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

REVISED: Document and motion Deadline Wednesday 5 September 2012 for GNSO Council meeting 13 September at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 29, 2012

Aug. 29, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 5 September 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 13 September 2012 at 15:00 UTC. 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+13+Septembe… 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

Document and motion Deadline Tuesday 19 June for GNSO Council meeting 13 September at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 29, 2012

Aug. 29, 2012

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 5 September 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 13 September 2012 at 15:00 UTC. 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+13+Septembe… 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

Neustar's summary of trademark clearinghouse meeting
by Neuman, Jeff Aug. 29, 2012

Aug. 29, 2012

All, I thought you might be interested in my summary of the Trademark Clearinghouse meeting that was held in Brussels last week. It is just an FYI, but I wanted to disseminate the information as much as I could because there is still a good deal of work to do and we will need everyone paying attention or else risk further delay in the implementation of new TLDs. See http://www.dotyou.biz/summary-of-tmch-meeting/. I have also attached this as a pdf. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

1 0

Fwd: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

Councillors, Please see below the correspondence from Patrik Fälström, SSAC Chair. You will remember that we discussed the IRD-WG FR at our last meeting and it was decided that we should draft a letter to send the 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 volunteered to draft the letter and we were looking to approve it at our next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept 13. The SSAC proposed letter obviously overlaps with this, but from what I can see introduces no new elements apart from actually spelling out the IRD recommendations for the Board. I would therefore suggest that we may wish to sign on to the proposed SSAC letter, whilst also sending our own letter as planned. Ching and others, please provide feedback on this suggestion and make any comments you feel are relevant to this and the SSAC letter. I will, as planned, add the approval of Ching's letter to the Sept 13 consent agenda. I will also add an agenda item on the proposed SSAC IRD-WG letter. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> > Objet : Rép : Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board > Date : 7 août 2012 07:58:11 UTC+02:00 > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: Jim Galvin <jgalvin(a)afilias.info>, Ram Mohan <rmohan(a)afilias.info>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > > Stéphane, > > I have consulted with my Vice Chair, Jim Galvin, and with Ram Mohan, the SSAC Liaison to the Board, and we would like to suggest changes to the draft cover letter for the IRD-WG Final Report delivery to the Board that Julie Hedlund sent to you and me on 20 July (see original message below). I have attached a revised version for your consideration in Word and PDF. The primary changes are that we included the recommendations from the IRD-WG Final Report in the cover letter for the Board's reference. These are highlighted as tracked changes in the revised draft letter. > > Best regards, > > Patrik > >> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> >> To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> >> Subject: Draft Letter for Review re: IRD-WG Final Report Delivery to Board >> >> Dear Stéphane and Patrik, >> >> On 27 June in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion relating to the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). In its motion the Council approved the delivery to the Board of the IRD-WG’s Final Report and requested staff to draft a joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board. Attached for your consideration is the draft joint letter from the GNSO and the SSAC to the Board in Word and PDF and the Final Report. >> >> Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director/SSAC Support >

6 7

new gTLD update
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-27aug12-en New gTLD Update for Applicants (27 August 2012) We have additional updates for applicants this week: Applicant Update Webinar The next Applicant Update Webinar is scheduled for Thursday, 6 September at 12:00 UTC. Topics will include status on Initial Evaluation, an update on batching/metering options, information on application comments, and new gTLD sessions we are planning for Toronto among other things. If you are unable to join us for the live webinar, it will be recorded and posted to the webinar page (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars) on the new gTLD microsite. The webinar is open to everyone but directed toward applicants in particular. Clarification Questions Pilot The Clarification Questions Pilot is scheduled to kick off this week. Notices have gone out to the 50 applications selected and participation is optional. Preliminary evaluation results show that a large number of applications require clarification. The purpose of the pilot is to ensure that the questions evaluators ask are clear and applicants understand what information they are being asked to provide. See attached [PDF, 80 KB]. Change Requests We are finalizing the process to post application change requests. A set of seven criteria have been created to evaluate each request and, if approved, the change will be reflected on the posting page of the microsite http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus ). New gTLD Microsite The new gTLD microsite is getting a facelift. We are working to refresh the microsite, making it a bit easier for you to find what you need. A new feature we will add is an Applicants Corner. This is a place where applicants can go to get important advisories as well as to check the status of various parts of the program still under development. Keep an eye out for the microsite's new look!

1 0

Re: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 26, 2012

Aug. 26, 2012

Filiz, Thanks for your email. For the sake of full transparency, I am including both the academy WG list and the GNSO Council list in my response. I want to express surprise at this email. Over the last few days, since the draft program was sent to the academy group, there has been great discussion within this group and many, included myself, have sent in questions about the program as proposed or pointed out possible issues with the current draft. The position the Council has asked me to carry to the academy WG is one of support for this proposed program. Also I fully understand that you need to start planning for this session if it is going to happen in Toronto. However, I am worried that your email, being as it is sent to community chairs that may be unaware of the current discussions within the academy WG, risks settings expectations that will not be met. I would urge that you give the WG a little more opportunity to move ahead in answering some of the questions that have been raised or, if your organizational requirements for Toronto do not allow that, at least provide a more detailed snapshot of where the WG is currently at before calling participation from chairs without putting that call in its full and proper context. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 24 août 2012 à 12:37, Filiz Yilmaz a écrit : > Dear Leaders, > > Your names are listed as participants of the pilot SO/AC Leadership program that is drafted to take place in Toronto during 12-13 October 2012. > Please find the mail below to ICANN Academy WG from the WG Chair Sandra Hoferichter about it. > > While the group is currently reviewing the attached documentation (curriculum + the call to you), I would like to note this already to see your availability in advance, which will help all involved in terms of travel plans. > > Could you please let me know > > - If you would like to attend this program during 12-13 October 2012 yourself, or would like so send a Co-chair if your group had one or another prospective leader from your group? > > - If you would like to note another name from your group too, to be put on the waiting list, in case we can place them in the program for the potential unfilled seats. > > > Thank you and looking forward to your responses. > > Kind regards > > > --- > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > > From: sandra hoferichter <info(a)hoferichter.eu> > Date: Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:22 > To: "at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org" <at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto > >> Dear WG members, >> >> after a summer break Filiz and I started working on a draft outline for the pilot project in Toronto. Based on the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget and the results of this working group so far, we present you herewith a draft programme inviting you to comment. >> >> While drafting this outline we already discussed various options, how to optimise it and what should be the focus. We expect that some of these options will be raised in this mailing list and we are happy to answer any questions and remain open for ideas, as long as they fit in the given framework. >> >> In the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget document it is stated: >> >> <<<"The ICANN-Academy concept is still being developed and reviewed within the SO-AC groups and further consensus is ongoing though a process led by ALAC / At-Large. While this process is ongoing, in early anticipation of the direction of the effort, a staff pilot project will be focused on the executive training of new SO-AC leaders on ICANN organisations, policymaking and related activities. The pilot would include usage of online tools where possible and an orientation session in Toronto. This pilot project should be seen as a first step in testing the overall concept and providing a basis for a future training program as well as experience to build on for future improvements if deemed necessary. ">>> >> >> Furthermore this draft concept is based on the proposed curriculum. (see: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31168402/Draft+Initial+Pro… ). >> >> The comment phase is open until: 31 August 2012 >> Nominations for participants should be sent to filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.orguntil 1 September 2012 >> >> We are aware, that the discussion in the expanded WG is just about to start and this outline will not cover all the needs and ideas, however this pilot project should be see as a first step to build on an inclusive capacity building programme within ICANN. The WG is should review the pilot project critically and develop strategies and recommendations for future projects. To get a feedback from the participants this WG is asked to develop a survey, to be filled in by every participant in this programme. >> >> We are looking forward to your comments. >> >> Sandra and Filiz >> >> > <Toronto_draft_outline_20120822.pdf>_______________________________________________ > at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg mailing list > at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg

2 2

SSAC Report on Dotless Domains - Public Comment Period Open
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 25, 2012

Aug. 25, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12… SSAC Report on Dotless Domains Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 24 August 2012 Comment Close: 23 September 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-24aug12-en.htm> Reply Open: 24 September 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:sac053-dotless-domains@icann.org> Reply Close: 14 October 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/sac053-dotless-domains/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-level Domains * Security / Stability Purpose (Brief): This purpose of this public comment period is to bring to your attention of the SSAC's report on dotless domain<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB] and to solicit your input on ICANN's implementation of the recommendations in this report. Current Status: Open for public comment Next Steps: Comments will be collected and incorporated into a briefing paper for the ICANN board. Staff Contact: Kurt Pritz Email: kurt.pritz(a)icann.org<mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20SSAC%20Report%20on%20Dotless%20Domains%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Dotless domains are domains that consist of a single label (e.g. http://example<http://example/> as opposed to example.tld or mail@example as opposed to mail(a)example.tld<mailto:mail@example.tld>) and there is an A/AAAA or MX records in the APEX of a TLD zone. On 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB]. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and the SSAC recommended strongly against their use. As a result, the SSAC recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should be contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases. On 23 June 2012, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#…> tasking ICANN to consult with the relevant communities regarding implementation of the recommendations in SAC053. Section 2.2.3.3 of the Applicant Guidebook essentially prohibits the use of dotless domains, stating that the only permissible DNS Resource Records for the apex in a TLD zone (i.e., the TLD-string itself) are: SOA, NS, and related DNSSEC records. The same section also states, "An applicant wishing to place any other record types into its TLD zone should describe in detail its proposal in the registry services section of the application. This will be evaluated and could result in an extended evaluation to determine whether the service would create a risk of a meaningful adverse impact on security or stability of the DNS." One option under consideration to implement the SSAC's recommendation could be to amend the base new gTLD agreement to prohibit A, AAAA and MX records in the apex of the TLD. Do you have any input for ICANN to consider in relation to ICANN's implementation of SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB]? Section II: Background On 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB]. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and the SSAC recommended strongly against their use. As a result, the SSAC recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases. Section III: Document and Resource Links SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB] Section IV: Additional Information None (*) 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

IDN Variant TLD Program Update
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 25, 2012

Aug. 25, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23aug12-en.htm IDN Variant TLD Program Update 23 August 2012 The IDN Variant TLD Program has the following two updates: 1. Volunteer Team formed to assist the development of the Label Generation Ruleset Process for the Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone ICANN is pleased to announce the formation of a global volunteer team, comprised of community experts, who will work with ICANN on the project to define the Label Generation Ruleset Process for the DNS root zone. This project is part of the IDN Variant TLD Program (see below) that is intended to lead to the delegation of IDN Variant TLDs. Delegation of these types of IDN TLDs is expected to broaden global participation in the domain name system, but must be accomplished in a way that ensures good user experience. This particular project will develop the process to define allowed code points, corresponding exchangeable variant code points, and related allowed states for IDN Variant TLDs. The project requires significant technical expertise and the individual members of the volunteer team (listed below) possess capabilities in IDNA, Domain Name System, Linguistics, Unicode and Policy Development. The volunteer team will undertake the work through periodic teleconference calls and two face-to-face meetings. The first meeting will be on 29-30 August 2012 in Los Angeles, United States. The second two-day working session is planned during the ICANN meeting in Toronto, Canada. There will be an open public session in the Toronto meeting at which ICANN staff and volunteer team representatives will present an update on the progress and answer questions. The volunteer team is comprised of the following members from 18 countries and territories: Fahd A. Batayneh Chris Dillon Neha Gupta Sarmad Hussain Akshat Joshi Daniel Kalchev Yoav Keren Dmitry Kohmanyuk Mahesh Kulkarni Nadya Morozova Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos Alireza Saleh Vaggelis Segredakis James Seng Vladimir Shadrunov Syed Iftikhar H. Shah Will Shorter Alexei Sozonov Mirjana Tasic Joseph Yee Yoshiro Yoneya Zhoucai (Joe) Zhang Linlin Zhou Team Observers: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Edmon Chung Raymond Doctor 2. Updated IDN Variant TLD Program posted ICANN has updated the IDN Variant TLD Program Plan<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-variant-tld-updated-plan-23aug12…> [PDF, 576 KB] that describes the projects that are intended to lead to the delegation of IDN variant TLDs. The plan defines the processes that must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. Two previous versions of the plan have been posted for public comment<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-progra…> and discussed with the community during the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. This latest version reflects the latest public input. The Program follows on from the IDN Variant Issues Project that completed its work with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-vip-integrated-issues-final-clea…> [PDF, 2.15 MB] on 20 February 2012. Interested members of the community can receive updates and participate in the discussion of the variant work by subscribing to the vip(a)icann.org<mailto:vip@icann.org> mailing list (https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/vip) or by visiting the Community Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/VIP/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto
by carlos dionisio aguirre Aug. 24, 2012

Aug. 24, 2012

Dear Filiz: A question: when you said in your previous email "The current draft under discussion were pointing to participation of the chairs and thus possibility of certain travel arrangements for them ", are you saying that chairs will be the instructors or teachers on the pilot program? If the response is yes: Are you sure that they are the best for this job? In my humble understanding, they can be an excellent chairs, but this not means they will be the best teachers neither guarantee the sucess of this pilot proyect. Why not to call Academics for this task? Icann have many in it lines. my two cents.if my understanding is wrong, have in account that I not said anything.Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org From: filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org To: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:51:16 -0700 CC: robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG; barbara.roseman(a)icann.org; olof.nordling(a)icann.org; Tim.Cole(a)icann.org; dmaher(a)pir.org; junsec(a)wide.ad.jp; bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org; robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org; joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; woolf(a)isc.org; matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com; lesley(a)nominet.org.uk; paf(a)frobbit.se; Glen(a)icann.org; dave(a)difference.com.au; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; met(a)msk.com; Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; jcurran(a)arin.net; jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org; louis(a)louie.net Subject: Re: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto Dear Stephane, Thank you for your mail too. I have not been involved in the setting up of the ICANN Academy WG. But I was told that Chairs of SOs and ACs were asked to join themselves or send a representative from their groups. As a result it seemed to me some of the members of the WG are SO/AC chairs and are following the discussions directly and some are not. The current draft under discussion were pointing to participation of the chairs and thus possibility of certain travel arrangements for them. So I wanted to make sure all SO/AC/SG Chairs were aware of the situation and wanted to give everyone a heads-up. My mail should have said "heads-up". My apologies. ---Filiz YilmazSr Dir Participation and EngagementICANN From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Friday, 24 August 2012 15:09 To: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org>, "at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org" <at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "lesley(a)nominet.org.uk" <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, "Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca" <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "louis(a)louie.net" <louis(a)louie.net>, John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net>, "ocl(a)gih.com" <ocl(a)gih.com>, "paf(a)frobbit.se" <paf(a)frobbit.se>, "junsec(a)wide.ad.jp" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, "woolf(a)isc.org" <woolf(a)isc.org>, "marilynscade(a)hotmail.com" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "dave(a)difference.com.au" <dave(a)difference.com.au>, "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "met(a)msk.com" <met(a)msk.com>, "matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com" <matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com>, "dmaher(a)pir.org" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, "robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG" <robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG>, "vanda(a)uol.com.br" <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, "alain.berranger(a)gmail.com" <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>, Barbara Roseman <barbara.roseman(a)icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Joette Youkhanna <joette.youkhanna(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto Filiz, Thanks for your email. For the sake of full transparency, I am including both the academy WG list and the GNSO Council list in my response. I want to express surprise at this email. Over the last few days, since the draft program was sent to the academy group, there has been great discussion within this group and many, included myself, have sent in questions about the program as proposed or pointed out possible issues with the current draft. The position the Council has asked me to carry to the academy WG is one of support for this proposed program. Also I fully understand that you need to start planning for this session if it is going to happen in Toronto. However, I am worried that your email, being as it is sent to community chairs that may be unaware of the current discussions within the academy WG, risks settings expectations that will not be met. I would urge that you give the WG a little more opportunity to move ahead in answering some of the questions that have been raised or, if your organizational requirements for Toronto do not allow that, at least provide a more detailed snapshot of where the WG is currently at before calling participation from chairs without putting that call in its full and proper context. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy DirectorGroup NBT Le 24 août 2012 à 12:37, Filiz Yilmaz a écrit :Dear Leaders, Your names are listed as participants of the pilot SO/AC Leadership program that is drafted to take place in Toronto during 12-13 October 2012. Please find the mail below to ICANN Academy WG from the WG Chair Sandra Hoferichter about it. While the group is currently reviewing the attached documentation (curriculum + the call to you), I would like to note this already to see your availability in advance, which will help all involved in terms of travel plans. Could you please let me know - If you would like to attend this program during 12-13 October 2012 yourself, or would like so send a Co-chair if your group had one or another prospective leader from your group? - If you would like to note another name from your group too, to be put on the waiting list, in case we can place them in the program for the potential unfilled seats. Thank you and looking forward to your responses. Kind regards ---Filiz YilmazSr Dir Participation and EngagementICANN From: sandra hoferichter <info(a)hoferichter.eu> Date: Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:22 To: "at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org" <at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto Dear WG members, after a summer break Filiz and I started working on a draft outline for the pilot project in Toronto. Based on the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget and the results of this working group so far, we present you herewith a draft programme inviting you to comment. While drafting this outline we already discussed various options, how to optimise it and what should be the focus. We expect that some of these options will be raised in this mailing list and we are happy to answer any questions and remain open for ideas, as long as they fit in the given framework. In the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget document it is stated: <<<"The ICANN-Academy concept is still being developed and reviewed within the SO-AC groups and further consensus is ongoing though a process led by ALAC / At-Large. While this process is ongoing, in early anticipation of the direction of the effort, a staff pilot project will be focused on the executive training of new SO-AC leaders on ICANN organisations, policymaking and related activities. The pilot would include usage of online tools where possible and an orientation session in Toronto. This pilot project should be seen as a first step in testing the overall concept and providing a basis for a future training program as well as experience to build on for future improvements if deemed necessary. ">>> Furthermore this draft concept is based on the proposed curriculum. (see: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31168402/Draft+Initial+Pro… ). The comment phase is open until: 31 August 2012Nominations for participants should be sent to filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.orguntil 1 September 2012 We are aware, that the discussion in the expanded WG is just about to start and this outline will not cover all the needs and ideas, however this pilot project should be see as a first step to build on an inclusive capacity building programme within ICANN. The WG is should review the pilot project critically and develop strategies and recommendations for future projects. To get a feedback from the participants this WG is asked to develop a survey, to be filled in by every participant in this programme. We are looking forward to your comments. Sandra and Filiz <Toronto_draft_outline_20120822.pdf>_______________________________________________ at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg mailing list at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg _______________________________________________ at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg mailing list at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg

1 0

Fwd: [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Councillors, As Council liaison to this group, I wanted to share this information and document with you. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : "sandra hoferichter" <info(a)hoferichter.eu> > Objet : [ICANN Academy WG] Draft outline for a Pilot Leadership Training Programme in Toronto > Date : 22 août 2012 15:22:19 HAEC > À : <at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)icann.org> > > Dear WG members, > > after a summer break Filiz and I started working on a draft outline for the pilot project in Toronto. Based on the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget and the results of this working group so far, we present you herewith a draft programme inviting you to comment. > > While drafting this outline we already discussed various options, how to optimise it and what should be the focus. We expect that some of these options will be raised in this mailing list and we are happy to answer any questions and remain open for ideas, as long as they fit in the given framework. > > In the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget document it is stated: > > <<<"The ICANN-Academy concept is still being developed and reviewed within the SO-AC groups and further consensus is ongoing though a process led by ALAC / At-Large. While this process is ongoing, in early anticipation of the direction of the effort, a staff pilot project will be focused on the executive training of new SO-AC leaders on ICANN organisations, policymaking and related activities. The pilot would include usage of online tools where possible and an orientation session in Toronto. This pilot project should be seen as a first step in testing the overall concept and providing a basis for a future training program as well as experience to build on for future improvements if deemed necessary. ">>> > > Furthermore this draft concept is based on the proposed curriculum. (see:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31168402/Draft+Initial… ). > > The comment phase is open until: 31 August 2012 > Nominations for participants should be sent to filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org until 1 September 2012 > > We are aware, that the discussion in the expanded WG is just about to start and this outline will not cover all the needs and ideas, however this pilot project should be see as a first step to build on an inclusive capacity building programme within ICANN. The WG is should review the pilot project critically and develop strategies and recommendations for future projects. To get a feedback from the participants this WG is asked to develop a survey, to be filled in by every participant in this programme. > > We are looking forward to your comments. > > Sandra and Filiz > > > _______________________________________________ > at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg mailing list > at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg

1 0

New e-mail address
by Mason Cole Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Council colleagues -- I have been having e-mail issues with my mcole(a)nameking.com address, so for at least the time being, I've asked staff to update my contact in the list to my personal address. If you've sent mail to me at the other address and are awaiting reply, I would ask you to forward it to me here. Sorry for the inconvenience. For the record, no change in my affiliation, etc. This is merely a technical issue. Thanks -- Mason

1 0

New gTLD Update for Applicants
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-20aug12-en.htm New gTLD Update for Applicants 20 August 2012 This week we have updates on several aspects of the new gTLD program that you should be aware of, and here they are: Metering/Batching Comments We asked<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-29jul12-en> applicants and the broader ICANN community for ideas on how best to meter applications into the delegation process for entering approved new gTLDs into the root of the Internet. That comment period ended on 20 August. We will spend the next six weeks reviewing these contributions and, with the community, developing possible solutions. For more detailed information, check out the recently posted Roadmap for Processing New gTLD Applications<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-17aug12-en>. Clarification Questions Pilot As we mentioned in the recent Applicant Webinar<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars>, the Clarification Questions Pilot is about to begin. This is intended to ensure consistency and effectiveness in the follow-up questions from evaluators to applicants. We have selected 50 applications to participate in the pilot, and we will be notifying those applicants soon. Participation is not required - it is completely optional. Application Withdrawals To date, six applications have been withdrawn from the new gTLD program. The withdrawals are being processed and once the applicants have received their refunds, we will provide an update. New gTLD Milestone Timeline We have posted a new timeline that displays upcoming milestones in the new gTLD program. It will be updated regularly and you can find it on the microsite homepage<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en>. We hope you find it useful. Next Applicant Webinar We are planning another applicant webinar in early September. Check the microsite often for the specific date and time. If you would like a particular topic to be discussed during the webinar, send an email to newgtldcommunications(a)icann.org<mailto:newgtldcommunications@icann.org> and we will do our best to accommodate your request. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for Expressions of Interest for 2012-2013 NomCom Chair
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-20aug12-en.htm Call for Expressions of Interest for 2012-2013 NomCom Chair 20 August 2012 ICANN is immediately seeking expressions of interest for the 2012-2013 Nominating Committee (NomCom) Chair. In accordance with ICANN's Bylaws, "[i]t is anticipated that upon the conclusion of the term of the Chair-Elect, the Chair-Elect will be appointed by the Board to the position of Chair." See Article VII, section 3.4. But, the current NomCom Chair-Elect chose after the Prague meeting to not stand for NomCom Chair. That is why ICANN is now calling for those interested in serving as Chair of the 2012-2013 Nominating Committee to submit a statement of interest. All individuals who have expressed interest in serving as the Chair-Elect will be directly notified about being considered for Chair. Accordingly, if you have already submitted your statement of interest for Chair-Elect, you need not do so again for the Chair position. For more information about the NomCom see: http://nomcom.icann.org/ Position Description - Nominating Committee Chair This position blends time management and negotiation skills with the practical aspects of conducting a world-wide search for individuals to fill various ICANN leadership positions. The NomCom Chair will be called on to schedule, organize and lead numerous in-person and telephonic meetings with a large committee of community members. The NomCom Chair is also responsible for managing the candidate identification and statement of interest process, with other committee members, and for managing the due diligence to be performed on nominated candidates, in cooperation with ICANN's General Counsel and any retained outside firm(s). Throughout all NomCom activities, the Chair is responsible for ensuring that all NomCom operating rules and procedures are followed, and that all required documentation and reports are prepared in a timely fashion and provided to the proper parties as necessary. Skills and Experience To properly serve as the NomCom Chair, the selected individual must have: (i) adequate time available to undertake the role; (ii) excellent communication and negotiation skills to manage a committee of 20-21 members; (iii) a clear understanding of the duties and responsibilities of each position for which the NomCom is selecting candidates; (iv) experience on or with a Board of Directors of organizations with similar scale, scope and diversity as ICANN; (v) strong organization and leadership skills; (vi) ability to remain unbiased; (vii) no conflicts of interest, and (viii) a thorough understanding of, and satisfy, all criteria set forth in ICANN Bylaws relating to the NomCom (see http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VII) Specific Duties and Responsibilities 1. Plans and schedules NomCom meetings as required, including ensuring posting schedules for public review. Please see attached for a Listing of the NomCom activities. 2. Appoints non-voting Associate Chair if so desired. 3. Reports to ICANN Board and the community on status of the NomCom. 4. Prepares and publishes the NomCom report. 5. Ensures that NomCom operating rules and procedures are followed. 6. Manages NomCom Selection Process, including: (a) Approves outreach/advertising methods for attracting candidates. (b) Conducts outreach with ICANN Constituencies, ACs and SOs (with Chairs of those groups), ICANN Board, and others. (c) With other committee members, reviews and evaluates candidate Statements of Interest (SOIs) and references submitted during NomCom process (d) Coordinates due diligence on nominated candidates in cooperation with ICANN's General Counsel and any outside firm(s) retained to perform due diligence activities. 7. Approves posting of NomCom announcements and schedules on ICANN website. 8. Ensures NomCom records are properly established, maintained and archived. Eligibility Exclusion No person who is an employee of or is a paid consultant to ICANN (including the Ombudsman) shall simultaneously serve as a member of the NomCom, including the post of Chair or Chair-Elect. Expenses All reasonable travel expenses and administrative costs incurred as a result of performing the duties as NomCom Chair or Chair-Elect in accordance with ICANN's policies will be reimbursed by ICANN upon the Chair or Chair-Elect's submission to ICANN of valid receipts and invoices. Expressions of Interest Expressions of Interest, which will be maintained as confidential, should be sent to NomComChair2013(a)icann.org<mailto:NomComChair2013@icann.org> no later than 4 September 2012. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Update to DNS Risk Management Framework Consultant RFP - Responses to Questions Received
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-20aug12-en.htm Update to DNS Risk Management Framework Consultant RFP - Responses to Questions Received 20 August 2012 On 16 July, ICANN published a request for proposals<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-16jul12-en.htm> for an expert consultant to assist ICANN with the development of a DNS Risk Management Framework. The announcement indicated that questions on the RFP could be submitted between 1-16 August 23:59 UTC. The period to submit questions on the RFP is now closed. ICANN is providing the questions received and responses in this update so all parties interested in responding to the call for proposals may have the same information. The deadline for responses to the call for proposals is 31 August 2012, 23:59 UTC. Responses should be sent to drmf-rfi(a)icann.org<mailto:drmf-rfi@icann.org> to the attention of Patrick Jones in the ICANN Security team. Questions Proposal Submission 1. We would like to know if you will accept proposals for this assignment from a consortium (two consulting firms) or if you are looking for a single consultant. Response - Proposals from a consortium would be welcomed. The proposal should include a description of how the parties in the consortium would work together and interact with ICANN. Timing 2. What is the anticipated time span of the project, in terms of ICANN meetings elapsed, given the the required times for internal and public comment? Response - Ideally, ICANN would be able to retain a consultant to begin work on this project in late September, and participate in an open community panel at the ICANN meeting in October in Toronto, Ontario. Specific timing deliverables will be set once the consultant is retained, but it the expectation from the Board-level working group that a draft DNS Risk Management Framework be available for discussion in early December 2012, and following relevant public comment periods for the ICANN Board at the ICANN meeting in Beijing, China in April 2013. 3. What is the anticipated duration of the transition plan to complete the launch in terms of ICANN staff availability? Response - ICANN staff will be available and following the work of the consultant throughout the project. This should reduce any delays between the start of the project and the implementation phase to operational risk management at ICANN. 4. What is the anticipated start date to execute on the RFP activities? Response - The consultant should be available to begin as soon as possible after the completion of the contracting process. Ideally this work should commence in late September so that there is sufficient time to start in advance of the ICANN meeting in Toronto. The Board-level working group will have a open community session at the ICANN meeting on Thursday 18 October, participation from the consultant in this session would be expected in order to use this time to interact with the community. 5. When will ICANN state its decision on the winning bidder? Response - ICANN intends to make its decision quickly, based on the quality of the responses received and the internal selection process. ICANN is aiming for early September to make this decision. Staff Support 6. What is the anticipated size of ICANN's internal team to implement the methodology and geographical location and diversity of designated staff? Response - Implementation of the DNS Risk Management Framework will be led by ICANN's Security team but will involve expertise from staff in other departments, including Legal, DNS Operations, IT, Finance, IANA, among others. ICANN's staff are globally distributed, although the Security team is currently split between the East Coast and West Coast US. 7. What is the makeup of the ICANN staff dedicated to executing risk management activities (number of staff, hierarchy, etc.)? Response - ICANN's Security team provides staff support to the Board Risk Committee and Board-level DNS Risk Management Framework Working Group. There are ICANN staff from the Legal team providing both Board support and Executive team participation by ICANN's General Counsel. The Executive team follows risk management activities, and individual department staff track department risks. 8. What is the commitment of FTEs in regards to ICANN's availability to contribute to the project efforts? Response - The ICANN Security team will provide staff support to engage with the consultant on this project. Preparation of Materials 9. The RFP indicates that the expert consultant will deliver a report to the Board DNS Risk Management Framework Working Group and the ICANN community. Will the deliverables that the expert consultant produces be shared verbatim with the community as public documents, or will ICANN or the expert consultant prepare summaries to be shared publically? Response - The consultant should assume that the deliverables produced for the this project will be shared verbatim with the community as public documents. The consultant should also provide executive summaries where appropriate to support community comprehension of the risk framework once it is developed. List of Tasks for a DNS Risk Management Framework 10. Task 2 - Risk Framework - Has ICANN previously adopted a risk management framework? Which framework is it? Response - Yes, ICANN has an internal enterprise risk management framework. 11. Task 2 - Risk Framework - Does ICANN have any frameworks that it is considering for adoption into their organization? Response - ICANN would be receptive to practical and implementable approaches to DNS risk management. 12. Task 2 - Risk Framework - Does ICANN have an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework with which this security risk management framework should align? Response - ICANN has an internal enterprise risk management framework. ICANN would be receptive to practical and implementable approaches to DNS risk management. 13. Task 2 - Risk Framework - Would ICANN consider basing their risk management framework on leading practices and globally accepted frameworks such as Risk IT and COBIT5 for Security? Response - COBIT is primarily an information technology process framework. The consultant should take into account the focus of the risk management framework is not entirely on information technology, but broadly on DNS risks for ICANN as an organization. COBIT5 and Risk IT can serve as examples but should not be the sole basis of the consultant's proposed framework. 14. Task 2 - Risk Framework - The list of deliverables does not clearly articulate the requirement of risk governance (e.g., risk appetite and tolerance, responsibilities and accountability for IT risk management, awareness and communication, risk culture). Is this also a desired deliverable? Response - Recommendations from the consultant on mechanisms for clearly articulating the requirement of risk governance would be welcomed within the context of DNS risks. 15. Task 3 - Build Consensus - How long is the public comment cycle expected to last? The process for ICANN's public comment cycle is described at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment. The total length of the public comment cycle will depend on whether comments are received in the initial comment period, requiring a reply comment period. The Working Group envisioned public comment being conducted in the early part of 2013, although this is subject to change depending on a variety of factors. 16. Task 3 - Build Consensus - Will the Working Group provide review and comment prior to the public comment cycle? Will there be opportunity to make revisions to the framework prior to release for public comment, based on feedback from the Working Group? Response - Yes 17. Task 3 - Build Consensus - What measure will the Working Group utilize to gauge if consensus has been achieved? Response - The Working Group seeks a DNS Risk Management Framework that will be implementable and is generally accepted by the community as meeting the deliverables in this tender. 18. Task 3 - Build Consensus - The RFP indicates that the expert consultant will "assist staff and the working group to build consensus in support of the risk management framework within ICANN (the organization and the community)." Will the expert consultant be interacting directly with the community, or will the expert consultant interact with the community only through ICANN staff? Response - From a starting point, it is desired by the Board-level Working Group to have the consultant participate in the open session of the Working Group at the ICANN meeting in Toronto on 18 October 2012. This meeting will provide an opportunity for interested participants in the community to ask questions, and for the consultant to engage with those attending the meeting. It is also expected that the consultant will interact directly with experts in the community in development of the risk framework. 19. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - The RFP indicates that Task 4 is part of a "Potential Phase II". What are the determinants for whether "Phase II" will occur? The Board and ICANN senior management will determine next steps in the process after the delivery of the Phase 1 DNS risk management framework, including the timing and feasibility of Phase II as described in the RFP. The response to the RFP can include a description of how the consultant would consider deliverables in Phase II. 20. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - Should the proposal include estimates for potential Phase II activities? Response - Yes, although this could be presented at a high level, granular detail on steps in Phase II is not required for Phase I but may be helpful for ICANN to understand the methodology that the consultant proposes to use. 21. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - What tools is ICANN utilizing today to identify, document, manage and monitor risks? Response - ICANN tracks risks within its departments and also provides regular updates on key program risk areas through the relevant Board Committee, such as the Board Risk Committee, Board Finance Committee, Board IANA Committee, among others. The new gTLD program has a separate risk reporting mechanism through the Board New gTLD Committee. 22. Task 4 - Does ICANN leverage any Governance, Risk Management and Compliance (GRC) technology solutions? Response - ICANN's Compliance team is in the process of developing tools to assist its efforts in managing compliance risks. ICANN would be receptive to suggestions for technology solutions that assist in making the DNS risk management framework practical and implementable once delivered by the consultant. 23. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - Does ICANN leverage previously identified and documented risks in their organization? Are there other risk activities occurring in the organization? What are they? Response - ICANN conducts regular meetings of its Board Risk Committee and utilizes its previously identified and documented risks in managing risk within the organization. 24. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - Would ICANN like to include in the deliverable a baseline process, risk and control library for their key security risks? Response - The primary tasks for this contract are described in the RFP. Additional information should support the delivery of a DNS risk management framework for the organization. 25. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - In addressing the risk plan (risk response strategy), does ICANN want sample test procedures included to validate the effectiveness of the risk plan in addition to monitoring procedures of key indicators? Response - Yes, these can be included if they support the framework. 26. Task 4 - Risk Cycle - Would ICANN like assistance in the design and development of monitoring and dashboard reports? Response - Design and development of monitoring and dashboard reporting would go toward implementation and execution of an initial cycle of the framework as part of Phase II. These suggestions could be included in the RFP but are not required at this stage. General 27. What are the key selection criteria ICANN is using to award this RFP? Response - ICANN will evaluate the responses received to identify an expert consultant that can apply risk methodologies to the unique aspects of the Domain Name System, including its international nature and multistakeholder participation. ICANN needs a consultant who can deliver a quality product in a relatively narrow period of time, that will hold up to community scrutiny and analysis. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Final Consumer Metrics Advice
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 20, 2012

Aug. 20, 2012

Councillors, As the GNSO Council liaison to the Consumer Metrics drafting team, it is my honor to forward for discussion a copy of the final advice letter. Recall that in response to the Affirmation of Commitments requirement for a post-new gTLD launch review of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, the ICANN Board resolved in December 2010 to request advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. That advice is attached. Also attached is a proposed timeline beginning with a request that we put this item on our September 13 meeting agenda. Cheers, John Berard

1 0

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

Fwd: Message on Constituency Travel
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 16, 2012

Aug. 16, 2012

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange(a)icann.org> > Objet : Message on Constituency Travel > Date : 16 août 2012 03:56:26 UTC+02:00 > À : Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "ocl(a)gih.com" <ocl(a)gih.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, "Metalitz, Steven (met(a)msk.com)" <met(a)msk.com>, "Alain Berranger (alain.berranger(a)gmail.com)" <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>, "Chris Chaplow (chris(a)andaluciaws.com)" <chris(a)andaluciaws.com>, "Heather (Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca)" <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Jacqueline Campbell <Jacqueline.Campbell(a)nominet.org.uk>, "'Louie Lee (louie(a)louie.net)'" <louie(a)louie.net>, "'jcurran(a)arin.net'" <jcurran(a)arin.net>, 'Patrik Fältström ' <patrik(a)frobbit.se>, "'Jun Murai (junsec(a)wide.ad.jp)'" <junsec(a)wide.ad.jp>, "'dave(a)difference.com.au'" <dave(a)difference.com.au>, 'David Maher ' <dmaher(a)pir.org>, "'matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com'" <matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com> > Cc: "policy(a)icann.org" <policy(a)icann.org>, Aba Diakite <aba.diakite(a)icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org>, ICANN Constituency Travel <constituency-travel(a)icann.org>, Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org>, Karla Valente <karla.valente(a)icann.org>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org> > > As there were several inquiries recently regarding FY13 supported community travel, we decided to put out this clarifying email for all SO, AC and SG community members. Please respond back directly to me if there are any questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travel Support for Community Members in FY13 Budget > Travelers per ICANN Meeting > ALAC > 27.0 > ccNSO > 12.0 > > GAC > 20.0 > GNSO > 21.0 > SSAC > 10.0 > > Nom Com > 22.0 > Fellow > 25.0 > > > > Additional Travel Support per the Approved SO AC Requests for FY13 Only: > > 1. NCSG-EC – 3 travel slots per each (2) ICANN meetings in FY13 > > 2. gNSO Non-contracted parties > BC – 3 addt’l slots per each (2) ICANN meetings in FY13 > IPC – 3 addt’l slots per each (2) ICANN meetings in FY13 > ISP – 3 addt’l slots per each (2) ICANN meetings in FY13 > NCUC – 3 addt’l slots per each (2) ICANN meetings in FY13 > NPOC – 3 addt’l slots per each (2) ICANN meetings in FY13 > > 3. NARALO – travel support will be provided as allowed in approved budget

1 0

Input Tracking for the Board GNSO PDP Recommendations
by David Olive Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

Dear GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: As part of ICANN's implementation of the ATRT Recommendations, we have developed and are implementing the attached checklist as a tool to meet Recommendation 20, which states: 20. The Board should ensure that all necessary inputs that have been received in policy making processes are accounted for and included for consideration by the Board. To assist in this, the Board should as soon as possible adopt and make available to the community a mechanism such as a checklist or template to accompany documentation for Board decisions that certifies what inputs have been received and are included for consideration by the Board. As the GNSO is the SO that is most active in providing recommendations to the Board arising out of the policy development process, this checklist is being piloted within the GNSO. This would be a tool that staff would have the primary obligation for completing as part of the submission of GNSO Policy recommendations, and is not intended to replace any of the existing documentation requirements. We would appreciate your thoughts on if there are improvements that could be made to this checklist to help make sure that this is sufficient to capture the inputs as identified in the ATRT Recommendation. Please provide your inputs to rec-20-checklist(a)icann.org by 7 September 2012. After your input is collected, we will be revising the checklist for use by each of the Supporting Organizations. We expect that this checklist will go through iterations as we gain experience working with it. Thank you for your help and input. Regards, David David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

1 0

Re: Canada and GAC High-level Meeting at ICANN 45 - Toronto
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

Councillors, Please find below the GAC response to my clarification question. I have put this on the agenda for our next meeting as I would like us to have discussed this before going into Toronto. Please also share with your respective groups as required. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 15 août 2012 à 04:02, Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca a écrit : > The HLM meetings will be open and transcribed so attendance of the SOAC leadership for the other parts of the program would be based on their level of interest and availability. > > Without going into all the protocol and history of the exchanges among governments about how to convene a high-level meeting at ICANN, perhaps it is easiest to say that the GAC and the Canadian government are "co-hosting" the HLM meetings (it just happens that GAC chair is also Canadian). For the 4pm session, I would recommend preparation of Qs and lining up speakers in advance. I trust that the GNSO leadership will work with the GAC, as well as my Canadian colleagues, to find a balance between the differing cultures of the GNSO, and senior officials and politicians unfamiliar with the ICANN environment, to have a positive and productive exchange to reinforce and improve the multistakeholder model. > > Thanks! > Heather > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Sent: Tue 2012-08-14 12:03 PM > To: Dryden, Heather: SPS > Cc: lesley(a)nominet.org.uk; ocl(a)gih.com; paf(a)frobbit.se; jcurran(a)arin.net; Johnston, Susan: SPS; LIM_Choon_Sai(a)ida.gov.sg; alice(a)apc.org; maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se; jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: Canada and GAC High-level Meeting at ICANN 45 - Toronto > > Thanks Heather. > > It is unclear to me from reading the attachment wether this is a meeting where you are asking for SO/AC leadership attendance (beside the 16pm slot on Monday) and if so, what level of input you are asking from those participants. > > On the 16pm slot, I would be grateful for more context on this high-level meeting, if it is purely a canadian initiative (or is it a GAC initiative) and whether you are expecting a real conversation or a Q&A type session only? > > Thanks. > > In the meantime, I will post on the GNSO Council list so that Councillors are informed. > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > Le 14 août 2012 à 07:22, <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> a écrit : > >> Dear SOAC chairs, (please forward if I have missed anyone) >> >> I am writing to provide you with some preliminary information about the Canada and GAC High-Level meetings to take place on October 15th in Toronto. Canada is currently seeking feedback on the proposal from GAC members and initial comments from the SO and AC chairs would also be appreciated. This information has also been provided to the Board for feedback. >> >> As you can see from the attached, we are proposing an exchange with the leadership of the SOs and ACs at ICANN in the afternoon. >> >> I will now be on vacation until the beginning of September. However, I am copying Susan Johnston (susan.johnston(a)ic.gc.ca) who is responsible for planning the event on behalf of Industry Canada, as well as the GAC vice-chairs and Jeannie, who will be capably handling GAC matters in my absence. Please contact the aforementioned for further information or guidance. >> >> We can also discuss this on the next SOAC teleconference (which I think is scheduled for September). >> >> All the best, >> Heather >> >> >> >> >> <SITT-STIT-#294667-v8-ICANN_GAC_HLM_preliminary_agenda_.doc> >

1 0

DSSA Working Group Phase 1 Report - Public Comment Period Open
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14aug12-en.htm DSSA Working Group Phase 1 Report Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 14 August 2012 Comment Close: 13 September 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14aug12-en.htm> Reply Open: 14 September 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:dssa-phase-1-report@icann.org> Reply Close: 21 October 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/dssa-phase-1-report/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: DNS Security & Stability Analysis Working Group Categories/Tags: * DNS * Security/Stability Purpose (Brief): The DNS Security & Stability Analysis (DSSA) Working Group is seeking community comment on its Phase 1 Report. The Report was originally published on 15 June 2012 prior to the ICANN meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. The goal of the report is to bring forward for the community the work that the DSSA has completed to date and describe the work that remains. Current Status: Open for public comment Next Steps: The DSSA Working Group intends to perform a proof of concept to refine and streamline the methodology on one broad risk-scenario topic with the goal of reducing cycle time and making it more accessible to the broader community. Public comment on the Phase 1 Report will be used to focus attention of the DSSA Working Group on specific work areas and refinement of the methodology. Staff Contact: Patrick Jones Email: patrick.jones(a)icann.org<mailto:patrick.jones@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20DSSA%20Working%20Group%20Phase%201%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose This is the first of two reports from the DNS Security & Stability Analysis Working Group. The goal of this document is to bring forward the substantial work that has been completed to date and describe the work that remains. This has been in many respects a "pioneering" cross-constituency security-assessment effort that has developed knowledge and processes that others will hopefully find helpful and can be reused in the future. The DSSA has: * Established a cross-constituency working group and put the organizational framework to manage that group in place * Clarified the system, organizational and functional scope of the effort * Developed an approach to handling confidential information, should such information be required for certain assessments * Selected and tailored a risk-assessment methodology to structure the work * Developed and tested mechanisms to rapidly collect and consolidate risk-assessment scenarios across and broad and diverse group of interested participants * Used an "alpha-test" of those systems to develop the high-level risk-scenarios in this report. Those scenarios will serve as the starting point for the remainder of the effort. Work that remains: * Perform a proof of concept to refine and streamline the methodology on one broad risk-scenario topic with the goal of reducing cycle time and making it more accessible to a broader community * Roll the methodology out to progressively broader groups of participants to introduce the methodology to the community and further improve the process and tools on the way to completing the assessment. Public comment is sought on the Phase 1 Report. Section II: Background The objective of the DSSA Working Group is to draw upon the collective expertise of the participating SOs and ACs, solicit expert input and advice and report to the respective participating SOs and ACs on: The actual level, frequency and severity of threats to the DNS. The DSSA Working Group was originally published on 15 June 2012 prior to the ICANN Prague meeting. The report was discussed at the DSSA Working Group open session in Prague, and details on that meeting can be found at http://prague44.icann.org/node/31805. Section III: Document and Resource Links DSSA Working Group Phase 1 Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/dssa/dssa-phase-1-report-15jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 4.57 MB] Section IV: Additional Information None (*) 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

Fwd: Canada and GAC High-level Meeting at ICANN 45 - Toronto
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 14, 2012

Aug. 14, 2012

Councillors, FYI, please see email from the GAC Chair below informing us of a meeting planned for Toronto. I have also copied my response to this email below. This is for information purposes only at this stage. I will continue to push to find out more about the meeting and inform the Council when appropriate. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Objet : Rép : Canada and GAC High-level Meeting at ICANN 45 - Toronto > Date : 14 août 2012 18:03:38 UTC+02:00 > À : <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> > Cc: <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, <ocl(a)gih.com>, <paf(a)frobbit.se>, <jcurran(a)arin.net>, <Susan.Johnston(a)ic.gc.ca>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)ida.gov.sg>, <alice(a)apc.org>, <maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se>, <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org> > > Thanks Heather. > > It is unclear to me from reading the attachment wether this is a meeting where you are asking for SO/AC leadership attendance (beside the 16pm slot on Monday) and if so, what level of input you are asking from those participants. > > On the 16pm slot, I would be grateful for more context on this high-level meeting, if it is purely a canadian initiative (or is it a GAC initiative) and whether you are expecting a real conversation or a Q&A type session only? > > Thanks. > > In the meantime, I will post on the GNSO Council list so that Councillors are informed. > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > Le 14 août 2012 à 07:22, <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> a écrit : > >> Dear SOAC chairs, (please forward if I have missed anyone) >> >> I am writing to provide you with some preliminary information about the Canada and GAC High-Level meetings to take place on October 15th in Toronto. Canada is currently seeking feedback on the proposal from GAC members and initial comments from the SO and AC chairs would also be appreciated. This information has also been provided to the Board for feedback. >> >> As you can see from the attached, we are proposing an exchange with the leadership of the SOs and ACs at ICANN in the afternoon. >> >> I will now be on vacation until the beginning of September. However, I am copying Susan Johnston (susan.johnston(a)ic.gc.ca) who is responsible for planning the event on behalf of Industry Canada, as well as the GAC vice-chairs and Jeannie, who will be capably handling GAC matters in my absence. Please contact the aforementioned for further information or guidance. >> >> We can also discuss this on the next SOAC teleconference (which I think is scheduled for September). >> >> All the best, >> Heather >> >> >> >> >> <SITT-STIT-#294667-v8-ICANN_GAC_HLM_preliminary_agenda_.doc> >

1 0

Reminder: WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey- Webinar invitation - 15 August 2012 at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 13, 2012

Aug. 13, 2012

FYI http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06aug12-en.htm WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey- Webinar 15 August 2012 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey requests community input on a draft report of the Survey results. In parallel with the Public Comment period, the Working Group is hosting two webinar sessions to brief the community on the background of this effort and to solicit input from experts on those results. Interisle will provide a briefing on Wednesday 15 August at 13.00 UTC and Wednesday 15 August at 20.00 UTC, summarizing the purpose of this effort and reviewing the work called for in the Study charter. 13:00 UTC click on this link: http://tinyurl.com/chg6xo6 20:00 UTC click on this link http://tinyurl.com/cfxuc2a The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 60 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Wednesday at 13.00 UTC or Wednesday at 20.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. 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: Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 12, 2012

Aug. 12, 2012

FYI Dear All, With regard to : "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure" A mailing list has been created to facilitate the discussion and the work: * New gTLD Council Discussion Group Gnso-gtld-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-gtld-dt@icann.org> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso- gtld-dt/ Those subscribed to the mailing list are : Thomas Rickert - has volunteered to steer the group Brian Winterfeldt Joy Liddicoat Osvaldo Novao Zahid Jamil Stéphane van Gelder Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Jeff Neuman Staff Support : Brian Peck Margie Milam Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine Gisella Gruber Glen de Saint Géry Please let me know who has been left off or who should be added. 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

Draft Council minutes 20 July 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 12, 2012

Aug. 12, 2012

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 20 July 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 22 August 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

Re: GNSO candidates selected by Nominating Committee.
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 11, 2012

Aug. 11, 2012

Thanks Vanda. GNSO Council: The NomCom's answer is therefore that Carlos' current seat will be the one they will appoint this year. My understanding of the NomCom's directive is that current NCA placings are to remain the same, until the NomCom appoints new voting NCAs to each house next year. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 10 août 2012 à 17:44, "Vanda UOL" <vanda(a)uol.com.br> a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > The 2012 Nominating Committee will appoint a non-voting member to the GNSO Council to be seated at the conclusion of the 2012 ICANN Annual General Meeting in Toronto in October 2012 and who will serve a term of two years, filling the seat of the current NomComm Appointee whose term will end at the 2012 ICANN Annual General Meeting in Toronto. > > Based on Article X, Section 3 (1) of the Bylaws, the Nominating Committee will appoint three members to GNSO Council: two voting members assigned to each House, till the end of their term, appointed at each odd year to substitute each previous selectee which term will be ending, and a non- voting member, each even year. > > This is the consensus among NomComm 2012 members, for the information of GNSO Council. > I remain at your disposition, > Best regards, > > > Vanda Scartezini > ICANN Nominating Committee > Chair 2012 > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > >

2 2

New gTLD Application Comment Period Extended
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 10, 2012

Aug. 10, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10aug12-en.htm New gTLD Application Comment Period Extended 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10aug12-en.htm> 10 August 2012 ICANN has extended the public comment period for new generic top-level domains applications for an additional 45 days. The new end date is now 26 September 2012. The new gTLD application comment period provides the public with an opportunity to have their views considered by evaluation panels as part of the application evaluations. The comment period opened on 13 June 2012 and will remain open for the entire application processing life cycle. The old timeline provided that only those comments received within the first 60 days, through 12 August 2012, were sure to be delivered to evaluators. We've now extended that period an additional 45 days. The Applicant Guidebook states that the public comment period could be extended based on the number of applications received. Leading up to the original 60-day deadline, ICANN received input from the community that this window should be extended to provide for the additional time needed to analyze and provide thoughtful comment on the significantly larger than 500 applications originally anticipated. After review and discussion of the community's input, and careful consideration of the implications and impacts the additional time may have on the processing of applications, we have extended the application comment period an additional 45 days. This extended time will allow the public the most amount of time possible to submit comments without affecting current schedules. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

A New Approach to Africa
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 10, 2012

Aug. 10, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm A New Approach to Africa 10 August 2012 With the support of AFRINIC, Africa's Regional Registry for Internet Number Resources, ICANN and leading members of its community are today announcing an initiative aimed at increasing African participation and influence within ICANN. This initiative is the result of a June meeting involving Steve Crocker, Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors, ICANN's CEO-Designate Fadi Chehadé and its Interim CEO Akram Atallah with African community members at ICANN's 44th Public Meeting, in Prague, Czech Republic. The goal is to develop a framework for ICANN's Africa strategy and to announce an initial plan at the October 2012 Public Meeting in Toronto, Canada. The strategy will aim both to support a stronger presence for ICANN in Africa and to increase African participation in ICANN. It will also foster the promotion of the multi-stakeholder model in Africa at the government, civil society and private sector levels. This effort is a step toward stronger global engagement for ICANN, with a special focus on developing countries. To contribute to the development of the new strategy, a working group was created and endorsed by the African community members meeting in Prague, including key players in Internet governance from different regions in Africa. The working group has selected Nii Quaynor of Ghana, a well-respected Internet leader in Africa, to lead its efforts. ICANN has appointed Tarek Kamel of Egypt to serve as a Senior Advisor to its President and CEO on global issues, and to work with the group to develop the initial strategic plan that will be announced in Toronto. The working group unanimously endorsed this choice. Tarek is well known for his long record of achievements in promoting the Internet and its multi-stakeholder model in developing countries. For further information or to submit ideas, please contact ICANN-ASWG(a)Afrinic.net<mailto:ICANN-ASWG@Afrinic.net>. Journalists should contact Brad White, ICANN's Director of Global Media Affairs, at brad.white(a)icann.org<mailto:brad.white@icann.org>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 9, 2012

Aug. 9, 2012

Stephane, I would support a fact-based letter from the drafting team that establishes the Council's commitment and expectations. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, August 09, 2012 7:15 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole(a)nameking.com>, "john(a)crediblecontext.com" <john(a)crediblecontext.com>, GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Jeff, that is very helpful. I wonder if we, as a Council, could ask the DT to draft a communication letter to the GNSO community, as you suggest? What do people think about this? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 9 août 2012 à 04:29, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> a écrit : Thanks Mason, Stephane and John. As the chair of the Drafting Team, I do not believe that this letter changes any of the work underway with the drafting team other than to give us further resolve to provide a clear response to the GAC proposal (from last September) ASAP, whether that response is to maintain the status quo or provide additional protections or somewhere in between. With respect to circumventing the GNSO, this has also been a concern of mine and I do believe a response to the IGO letter is warranted to send a clear message that WE, the GNSO community, are tasked with determining gTLD policies through the multi-stakeholder processes. Not the Board, but the community. To that end, I was very comforted by the recent Progress Report issues by the new gTLD committee of the board, http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld/report-03aug12-en.pdf, which states with respect to being asked for action on the IOC/RCRC issue: “Review of this material indicates that the appropriate course is for the Board to leave these issues in the hands of ICANN’s policy--‐making bodies. This was the recommendation of the Board in its Singapore resolution when considering protections for the IOC and Red Cross. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in the GNSO. The IOC and Red Cross are addressing their comments to the GNSO. The GNSO is properly considering whether to do additional work on these issues.” The same rationale holds true with respect to the IGOs and should be repeated back to the IGOs in our response letter. I believe it is a little premature to provide any response to the GAC on the issue of their consideration of the IGO issue. I do not read their latest communiqué as a change, but rather just a politically correct statement saying that they are considering the issue (much like we may likely be doing once the final issue report is released). The GAC has every right to consider the issue and provide advice to the Board. Hopefully the Board will repeat the above mantra and send that advice back down to the GNSO for its consideration prior to taking any action. To do otherwise at this point would go against the latest new gTLD Progress Report. Hope that helps. Best regards, 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: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:00 PM To: john(a)crediblecontext.com; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration Please excuse my late reply on this as I'm just back from a holiday which had me out of e-mail reach for an extended period. Allow me to make note of two communications on the IGO matter. (There were previous communications on IGO protection, dating back to December 2011, but I don't believe they were sent by / addressed to a UN agency, as are these, but by a collection of IGO legal counsel): First, the GAC's letter to the Board of 12 April 2012, including: "Firstly, the GAC reaffirms previous advice that the IOC and Red Cross and Red Crescent should be protected at the top and second levels, given that these organizations enjoy protection at both the international level through international treaties (e.g. the Nairobi Treaty and the Geneva Conventions) and through national laws in multiple jurisdictions. The GAC considers the existence of such two--tiered protection as creating the criteria relevant to determining whether any other entities should be afforded comparable enhanced protection. The GAC has considered the Board’s request for policy advice on the expansion of protections to include IGOs and advises that in the event that additional IGOs are found to meet the above criteria, this would be a consideration in the formulation of GAC advice for IGO protections in future rounds, as well as consideration of protections for IGOs, more generally. Therefore, the GAC advises that no additional protections should be afforded to IGOs, beyond the current protections found in the Applicant Guidebook, for the current round." Second, the GAC's Prague communique: "Mindful of its previous GAC advice to the Board on protection of names and acronyms of international organisations enjoying protection at both the international level through international treaties and through national laws in multiple jurisdictions, such as Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, and recognizing the importance of assuring equal treatment of qualifying international organisations under the same criteria, the GAC is carefully considering the issue, with a view to providing further advice to the Board at a time suitable to the GNSO consideration of this issues (sic) expected in July." Perhaps I'm making incorrect inferences, but while a) the April letter is very clear that the GAC advises against additional protection, and b) I believe the council received some level of assurance that the IOC/RC request was unique thanks to their particular status under international law, the communique seems to suggest IGOs could rise to equal status with the IOC and RC. Perhaps the GAC is preparing to reverse its previous advice. With regard to the content of the issue -- the protection of IGO names -- I believe we have only the April advice of the GAC on which to rely, with a later notification in its communique that it is again considering the protection issue. With regard to the process that applies to the issue -- how to go about achieving protection through policy, if warranted -- I agree with John that we have plenty of heat, and some light would be more useful. I understand the UN is frustrated by perceived delay. I also understand very clearly not everyone sees the rationale behind ICANN policymaking procedures and the practical necessity of relying on them and not freelancing policy. To Stephane's question, I agree a reply could be useful (perhaps including the correspondence between IGO legal counsel and staff earlier this year). Further informing that reply might be a better understanding of what change, if any, the GAC may make to its April advice, and a review of the board's rationale for voting down the GNSO's recommendation to approve IOC/RC protection. Finally, I too am interested in Jeff's input as chair of the DT. Mason -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of john(a)crediblecontext.com Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 8:53 AM To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration Stephane, Circumventing the process was very much on the mind of the Council in Costa Rica, the meeting at which the matter of IGO protections was first put front-and-center. Our response then should inform our actions now. Recall that on March 26 went sent a letter to Board Chair Steve Crocker and then-CEO Rod Beckstrom committing to the the organization's principles. The UN has an advocate at ICANN in the GAC. GAC has the responsibility to offer advice to the Board. If that advice affects policy, the Board then forwards to the Council. Has the Board gotten such advice? Has the Board engaged the Council? With this much heat, I am surprised there has not be more light. As a Council member, I want us to do what we can, where we can, when we can. No less, no more. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:29 am To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Councillors, Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to the GAC Chair and myself on the protection of IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD programme. As this is the latest in a long line of correspondence sent to ICANN on the matter, I feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council should be providing clearer responses to the question of the protection of IGO names that it has done so far. I am not advocating any specific direction for that response, merely suggesting that any response might be desirable at this time, rather than no response. As we all know, substantial work has been undertaken on the question of the IOC and RC names, culminating in a recommendation being sent to the Board. It is therefore clear that, from a GNSO point of view, the issue has been handled through our normal processes as part of the bottom-up PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN. As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid any potential attempts at circumventing the GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any formal response the GNSO has provided to the IGOs, I wonder if one would be appropriate and would like to have the Council's opinion on this. I would also appreciate getting Jeff's opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Alina Syunkova <alina.syunkova(a)icann.org> > Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration > Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC > À : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> > > Dear Heather and Stephane, > > Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which arrived at the ICANN office in Los Angeles today. It is addressed to both of you. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you, > -- Alina Syunkova > > Board Support Coordinator > ICANN > Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972 > Skype: alina.syunkova.icann > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

TR: Memorandum to the ICANN Board Re; RySG position on WHOIS Recommendations
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 9, 2012

Aug. 9, 2012

On behalf of: David W. Maher Dear Glen: Here is a message that I sent recently, on behalf of the Registries Stakeholder Group, to Diane Schroeder for distribution to the ICANN Board of Directors. I would appreciate it if you could bring this to the attention of the GNSO Council. Thank you. Warmest regards David David W. Maher Senior Vice President - Law & Policy Public Interest Registry From: David Maher Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:14:43 -0400 Dear Diane: In the discussion among the ICANN Board and the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) in Prague on 26 June 2012, the Board requested a statement from the RySG of its views on the recommendations in the Final Report of the WHOIS Policy Review Team. Attached is the statement prepared by the RySG. It is supported by a supermajority vote of the RySG. We would appreciate it if you could circulate this document to the Board. Thank you Warmest regards David David W. Maher Chair, RySG Senior Vice President - Law & Policy Public Interest Registry

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 9, 2012

Aug. 9, 2012

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Objet : [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List > Date : 1 août 2012 17:29:34 UTC+02:00 > À : "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> > > Dear Community Leaders, > > Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), it is time for me to ask for your input for an update on the 2012 Upcoming Public Comments list that is published at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/upcoming > > If your groups are planning on originating a public comment period on any topic that is not on the list or it is in the list but the entry needs an update, please let us know. > > Maintenance of this list helps raising early awareness about the upcoming issues among the ICANN community. > > Please send your updates to me until 10 September 2012, using the attached template for the new submissions you may like to make. > > Following the process, after receiving your input, we will update the list for 2012 and make another call for updates for 2013 in December. > However, please note that you can pass any updates necessary on the list to me at any time. > > Kind regards, > ----- > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > _______________________________________________ > soac-infoalert mailing list > soac-infoalert(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 9, 2012

Aug. 9, 2012

Stephane, Circumventing the process was very much on the mind of the Council in Costa Rica, the meeting at which the matter of IGO protections was first put front-and-center. Our response then should inform our actions now. Recall that on March 26 went sent a letter to Board Chair Steve Crocker and then-CEO Rod Beckstrom committing to the the organization's principles. The UN has an advocate at ICANN in the GAC. GAC has the responsibility to offer advice to the Board. If that advice affects policy, the Board then forwards to the Council. Has the Board gotten such advice? Has the Board engaged the Council? With this much heat, I am surprised there has not be more light. As a Council member, I want us to do what we can, where we can, when we can. No less, no more. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:29 am To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Councillors, Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to the GAC Chair and myself on the protection of IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD programme. As this is the latest in a long line of correspondence sent to ICANN on the matter, I feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council should be providing clearer responses to the question of the protection of IGO names that it has done so far. I am not advocating any specific direction for that response, merely suggesting that any response might be desirable at this time, rather than no response. As we all know, substantial work has been undertaken on the question of the IOC and RC names, culminating in a recommendation being sent to the Board. It is therefore clear that, from a GNSO point of view, the issue has been handled through our normal processes as part of the bottom-up PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN. As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid any potential attempts at circumventing the GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any formal response the GNSO has provided to the IGOs, I wonder if one would be appropriate and would like to have the Council's opinion on this. I would also appreciate getting Jeff's opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Alina Syunkova <alina.syunkova(a)icann.org> > Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration > Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC > À : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, "stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> > > Dear Heather and Stephane, > > Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which arrived at the ICANN office in Los Angeles today. It is addressed to both of you. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you, > -- Alina Syunkova > > Board Support Coordinator > ICANN > Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972 > Skype: alina.syunkova.icann > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

4 3

ICANN update on evaluations, timelines etc.
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 9, 2012

Aug. 9, 2012

Hello All, The attached documents have been published on: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/webinar-09aug12-en Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Recent ICANN Board approvals
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 8, 2012

Aug. 8, 2012

Hello All, The Board has recently approved various routine resolutions via email vote. The recently approved minutes of meetings that occurred in May may be of interest. That are available below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02aug12-en.htm 2 August 2012 The following resolutions were adopted by the ICANN Board through a unanimous online vote, pursuant to Section 19 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VI-19. 1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes 6 May 2012 (includes discussion of work of the conflicts and ethics subcommittee as it related to appointing Directors to the new gTLD programme committee): http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-06may12-en.… 31 May 2012 (appointment of Fadi Chehadé): http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-31may12-en.htm 2. Appointment of Ondrej Filip to SSAC 3. Acknowledgment of Completion of ALAC Structural Review 4. Acknowledgment of Completion of NomCom Structural Review 5. Thank You Resolutions a. Departing At-Large Community Volunteer b. Rod Beckstrom c. Sponsors of Prague Meeting d. Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of Prague Meeting e. Local Hosts of Prague Meeting

1 0

WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey- Webinar invitation - 15 August 2012 at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

FYI http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06aug12-en.htm WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey- Webinar 15 August 2012 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey requests community input on a draft report of the Survey results. In parallel with the Public Comment period, the Working Group is hosting two webinar sessions to brief the community on the background of this effort and to solicit input from experts on those results. Interisle will provide a briefing on Wednesday 15 August at 13.00 UTC and Wednesday 15 August at 20.00 UTC, summarizing the purpose of this effort and reviewing the work called for in the Study charter. 13:00 UTC click on this link: http://tinyurl.com/chg6xo6 20:00 UTC click on this link http://tinyurl.com/cfxuc2a The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 60 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Wednesday at 13.00 UTC or Wednesday at 20.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

NomCom discussion
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

Councillors, FYI. In the context of our ongoing discussions with the NomCom, which I have kept you informed of, and of Vanda's latest message asking us if we had a transcript of the Dakar meeting when we discussed the NCA allocation procedure, I asked Glen to search for a such a transcript. She did a fantastic job of coming up with the text below, and as a follow-up I have asked Vanda to let us know when the NomCom would make a final determination for this year's NCA assignments and inform us of this. I will note that my understanding from the text below, and Rob Hall's explanations, is that the NomCom actually only assign when they pick the candidates. If that is correct, it would mean that the NomCom will only give us directions for the single NCA they pick this year, leaving the other two assignments up to the Council. This seems to me to be consistent with what Vanda has already told us, but as I mentioned above, I have asked her for a final determination from the NomCom just to make sure we are doing what needs to be done on this issue. Copying Vanda and Rob on this to make sure they are in the loop as well. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Objet : RE: hi Stéphane > Date : 6 août 2012 18:54:05 UTC+02:00 > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, 'Vanda Scartezini' <vanda(a)uol.com.br> > Cc: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > > Dear Vanda and Stephane, > > This is an excerpt from the transcript of the Wrap-Up meeting on 27 October 2011 in Dakar where the issue was raised and Rob Hall spoke. > http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-27oct11… > I have highlighted certain parts of Rob Hall’s discussion with the Council for you. > > I hope this is helpful. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > Glen > > Excerpt from the transcript of the Wrap-Up meeting on 27 October 2011 in Dakar > http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-27oct11… > > Stephane Van Gelder: > So we’ll move on to the next topic which is a discussion. I want to ask to be able to discuss the - some of the topics that came out of a meeting that leadership team had with the NomCom earlier in the week and sent the council a short recap of the notes that I’ve taken from that meeting. > see the text of the email below that you sent to the council: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12320.html > > And in that meeting the NomCom made it clear through us that in their work at both selecting and assigning NCO NomCom appointees to the council, they were now under obligation to have discussions with the GNSO council so it wasn’t something - I mean, it’s always something that they’ve wanted to do but now it’s something that they are under obligation to do and if those discussions can’t take place, then they would report back in the - when they make their assignments. > So I just wanted to touch on that, get some feedback possibly from you on how we should approach that with the NomCom. Wolf. > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Thank you Stephane. I would like to say in general that the whole process, how it worked in the past, it must’ve been a big problem, big issue for those who are coming in for the (UNTA) I would say, because you know, if you are - I (offer your opinion) to come in here or you are already in and you think about and think something is (severed), and then it turns out that the process didn’t work which as been. > There was a process but a - one of the major bodies, NomCom did not take care of all of that. It must be really critical so that’s one point, to say that very clearly. > In - I learned from that as well. Right now they are obliged to deal with that in the future. That means if I understand that correctly that the council in this respect shall not have any right or any obligation now to act on this in the future, just to accept what is coming on - out from the NomCom. That’s my understanding on that. > So the only question from me is that then if that is the case or how we can then start to incorporate those who are coming in and to help them to find their places, the right places here or told they will be allocated but they have to learn how to educate and perhaps into a system to understand what’s going on. > So - and this is what probably we should think about or how we could deal with them – because I understand people who are not allocated to any specific stakeholder group or specific (part of the constituency) for example. They would say they may have problems to find the positions here. > And so, my suggestion is, well, that (successfully this has to be) in the stakeholder groups. They should come up with some ideas or (we don’t) take this up within our constituency as well. Think about that and then these ideas should be put on the table before the next round which is in one year. > So, we have some time but it is not too much time as I understand because now only people are thinking when the event is very close. Thank you. > > Stephane Van Gelder: Thanks Wolf. Any further discussion? (Carlos). > (Carlos): Thank you Stephane. I have nothing to say more then I said in my mails during the last two weeks. I think my position is clear. I think the whole community needs to know how is the procedure (taken) by NomCom to the (unintelligible) every NomCom appointee needs GNSO houses and how will be the (resolution). > And maybe looking past. The question is why our chair and vice chairs didn’t ask the NomCom or NomCom appointee like by (last set). Thank you. > > Stephane Van Gelder: Well, I can begin to answer that and we have the chair elect of the NomCom here who I know wants to say a few words. But because you mentioned the leadership team, I feel I should address some of those points and add a bit of history and context to the discussions. And the assignments for the NomCom appointees is something that’s relatively new because it’s coming out of the new structure of the council so we basically had to face this situation twice. > And both times we have not had direction from the NomCom whom I believe have felt that the GNSO council itself working with the NCOs were able to work out the best assignments that would suit both the houses and the appointees. And I have to say that in the past up to this year, that system has worked exactly like that and the appointee themselves have made their wishes or requirements known and have talked to the houses directly to be assigned. So I think we were slipping into that system and the clarifications that have been brought up this year have meant that we are changing and looking at now sticking to the bylaws as the note from general council said we should. Rob. > > Rob Hall: Thank you for the opportunity to perhaps clarify. My name is Rob Hall. I am - as of Friday, the chair elect. I’ll be chairing the 2013 NomCom, (Vend), of course, chairs this one. > This is a great discussion. Let me perhaps clarify some things. Steph, you’re sort of right. The bylaws changed last year with respect to the nominating committee so it’s not that the previous nominating committees were ignoring this, the ATRT recommended that the nominating committee begin assigning the specific houses. > In the middle of last year’s nominating committee, the bylaws changed. The committee at the time decided to continue on the bylaws of when they were struck which were in place at the last AGM which is why the committee did not appoint to the individual houses. > It became apparent through request of the general council that we should do that. The general council says, “Yes, the bylaws are enforced now even though they weren’t when you started your deliberations, so it is your duty to appoint.” So that is why we regrouped the last year’s nominating committee which ends its duties tomorrow. The new nominating committee sits tomorrow. Just to clarify I think something Steph said earlier, the - those same new bylaw changes require the nominating committee to go out to the community of which, of course, the GNSO is one, and ask its advice on what skill sets we should be looking at for the board members and we read that as for all the members we appoint because we appoint to the GNSO, the ccNSO and the ALAC. > So we have formally done that. You may be getting a letter from us to request it even more formally. I heard some comments about timing so let me be perfectly clear on what they are. > This is the first year that we will be appointing where we have knowledge before we ask for candidates to your individual houses. We’re looking for what questions should we be asking, what criteria and that can be on a house level. > For instance, one of your houses may have different criteria for what it wants in its house then the other, and as a whole, you may have some comments on what the non-voting representative criteria should be. > We’re happy for those. We’re desperate for those. Applications open in December typically and we’re planning on following that again this year. They close in April. So the time to get a feedback is between now and December as to what qualities we should be looking for because we’ll include it in the application process. > These candidates will be picked at the Prague meeting which I believe is next summer and will be assigned to a house on the announcement when we pick them. So that’s the timing of what we’re deciding so if you want us to consider criteria for candidates before application, the time is December. > If you want us to consider criteria when we’re actually picking them after we have the candidates, that time would be before Prague, and I can assure you with the new processes of the first year under the new bylaws as well, where there is a chair elect, I have the privilege of serving in that. > So I will be coming to you much sooner. So the old bylaws prevented it. We had a chair and past chair. The chair was not allowed to reach out to you prior to actually sitting so the previous chair had to do the work as (Adam) has done this year. > I’ll start the process of who are your candidates for the NomCom? What are you looking for, probably in the spring or summer so you’ll see it many months earlier. So that’s all part of the ATIT recommendations. > I think I’ve answered most of the questions you clari- you touched on. If there’s anything else, I’ll be happy to answer it to the best of my ability. Thank you sir. > > Stephane Van Gelder: Rob, thanks very much for those great explanations. Alan. > > Alan Greenberg: Yes, this doesn’t affect the current situation but just to get the history right, in the first round after the reorganization, the rules council adopted was if the three NCAs and the two houses could come to an agreement as to how they were assigned by a certain date, that will be assigned as such otherwise a random selection would be drawn. > There was agreement but not by the date and a random selection was used which incidentally changed radically the - what they had come to an agreement on. > > Stephane Van Gelder: Thanks Alan. Any further comments? Okay, we’ll continue discussing the topic and seeing how we can interact with the NomCom. The next top- I just want to just go down the list a bit, just make sure we cover 31 > > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12320.html > Councillors, > > At the NomCom's request, a meeting was called with them on Monday. I wanted to > pass on my notes from the meeting to ensure the Council was aware of it. > > Attendees were: > > Adam Peake: previous NomCom Chair (from Friday) appointed by the Board > Vanda Scartezini: New NomCom Chair (from Friday) SSAC rep > Rob Hall: Chair NomCom elect (from Friday) Registrar rep > Mary > Jeff > SVG > > Rob: Intro. We would like to know what you want, and don't want, in an NCA. > > SVG: Intro. This meeting planned at last minute at the NomCom's initiative. > Council not aware. Leadership team cannot speak for Council and cannot be > telling the NomCom in this kind of a meeting what the Council wants and doesn't > want. My expectations for this meeting were that we would not be speaking about > this, but only about the current assignment situation. > > Mary and Jeff: In agreement. > > Rob: Understood. We could sit in your Open meeting on Wednesday and talk to the > Council if you want and ask this question. This year, for the first time, we > have to have opinions. We are required to by the bylaws and we have to report > on how we have come to our decisions. So please go back to the Council if you > think you need to, but be aware that we need some feedback soon. > > Adam: Process so far has been for informal discussions with the GNSO. Now > discussions need to be more formal. > > Rob: The GNSO can also provide input on the other positions the NomCom assigns, > like the Board. Not just the GNSO positions. > > Rob: Process for NomCom assignments. We pick 2 people one year, and 1 person > the next year. But every year we decide how to assign all three. > > SVG: So why didn't you assign 3 people this year? > > Adam: Yes, we should probably have assigned Carlos on the note we sent you, but > of course we considered that assignment to be implicit in the letter we sent > you as the other 2 NCAs were assigned. Don't forget that this was an emergency > situation and we had to reconvene the old NomCom to decide this. > > Adam: The NomCom is an independent committee under the bylaws and we operate > under strict privacy laws. > > Follows discussion on how the past NCAs have worked and what the history of > past NCAs is, the NomCom wanting to get feedback on their previous assignments > to get a better idea of how they should act going forward. > > Rob: In the selection process, right now we have a generic questionnaire. I > would like to see us have an additional questionnaire as well which would be > more specifically for the group that we're assigning the candidate to. > > Stéphane > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > De : Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] > Envoyé : vendredi 3 août 2012 23:48 > À : Glen de Saint Géry > Cc : Neuman Jeff; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Objet : Re: hi Stéphane > > Glen, > > Do we have a transcript of our meeting with the NomCom in Dakar? My recollection is that it was an inscribed meeting, but I am not sure. > > Could you please respond to Vanda if you find something? > > Thanks, > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Directeur Général / General manager > INDOM Group NBT France > ---------------- > Head of Domain Operations > Group NBT > > Le 3 août 2012 à 19:37, "Vanda UOL" <vanda(a)uol.com.br> a écrit : > > > > Dear Stéphane > We start again, as I said, debating inside the Committee and since our notes are not recorded, we have the best the staff get from the points discussed inside our meetings/calls. > My personal recollection is that we just debated and no final decision was taken related to placing of the appointee within the GNSO structure. > By the other hand, we do deal with the position open for the GNSO this year as a non-voting position during the selection process, as all Committee members have stated when you first asked. However, this does not mean the candidate does not fit for a vote position. > Do you have any transcription of the meeting we had with GNSO about the issue, to share with NomComm members? > > If you have and can share, will certainly help. > Thank you in advance, > > > Vanda Scartezini > ICANN Nominating Committee > Chair 2012 > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > >

2 1

Fwd: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure"
by Stéphane Van Gelder Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

Councillors, Please see the email below. I would be very keen for the Council as a whole to submit some views. Do others share that desire and if so, who would be willing to coordinate this effort? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : > De : Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com> > Objet : Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure" > Date : 3 août 2012 12:24:46 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, lesley.cowley(a)nominet.org.uk, "Dryden, Heather: DIT" <Dryden.Heather(a)ic.gc.ca>, Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se>, Louis Lee <louie(a)louie.net>, "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, matt.serlin(a)markmonitor.com, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, tony.ar.holmes(a)bt.com, Jon(a)nevett.net > Cc : Ray Plzak <plzakr(a)gmail.com>, Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>, Judith Vazquez <judith.vazquez(a)icann.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr(a)w3.org> > > Dear all, > > The new gTLD program will have a significant impact on the functioning of ICANN and its structure. An in-depth community discussion is needed to identify early the corresponding challenges and possible evolutions. It should be conducted while the gTLD program itself is being implemented, without waiting for the completion of this round. This should in particular be taken into account in the upcoming gNSO review, planned in 2013. > > As you probably remember, this issue was therefore put on the agenda of the various Board interactions with SOs, ACs and constituencies during the Prague meeting. Several issues were identified during these discussions, pertaining both to scalability factors (due to the number of applications) and qualitative impact (including the diversity of the new gTLDs and the potential overlapping of the constituencies they could belong to). > > At the end of each such session, Steve Crocker invited participants to share a one-pager on this topic to gather preliminary views and help prepare a dedicated session in Toronto. > > I am writing to you as Chairs of the respective SOs, ACs, Stakeholder Groups or Constituencies to renew this call for input. The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), chaired by Ray Plzak, will discuss the topic during the Board Workshop mid-September and your perspective is eagerly sought after. The contributions can be very synthetic at that stage, for instance merely listing bullet points of identified potential impacts. The objective is to get as complete a picture as possible of the different dimensions of the issue. > > I know the summer period is not the easiest to gather views in you respective groups but I also understand that this has already been discussed before Prague and you probably are in a position to share the concerns already identified, if not the possible solutions. This is only a preliminary stage and further consultations will take place to prepare the Toronto session. > > Thank you in advance for your contribution, if possible before September 10, and don't hesitate to share this call for input with people I might have inadvertently overlooked or you think might be good contributors from your group. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >

6 7

Progress Report on new gTLD issues raised in Prague
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld/report-03aug12-en.pdf See attached. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Webinar on the Initial Evaluation of New gTLD Applications
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

For info: From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-03aug12-en Webinar on the Initial Evaluation of New gTLD Applications The initial evaluation phase of the new generic top-level domain program began on 12 July 2012, and evaluation panels are now processing applications using the criteria in the Applicant Guidebook. Throughout the evaluation process, ICANN will provide regular updates to applicants. One method we plan to use is monthly webinar sessions. This first session will be set for 90 minutes with an opportunity for questions and answers. The sessions will provide updates on evaluation progress, program developments, and other topics of interest to new gTLD applicants. The sessions will be open but opportunity for questions will be reserved for applicants. The first webinar will provide: * Information and updates on the various elements of the evaluation process * Early evaluation indications and implications for applicants * Discussion of the "batching" issue and its impact on the timing of delegations. We hope you can join us for this session but if you can't, you'll find a recording of the webinar in the Announcements & Media section of the new gTLD microsite. Applicant Webinar: Start of New gTLD Initial Evaluation Date: 9 August 2012 Time: 12:00 - 13:30 UTC (5:00 - 6:30am PST) RSVP: If you would like to participate, please reserve a place by emailing newgtldcommunications(a)icann.org by 00:00 UTC on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 (5:00pm PST, Tuesday, 7 August 2012). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in details. Please note that space is limited for this live webinar. Priority will be given to applicants on a first come, first served basis. If you are an applicant, we strongly encourage you to send your RSVP as soon as possible from the primary contact's email address.

1 0

Period of 02 - 12 August 2012: Public Comment Periods Recently Opened and Approaching Closing Date
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 5, 2012

Aug. 5, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03aug12-en.htm Period of 02 - 12 August 2012: Public Comment Periods Recently Opened and Approaching Closing Date 3 August 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are Recently Opened or are approaching their Comment or Reply Period Close dates between 02 - 12 August 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] ICANN's FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssr-fy13-01jun12-en.htm> 2 July 2012 [23:59] 3 August 2012 [23:59] .name Registry Agreement Renewal<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-renewal-2012-03jul12-en.htm> 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

Preliminary IR on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 4, 2012

Aug. 4, 2012

In reviewing this report related to whether the ALAC should comment on it or not, a question came to mind. I do not disagree with the staff assessment that this subject is within the scope of the GNSO. However, it is far from clear to me if this effort needs to be a GNSO effort. For the most part, it would seem that this the work could be carried out as a staff effort (not necessarily Policy Staff although they might be involved) if it was of sufficiently high priority to ICANN. Although the end work product could be viewed as GNSO Policy, it could also fall under the heading of contractual terms which often is an outcome of bilateral negotiations and not formal GNSO action. The only benefit I see of it coming through the GNSO is that then there is a higher threshold for the Board to not implement. And even if this is necessary, that does not see a valid reason that it falls on the GNSO to do the very significant research involved instead of it being a staff (or externally contracted), ICANN funded, effort. Alan

1 0