January 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jan13-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address issues related to the transfer of domain names between registrars. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to recommend how to handle these issues, which could include proposals for changes to the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy<http://archive.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm> (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). What This Group Will Do The initial tasks of the group will be to consider the following six questions[1] and make relevant recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be  developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the  community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have  occurred; c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on  their behalf); d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP Part D WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<../../Library/Caches/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/Outlook%20Temp/gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Participants in the Working Group that addressed IRTP Part C are especially encouraged to apply. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This WG is already forming; please apply promptly. Background The Inter‐Registrar Transfer Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm> (IRTP) is a consensus policy adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer domain names between registrars. An overall review of this policy identified areas that require clarification or improvement. At its meeting on 17 January 2013, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a resolution chartering a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies (IRTP) Part D. Because the initial review identified a wide range of issues related to transferring domain names, the issues have been categorized into subsets. This Working Group will tackle the issues referred to as “Part D”. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ [1] See the final Issue Report on the IRTP Part D<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf> for further details on each of these issues.

2 1

potential annex to Jeff's draft letter
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

All, as discussed, please find attached a text that could be used as an Annex to the draft letter prepared by Jeff in response to the GAC to illustrate the complexity of the matter. The intention was to keep it very brief (a bit over a page), but still show that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Thanks, Thomas

2 1

GNSO applicants to the ATRT2 team
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 27, 2013

Jan. 27, 2013

Dear Steve, Dear Heather, Please see attached letter regarding appointment of applicants arising from within the GNSO to the ATRT2 team. Thank-you for giving this matter your attention. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

GNSO ATRT2 Applicants (minor change to improve clarity)
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 27, 2013

Jan. 27, 2013

All, The GNSO Council has now received endorsements from all four SGs. As a reminder, the GNSO process is as follows: The Council will consider the resulting list of up to four nominees at its next teleconference. If the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN. Please note: . The candidate list meets the GNSO agreed gender diversity requirements in that not all endorsed candidates are of the same gender. . However it does not meet the GNSO agreed geographic diversity requirements in that all endorsed candidates are from a single (North America) ICANN region. Therefore the slate needs to be added to with (up to two) additional SG supported candidates in order to get closer to meeting geographic diversity requirements. The two SG supported candidates that assist us in meeting this requirement are: Marie-Laure Lemineur F Latin America NCSG Olivier Mouron M Europe CSG Therefore we will ballot the Council on list (since a teleconference is now not practical ahead of the deadline) in order to see if either or both (of Marie-Laure Lemineur and Olivier Mouron) have the support of 60% of both houses of the Council. Please can you keep an alert view on the Council list for the ballot which will be available no later than 23h59 UTC today (24th January 2013). The ballot will close 23h59 UTC on 26th January. Thank-you. Jonathan

4 4

Re: [council] GNSO ATRT2 Applicants (minor change to improve clarity)
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

Thanks Volker for sharing the Registrars' decision to the list. This will lead to the effect that the 60% threshold needed in both houses to add 2 candidates to the endorsed list shall not be achieved what I'm sorry for. Some thoughts from my side: 1. The Rrs' decision is fully in line with the respective GNSO process - no doubt. 2. It may be a theoretical question whether the decision would have been the same in case there were non-US candidates from the CPH. 3. The GNSO - when it developed the endorsement process - included with intent the diversity criteria to ensure input to the AOC review teams in particular from the "policy related" community as being diverse. That time it was already clear that the full slate of candidates coming from all SOs/ACs could cope with the diversity criteria. If the GNSO as a whole is willing to follow your argumentation then we should initiate revising the endorsement process by removing the present council's role to oversee the diversity balance. It would save a lot of time and annoying discussions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:19:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [council] GNSO ATRT2 Applicants (minor change to improve clarity) From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net> To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Dear Jonathan, thank you for making sure the process remains on track despite the difficult deadlines and our inablility to resolve this early on our last call. During the Amsterdam meeting the RrSG councilors have met and discussed the ballot, and we have elected to abstain on a vote on the two additional candidates. We believe the GNSO has endorsed four candidates for the ATRT that are highly capable for the role. The questions of geographic and gender diversity are fully available to the Chairs of the Board and GAC through the full slate of candidates from all parts of the community. Best regards, Volker Greimann All, The GNSO Council has now received endorsements from all four SGs. As a reminder, the GNSO process is as follows: The Council will consider the resulting list of up to four nominees at its next teleconference. If the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN. Please note: · The candidate list meets the GNSO agreed gender diversity requirements in that not all endorsed candidates are of the same gender. · However it does not meet the GNSO agreed geographic diversity requirements in that all endorsed candidates are from a single (North America) ICANN region. Therefore the slate needs to be added to with (up to two) additional SG supported candidates in order to get closer to meeting geographic diversity requirements. The two SG supported candidates that assist us in meeting this requirement are: Marie-Laure Lemineur F Latin America NCSG Olivier Mouron M Europe CSG Therefore we will ballot the Council on list (since a teleconference is now not practical ahead of the deadline) in order to see if either or both (of Marie-Laure Lemineur and Olivier Mouron) have the support of 60% of both houses of the Council. PLEASE CAN YOU KEEP AN ALERT VIEW ON THE COUNCIL LIST FOR THE BALLOT WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE NO LATER THAN 23H59 UTC TODAY (24TH JANUARY 2013). THE BALLOT WILL CLOSE 23H59 UTC ON 26TH JANUARY. Thank-you. Jonathan

1 0

Letter from ICANN Board Chair to GAC Chair on High Level Meeting held in Toronto
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-24jan13-en Heather Dryden Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee Dear Heather, Thank you for providing me, the Board and the ICANN community with the Chair's Summary report of the High Level Meeting held during ICANN 45 in Toronto. I know I speak for the Board when I express strong appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the high level officials in attendance, both during our formal discussions and informally through the day. I recognize the significant commitment and interest shown by high-level officials' decision to attend the meeting, and to engage openly and constructively with a broad cross section of the ICANN community. The Chair's report highlights that governments recognize the importance of the multi-stakeholder model that drives our work as managers of the Internet's unique system of identifiers. ICANN understands that the model is not something that we can take for granted, and so we appreciate governments' support. We look forward to collaborating with all stakeholders to strengthen and defend the multi-stakeholder model as we move forward, including by means of our ambitious globalization initiative. We recognize governments are a vital component of the ICANN model, and that the GAC must be an effective mechanism for delivering timely advice on public policy issues related to ICANN's work, whether in the supporting organizations or by the Board and staff. Please be assured that the Board is committed to ongoing improvements in how we work together, including the implementation of the recommendations delivered by the first accountability and transparency review. In that regard, I appreciate the suggestions for the next review that are contained in the Chair's report. These will be taken into account as the community formulates the guidelines for the review. Once again, let me reiterate our appreciation to Canada for hosting the High Level meeting in Toronto. Please be assured of ICANN's willingness to partner with the GAC should a decision be taken to hold similar meetings in future. Sincerely, Stephen D. Crocker, Chair ICANN Board of Directors

1 0

Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10jan… This is a preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. 1.Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure b. Maturing the DNS Industry c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments d. Closed Generic Strings e. Consumer Choice Review 1. Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee engaged in a discussion with staff about a proposed regular reporting structure to the Committee on the status of the New gTLD Program, including reporting against key milestones. The Committee and ICANN executives agreed that there was some basis for modification of the reporting, and agreed that as much information as is appropriate will be provided to the community at the scheduled webinars, or other means where all applicants will have access to the information. The Committee also discussed the need for a regular meeting schedule. The Committee was then provided with an update on the status of the initial evaluation work. b. Maturing the DNS Industry No resolution taken. The President and CEO provided the New gTLD Program Committee with a report on his efforts relating to his discussions with various DNS Industry leaders, including the forthcoming CEO Roundtables. c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the planning underway to address the GAC's advice on enforcing applicant commitments through the registry agreements. It was noted that staff discussed potential mechanisms to address this advice, how the GAC advice could be met and possible responses to the GAC regarding the status. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. d. Closed Generic Strings No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the issue of closed generic strings, receiving a report from staff regarding the distinction between the Code of Conduct that addresses non-discriminatory access that registries are required to offer to registrars, and the concerns raised in the community about who is allowed to register in a TLD. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. e. Consumer Choice Review No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee began a discussion noting that it is necessary to begin preparations for the review required under the Affirmation of Commitments after the introduction of new gTLDs. The Chair called the meeting to a close. Published 22 January 2013

1 0

New gTLD Applicant Update Webinar - 5 February 20213 - 16:00 - 17:30 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

Hello All, Just a heads-up that the next New gTLD Applicant Update Webinar is scheduled for 5 February 2013, 16:00 - 17:30 UTC. See: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [FWD: CSG ATRT2 endorsement]
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Dear John, Thank you very much for informing us of the CSG ATRT2 endorsement and your additional support for Olivier Muron. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: john(a)crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: jeudi 24 janvier 2013 17:17 To: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: Jonathan Robinson Subject: [FWD: CSG ATRT2 endorsement] Glen, Here it is. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CSG ATRT2 endorsement From: <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Jonathan, Glen: The CSG endorses the nomination of Michael Roberts as its candidate to the ATRT2 team. If the Council, as is its role, chooses to add nominees to help address a diversity requirement, we would support the additional nomination of Olivier Muron. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388

1 0

Draft Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 17 January 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 17 January 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/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-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 2 February 2013. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 2