September 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

updated draft letter
by Thomas Rickert 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

Dear all, as discussed during yesterday's call, please find below the draft letter regarding the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure including the changes proposed by Stéphane. Please provide your comments and suggestions as soon as you can as the plan is to finalize the draft by the end of next week. Kind regards and have a great weekend, Thomas Dear Bertrand, the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure. As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the upcoming challenges. As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their size can hardly be predicted. In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be re-configurations or alignments of existing groups. Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already publishing information on how to participate (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are available to be inclusive In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects. For sure, there will be - more attention by the general pubic and Governments; - more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the venues; - more groups that need administrative and technical support; - more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote participation; - more documents to be produced and read; - more decisions to be made and operationalized; - more contractors that need to be managed; - the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and - more compliance issues that need to be taken care of. These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue. The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known. In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of participants / stakeholders and their respective needs. Thank you, Stéphane van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council

5 10

Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
by Marika Konings 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

Dear All, Please find attached the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse. To facilitate your review, you'll also find attached the redline version that shows the changes that were made compared to the Preliminary Issue Report. I've also attached a draft motion you may want to consider as part of the next step which would be to decide whether to initiate the Policy Development Process. With best regards, Marika Sr. Policy Director ICANN

2 1

Fwd: [soac-chairs] SSAC Comment on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

Councillors, Please see below. As this pertains to work currently ongoing at GNSO level, this is obviously of major interest to us. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Début du message réexpédié : > De : Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> > Objet : [soac-chairs] SSAC Comment on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report > Date : 20 septembre 2012 21:04:26 HAEC > À : "soac-chairs(a)icann.org" <soac-chairs(a)icann.org> > > All, > > The latest SSAC document has been published on the SSAC documents page at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents > > [SAC055}: SSAC Comment on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report (14 September 2012): > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-055-en.pdf > > Patrik > > > _______________________________________________ > soac-chairs mailing list > soac-chairs(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs

1 0

Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
by Stéphane Van Gelder 20 Sep '12

20 Sep '12

Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information. The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit : > Hi Stephane: > > I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those models for possible implementation.We want to have one meeting in about two weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is scheduled. The first meeting will be announced shortly. > > I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do not match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its work. We recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the meetings we are having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having the twin goals of developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and ensuring that all those interested can participate in the discussion, we can work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the the URS was designed and also seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model by the IRT and STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform GNSO discussion or we can carry on in a way acceptable to the GNSO. > > I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI. > > I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions. > > Regards, > > Kurt > >

4 3

Re: [council] updated draft letter
by Mason Cole 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

The RrSG is good with this letter as written. >>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> >>>> Subject: [council] updated draft letter >>>> Date: September 14, 2012 7:29:31 AM PDT >>>> To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> as discussed during yesterday's call, please find below the draft letter regarding the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure including the changes proposed by Stéphane. >>>> >>>> Please provide your comments and suggestions as soon as you can as the plan is to finalize the draft by the end of next week. >>>> >>>> Kind regards and have a great weekend, >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Bertrand, >>>> >>>> the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure. >>>> >>>> As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the upcoming challenges. >>>> >>>> As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their size can hardly be predicted. >>>> >>>> In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be re-configurations or alignments of existing groups. >>>> >>>> Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already publishing information on how to participate (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are available to be inclusive >>>> >>>> In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects. For sure, there will be >>>> >>>> - more attention by the general pubic and Governments; >>>> >>>> - more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the venues; >>>> >>>> - more groups that need administrative and technical support; >>>> >>>> - more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote participation; >>>> >>>> - more documents to be produced and read; >>>> >>>> - more decisions to be made and operationalized; >>>> >>>> - more contractors that need to be managed; >>>> >>>> - the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and >>>> >>>> - more compliance issues that need to be taken care of. >>>> >>>> These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue. >>>> >>>> The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known. >>>> >>>> In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of participants / stakeholders and their respective needs. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Stéphane van Gelder >>>> >>>> Chair, GNSO Council >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> >> >> >> >> >> ************************************************************************************ >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. >> ************************************************************************************ >> >

1 0

Update on Toronto Visa Issues
by David Olive 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

Dear Stéphane and Council Members: In view of your dialogue on the list concerning visas for the Toronto meeting, I reached out to the travel and meetings teams to get a better understand of this issue. They are aware of and are working on ways to address individual visa issues. If you are aware of others with such difficulties, please let us know. 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

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 45 Public Forum agenda
by Stéphane Van Gelder 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Objet : [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 45 Public Forum agenda > Date : 18 septembre 2012 16:16:25 HAEC > À : "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> > > [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] > > > Dear ICANN Community Leaders, > > We are approaching ICANN 45 in Toronto. > > As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 18 October 2012, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and/or to the rest of the Community. > > Following the practice we had in the recent meetings, we would like to build the agenda with your input again as this facilitates the forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about. > > Publishing the agenda as early as possible also facilitates more informed discussions during the Public Forum as we have experienced in recent meetings, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting actually starts. > > Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Toronto, before the end of Monday, 1 October 2012. > > We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. > > Thanks for your consideration and input. > > Kind regards, > Steve Crocker > > _______________________________________________ > soac-infoalert mailing list > soac-infoalert(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

RE: [council] Visa for ICANN Toronto refused by Canadian High Commission
by Neuman, Jeff 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

Zahid, Sorry to hear this and frankly this should not happen. Stephane, can we reach out to Heather to see if there is something she may be able to do? Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 06:25 PM Eastern Standard Time To: council(a)gnso.icann.org List Subject: [council] Visa for ICANN Toronto refused by Canadian High Commission Dear Councillors, I applied today at the Canadian High Commission at London for my visa for the ICANN meeting with invitation letter etc. Without even asking any questions it was flatly refused. Apparently, the High Commission wouldn't even speak to the ICANN staff. Guess I may not be seeing you all in Toronto. May be an idea to ensure Government support before accepting requests to host ICANN meetings next time. For all the grievances at least the Senaglese gave everyone visas on arrival. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

4 4

suggestions for the Toronto agenda
by Thomas Rickert 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

Stéphane, Wolf-Ulrich and Jeff, all, since we did not have the time to discuss agenda items for Toronto, I would like to propose two topics now. 1. At the moment, all contracts with ICANN are governed by the laws of California. For ICANN to be globally inclusive, it would seem appropriate to me if ICANN would offer contracts at least one in each of the regions under one regional law. I would like to kick-off a discussion on that. 2. In the course of the RAA negotiations there are, amongst others, requests for (i) validation prior to the resolution of domain names and annual re-verification to increase Whois accuracy as well as for (ii) data retention for two years past the life of the registration. Particularly these two areas will have an enormous impact on the whole community. Yet, there does not seem to be community-wide attention to that and the practical and legal implications thereof. Let me clarify that this it not meant to affect the Registrars' mandate to negotiate or change the Council's role. It is more about raising awareness. Thanks for all your work on putting the agenda together, Thomas

6 7

FW: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
by David Olive 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

For your information. Regards, David From: Cherine Chalaby Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:32 PM To: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com Cc: Margie Milam; New gTLD Program Committee Subject: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues Dear Stéphane, I wanted to reach out to you and the GNSO Council to let you know about an issue of interest to the GNSO that the New gTLD Program Committee addressed this week: the protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC names. The Committee passed a resolution yesterday requesting that the GNSO consider a proposed solution for the first round to protect at the second level the names of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, consistent with the GAC advice to the Board. We have been apprised of, and appreciate, the significant work currently underway by the GNSO¹s IOC/RC Drafting Team, and the potential PDP under consideration. We crafted the resolution in a way that recognises that GNSO work is ongoing. The resolution and the rationale will be posted next Monday. The Committee adopted this resolution now, rather than wait until Toronto, to provide sufficient time for the GNSO to develop its views on this request taking into account the timeline for the first round. It is important that this issue is resolved early next year so that additional protections, if they are adopted, are in place for the first round. As a result, the Committee is seeking the GNSO¹s response by January 31, 2013. We look forward to receiving the GNSO's response and are available to discuss this issue in further detail in Toronto. Sincerely, Cherine Chalaby

3 2