August 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
by john＠crediblecontext.com 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

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 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

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 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

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 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

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 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

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 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

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 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

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 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

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 05 Aug '12

05 Aug '12

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 04 Aug '12

04 Aug '12

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