's NomCom received 73 Statements of Interest from candidates all over the world (14 female and 59 male), during its open nomination period from 23 December 2011 to 16 April 2012. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates is: * 7 from Africa * 15 from Asia/Australia/Pacific * 12 from Europe * 24 from Latin America/Caribbean * 15 from North America For more information about the NomCom, please visit: http://nomcom.icann.org/ 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 Review Team Final Report
by Winterfeldt, Brian Aug. 30, 2012

Aug. 30, 2012

Dear all: I hereby forward to the full Council the latest draft letter to the ICANN Board regarding the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, wherein we attempt to flag potential ambiguous recommendations and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. Achieving full consensus of the Council may prove difficult given the divergence of viewpoints expressed in our small group, which we hope to have accurately encapsulated in our draft below. The proposed text below was supported by myself and Wolf-Ulrich, and we have also included comments from Jeff and Wendy in red font within brackets. I would like to thank Jeff, Wendy, Wolf-Ulrich and Thomas for their input and assistance in this matter, and I look forward to working with everyone toward finalizing a letter for submission to the ICANN Board by the August 31, 2012 deadline. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. _________________________________________________________ TO: ICANN Board FROM: Chair of the GNSO Council VIA: GNSO Liaison to the ICANN Board I hereby forward to you the written public input of the GNSO Council on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report pursuant to your resolution (2012.06.23.26) from the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, requesting that the GNSO provide such input by 31 August 2012. As you are aware, the WHOIS Review Team’s scope, guided by the Affirmation of Commitments, was to review the extent to which ICANN’s WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective, meet legitimate needs of law enforcement and promote consumer trust. To this end, the Final Report, which issued on 11 May 2012, contained sixteen recommendations. During its meeting on 20 July 2012, the GNSO Council considered the substance of the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, as well as how to respond to the Board’s request. The GNSO Council recognizes, given the hard work and public input already incorporated into the Final Report, that there is a reasonable expectation by the Review Team for its recommendations be implemented as soon as practicable. [[The NCSG disagrees. Please cut this sentence. The Review Team can make recommendations but it can’t expect implementation simply by dint of its hard work. The NCSG has previously stated that any implementation requires GNSO policy development. “The NCSG believes all recommendations require GNSO Policy Development.”]] However, the GNSO Council also recognizes that a small number of the Review Team’s recommendations may require future GNSO policy development. Accordingly, the written input this letter is intended to clarify potential ambiguity and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. Recommendation Two - Single WHOIS Policy. The Review Team’s second recommendation calls for the Board to oversee creation of a single WHOIS policy document, and reference it in agreements with Contracted Parties, as well as clearly document the current gTLD WHOIS policy as set out in the gTLD Registry & Registrar contracts & Consensus Policies and Procedure. The GNSO Council notes that this recommendation carefully avoids the phrase “policy development.” It asks for documentation of the existing policy set forth in the contracts and consensus policies. It does not ask for the GNSO council to review or develop any policies. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation for further GNSO policy development. [[The RySG agrees that if this recommendation means creation of a single policy document that just summarizes all current relevant WHOIS policies, then no PDP is required. However, if this recommendation requires the creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required.]] Recommendation Three - Outreach. The Review Team’s third recommendation calls for ICANN to ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. The GNSO Council views this recommendation as a modifier, or supplement, to a number of other recommendations in the Final Report. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation necessitating GNSO policy development. 6. [[Recommendation Six - Data Accuracy. The sixth recommendation of the Review Team instructs that ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups “Substantial Failure” and “Full Failure” (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and 50% again over the following 12 months. The RySG believes that the recommendation to undertake “appropriate measures” to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into these accuracy groups may require a PDP depending on what these measures are.]] Recommendation Ten - Data Access – Privacy and Proxy Services. The Review Team’s tenth recommendation essentially calls for ICANN to initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers; processes should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders and note relevant GNSO studies; a possible approach to achieving this would be to establish an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers, and consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction between privacy and proxy services; goal is to provide clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests—including privacy, data protection, law enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights community. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this recommendation can be read to describe a GNSO policy development process. However, in recognition of the contemporaneous negotiation of the RAA, the GNSO Council recommends that—notwithstanding any GNSO policy development process on this recommendation—ICANN retain its authority to unilaterally impose regulation of privacy and proxy services pursuant to the RAA in the event that no consensus policy has been reached in a reasonably time frame, such as twelve months from 31 August 2012. [[The RySG strongly believes that ICANN can only initiate a process to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers through a PDP process. The RySG believes that the entirety of the Review Team’s tenth recommendation does in fact require a PDP without any artificial time constraints imposed.]] Recommendation Twelve - Internationalized Domain Names. The Review Team’s twelfth recommendation calls for ICANN to task a working group within six months of publication of their report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions; at a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD space; the working group should report within a year. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the work of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group “IRD WG” is already underway in regard to this recommendation. The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input. Stéphane Van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council

7 10

RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
by Winterfeldt, Brian Aug. 30, 2012

Aug. 30, 2012

Dear Jeff: One solution may be to deliver a summary letter to the Board by August 31, 2012 briefly explaining that the GNSO Council was unable to reach an agreement on which recommendations require a Policy Development Process and that individual comments from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency have been requested. Based on the input we have received thus far, some believe that only a handful of the WHOIS RT recommendations require GNSO policy work, (which we understood to be the impetus for the decision to parse through recommendations per the Council's July 20, 2012 discussion). However, others believe that all sixteen recommendations require GNSO policy work. That is a fundamental difference, and as Stéphane phrased it, a "direct contradiction," which likely vitiates the possibility for general agreement on the matter. I am interested in everyone's thoughts and happy to take a stab at a first draft of a very short letter to the Board today if we decide to take this route. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: Neuman, Jeff[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@NEUSTAR.US]<mailto:[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@NEUSTAR.US]> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:57:50 AM To: Mason Cole; Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Auto forwarded by a Rule All, It seems clear that we either need more time to work on this letter than August 31st or should just agree to not send a Council letter, but leave this to the stakeholder groups/constituencies. If we do decide to do the letter, we will need a few more weeks at least to approve on the September 13th call. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]> On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:10 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Brian -- Thank you for your and the RT's continued work on Whois issues. On behalf of the RrSG, our feedback is provided below, in line. I am happy to assist with drafting from here if I can be of help. Mason On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: Dear all: I hereby forward to the full Council the latest draft letter to the ICANN Board regarding the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, wherein we attempt to flag potential ambiguous recommendations and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. Achieving full consensus of the Council may prove difficult given the divergence of viewpoints expressed in our small group, which we hope to have accurately encapsulated in our draft below. The proposed text below was supported by myself and Wolf-Ulrich, and we have also included comments from Jeff and Wendy in red font within brackets. I would like to thank Jeff, Wendy, Wolf-Ulrich and Thomas for their input and assistance in this matter, and I look forward to working with everyone toward finalizing a letter for submission to the ICANN Board by the August 31, 2012 deadline. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. _________________________________________________________ TO: ICANN Board FROM: Chair of the GNSO Council VIA: GNSO Liaison to the ICANN Board I hereby forward to you the written public input of the GNSO Council on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report pursuant to your resolution (2012.06.23.26) from the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, requesting that the GNSO provide such input by 31 August 2012. As you are aware, the WHOIS Review Team's scope, guided by the Affirmation of Commitments, was to review the extent to which ICANN's WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective, meet legitimate needs of law enforcement and promote consumer trust. To this end, the Final Report, which issued on 11 May 2012, contained sixteen recommendations. During its meeting on 20 July 2012, the GNSO Council considered the substance of the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, as well as how to respond to the Board's request. The GNSO Council recognizes, given the hard work and public input already incorporated into the Final Report, that there is a reasonable expectation by the Review Team for its recommendations be implemented as soon as practicable.[[The NCSG disagrees. Please cut this sentence. The Review Team can make recommendations but it can't expect implementation simply by dint of its hard work. The NCSG has previously stated that any implementation requires GNSO policy development. "The NCSG believes all recommendations require GNSO Policy Development."]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees. Our group is very appreciative of the work, but as has been pointed out before by council members, work output doesn't necessarily represent the expectation of action. However, the GNSO Council also recognizes that a small number of the Review Team's recommendations may require future GNSO policy development. Accordingly, the written input this letter is intended to clarify potential ambiguity and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. Recommendation Two - Single WHOIS Policy. The Review Team's second recommendation calls for the Board to oversee creation of a single WHOIS policy document, and reference it in agreements with Contracted Parties, as well as clearly document the current gTLD WHOIS policy as set out in the gTLD Registry & Registrar contracts & Consensus Policies and Procedure. The GNSO Council notes that this recommendation carefully avoids the phrase "policy development." It asks for documentation of the existing policy set forth in the contracts and consensus policies. It does not ask for the GNSO council to review or develop any policies. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation for further GNSO policy development. [[The RySG agrees that if this recommendation means creation of a single policy document that just summarizes all current relevant WHOIS policies, then no PDP is required. However, if this recommendation requires the creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees with the RySG here. Recommendation Three - Outreach. The Review Team's third recommendation calls for ICANN to ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. The GNSO Council views this recommendation as a modifier, or supplement, to a number of other recommendations in the Final Report. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation necessitating GNSO policy development. 6. [[Recommendation Six - Data Accuracy. The sixth recommendation of the Review Team instructs that ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups "Substantial Failure" and "Full Failure" (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and 50% again over the following 12 months. The RySG believes that the recommendation to undertake "appropriate measures" to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into these accuracy groups may require a PDP depending on what these measures are.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees again. Further "all appropriate measures" is undefined and is unfortunately subject to differing interpretation. The RrSG recommends the GNSO Council request that ICANN Compliance outline a plan to reach these goals, along with their expected timeframe and metrics. These should be published before implementation of any new compliance initiatives meant to address these metrics. Recommendation Ten - Data Access - Privacy and Proxy Services. The Review Team's tenth recommendation essentially calls for ICANN to initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers; processes should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders and note relevant GNSO studies; a possible approach to achieving this would be to establish an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers, and consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction between privacy and proxy services; goal is to provide clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests-including privacy, data protection, law enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights community. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this recommendation can be read to describe a GNSO policy development process. However, in recognition of the contemporaneous negotiation of the RAA, the GNSO Council recommends that-notwithstanding any GNSO policy development process on this recommendation-ICANN retain its authority to unilaterally impose regulation of privacy and proxy services pursuant to the RAA in the event that no consensus policy has been reached in a reasonably time frame, such as twelve months from 31 August 2012. [[The RySG strongly believes that ICANN can only initiate a process to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers through a PDP process. The RySG believes that the entirety of the Review Team's tenth recommendation does in fact require a PDP without any artificial time constraints imposed.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees again with the RySG. The Whois RT report plainly says privacy / proxy accreditation should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders. While regulation of privacy / proxy may be a laudable outcome, nowhere does the RAA suggest the ICANN corporation has the authority to make such an imposition, and it's false to say it does. The RrSG has discussed privacy / proxy accreditation with ICANN staff in the course of RAA negotiations and our experience is that, unfortunately, like many community desires, it is complex, involves the interests of multiple stakeholders, and has cost an resource impacts on ICANN staff and the community. It is an appropriate issue for a PDP and not unilateral action. Recommendation Twelve - Internationalized Domain Names. The Review Team's twelfth recommendation calls for ICANN to task a working group within six months of publication of their report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions; at a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD space; the working group should report within a year. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the work of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group "IRD WG" is already underway in regard to this recommendation. The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input. Stéphane Van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council

2 1

RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 30, 2012

Aug. 30, 2012

Brian, Jeff, et. al., I must concur with Jeff on this matter. The BC and other constituencies have already offered public comment on the work of the RT. We COULD negotiate a single letter from the Council, but we would certainly need more time than we have. Whether we SHOULD be writing such a letter is another matter and an issue worth some discussion. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com> Date: Wed, August 29, 2012 10:27 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Jeff: One solution may be to deliver a summary letter to the Board by August 31, 2012 briefly explaining that the GNSO Council was unable to reach an agreement on which recommendations require a Policy Development Process and that individual comments from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency have been requested. Based on the input we have received thus far, some believe that only a handful of the WHOIS RT recommendations require GNSO policy work, (which we understood to be the impetus for the decision to parse through recommendations per the Council’s July 20, 2012 discussion). However, others believe that all sixteen recommendations require GNSO policy work. That is a fundamental difference, and as Stéphane phrased it, a “direct contradiction,” which likely vitiates the possibility for general agreement on the matter. I am interested in everyone’s thoughts and happy to take a stab at a first draft of a very short letter to the Board today if we decide to take this route. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: Neuman, Jeff[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@NEUSTAR.US] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:57:50 AM To: Mason Cole; Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Auto forwarded by a Rule All, It seems clear that we either need more time to work on this letter than August 31st or should just agree to not send a Council letter, but leave this to the stakeholder groups/constituencies. If we do decide to do the letter, we will need a few more weeks at least to approve on the September 13th call. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:10 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Brian -- Thank you for your and the RT's continued work on Whois issues. On behalf of the RrSG, our feedback is provided below, in line. I am happy to assist with drafting from here if I can be of help. Mason On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: Dear all: I hereby forward to the full Council the latest draft letter to the ICANN Board regarding the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, wherein we attempt to flag potential ambiguous recommendations and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. Achieving full consensus of the Council may prove difficult given the divergence of viewpoints expressed in our small group, which we hope to have accurately encapsulated in our draft below. The proposed text below was supported by myself and Wolf-Ulrich, and we have also included comments from Jeff and Wendy in red font within brackets. I would like to thank Jeff, Wendy, Wolf-Ulrich and Thomas for their input and assistance in this matter, and I look forward to working with everyone toward finalizing a letter for submission to the ICANN Board by the August 31, 2012 deadline. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. _________________________________________________________ TO: ICANN Board FROM: Chair of the GNSO Council VIA: GNSO Liaison to the ICANN Board I hereby forward to you the written public input of the GNSO Council on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report pursuant to your resolution (2012.06.23.26) from the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, requesting that the GNSO provide such input by 31 August 2012. As you are aware, the WHOIS Review Team’s scope, guided by the Affirmation of Commitments, was to review the extent to which ICANN’s WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective, meet legitimate needs of law enforcement and promote consumer trust. To this end, the Final Report, which issued on 11 May 2012, contained sixteen recommendations. During its meeting on 20 July 2012, the GNSO Council considered the substance of the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, as well as how to respond to the Board’s request. The GNSO Council recognizes, given the hard work and public input already incorporated into the Final Report, that there is a reasonable expectation by the Review Team for its recommendations be implemented as soon as practicable.[[The NCSG disagrees. Please cut this sentence. The Review Team can make recommendations but it can’t expect implementation simply by dint of its hard work. The NCSG has previously stated that any implementation requires GNSO policy development. “The NCSG believes all recommendations require GNSO Policy Development.”]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees. Our group is very appreciative of the work, but as has been pointed out before by council members, work output doesn't necessarily represent the expectation of action. However, the GNSO Council also recognizes that a small number of the Review Team’s recommendations may require future GNSO policy development. Accordingly, the written input this letter is intended to clarify potential ambiguity and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. Recommendation Two - Single WHOIS Policy. The Review Team’s second recommendation calls for the Board to oversee creation of a single WHOIS policy document, and reference it in agreements with Contracted Parties, as well as clearly document the current gTLD WHOIS policy as set out in the gTLD Registry & Registrar contracts & Consensus Policies and Procedure. The GNSO Council notes that this recommendation carefully avoids the phrase “policy development.” It asks for documentation of the existing policy set forth in the contracts and consensus policies. It does not ask for the GNSO council to review or develop any policies. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation for further GNSO policy development. [[The RySG agrees that if this recommendation means creation of a single policy document that just summarizes all current relevant WHOIS policies, then no PDP is required. However, if this recommendation requires the creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees with the RySG here. Recommendation Three - Outreach. The Review Team’s third recommendation calls for ICANN to ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. The GNSO Council views this recommendation as a modifier, or supplement, to a number of other recommendations in the Final Report. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation necessitating GNSO policy development. 6. [[Recommendation Six - Data Accuracy. The sixth recommendation of the Review Team instructs that ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups “Substantial Failure” and “Full Failure” (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and 50% again over the following 12 months. The RySG believes that the recommendation to undertake “appropriate measures” to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into these accuracy groups may require a PDP depending on what these measures are.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees again. Further "all appropriate measures" is undefined and is unfortunately subject to differing interpretation. The RrSG recommends the GNSO Council request that ICANN Compliance outline a plan to reach these goals, along with their expected timeframe and metrics. These should be published before implementation of any new compliance initiatives meant to address these metrics. Recommendation Ten - Data Access – Privacy and Proxy Services. The Review Team’s tenth recommendation essentially calls for ICANN to initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers; processes should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders and note relevant GNSO studies; a possible approach to achieving this would be to establish an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers, and consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction between privacy and proxy services; goal is to provide clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests—including privacy, data protection, law enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights community. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this recommendation can be read to describe a GNSO policy development process. However, in recognition of the contemporaneous negotiation of the RAA, the GNSO Council recommends that—notwithstanding any GNSO policy development process on this recommendation—ICANN retain its authority to unilaterally impose regulation of privacy and proxy services pursuant to the RAA in the event that no consensus policy has been reached in a reasonably time frame, such as twelve months from 31 August 2012. [[The RySG strongly believes that ICANN can only initiate a process to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers through a PDP process. The RySG believes that the entirety of the Review Team’s tenth recommendation does in fact require a PDP without any artificial time constraints imposed.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees again with the RySG. The Whois RT report plainly says privacy / proxy accreditation should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders. While regulation of privacy / proxy may be a laudable outcome, nowhere does the RAA suggest the ICANN corporation has the authority to make such an imposition, and it's false to say it does. The RrSG has discussed privacy / proxy accreditation with ICANN staff in the course of RAA negotiations and our experience is that, unfortunately, like many community desires, it is complex, involves the interests of multiple stakeholders, and has cost an resource impacts on ICANN staff and the community. It is an appropriate issue for a PDP and not unilateral action. Recommendation Twelve - Internationalized Domain Names. The Review Team’s twelfth recommendation calls for ICANN to task a working group within six months of publication of their report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions; at a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD space; the working group should report within a year. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the work of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group “IRD WG” is already underway in regard to this recommendation. The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input. Stéphane Van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council

2 1