October 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

ccNSO FoI WG's Interim Report on "Revocation"
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 28, 2013

Oct. 28, 2013

FYI https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/foi-interim-28oct13-en.htm ccNSO FoI WG's Interim Report on "Revocation" Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 28 October 2013 Comment Close Date: 20 December 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 21 December 2013 Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28oct13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-foi-interim-28oct13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-foi-interim-28oct13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG) Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Top-Level Domains * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): The ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG) seeks public comment on its initial interpretations of current policy and guidelines related to "Revocation", which is defined as redelgations undertaken without the consent of the ccTLD manager. "Revocation" refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager. Current Status: The Interim Report is published to seek feed-back and input from the community on the proposed interpretations of the current policies and guidelines. This is part of the process for developing recommendations to the ccNSO and GAC and ultimately to ICANN Board on the interpretation of current, existing policy and guidelines realting to the delegation and redelgation of ccTLD's. Next Steps: The WG will closely review all submitted comments to determine at may at its reasonable discretion modify its report. According to its charter the WG is not obligated to include all comments made during the comment period, nor is it obligated to include all comments submitted by any one individual or organization. The Working Group expects to formally publish its Final Report prior to the next ICANN meeting in London (June 2014) Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel Email Staff Contact<mailto:Bart.Boswinkel@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20ccNSO%20FoI%20WG%E2%80%99s%20Interim%20Report%20on%20%22Revocation%22%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The FoI WG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and reviewed past cases of re-delegations undertaken without the consent of the incumbent operator. Based on this analysis the FOIWG examined issues arising in the context of the applicable policies and procedures and developed draft interpretations summarized below. * RFC 1591 identifies three mechanisms available to the IANA Operator: Delegation, Transfer and Revocation. * Under RFC 1591, a Transfer requires the consent of the incumbent ccTLD manager. * "Revocation" refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager. * The WG interprets RFC 1591 to limit Revocation to cases where the IANA Operator reasonably demonstrates that there are persistent problems with the operation of the domain, or the manager continues to engage in "substantial misbehavior", despite the efforts of the IANA Operator using all means at its disposal to resolve such conduct. * If a manager is engaged in "substantial misbehavior" or there are "persistent problems in the operation of a ccTLD" and the ccTLD manager is unwilling or unable to rectify the problems to the reasonable satisfaction of the IANA Operator and/or stop the offending conduct, the IANA Operator may propose a Transfer. * If the manager does not consent to a proposed Transfer, the only mechanism available to the IANA Operator to deal with ultimately intractable problems is Revocation. * If the IANA Operator revokes a delegation it should attempt, in collaboration with the significantly interested parties, to ensure the ccTLD will continue to resolve names until a suitable replacement can take over. * The FOIWG believes it is consistent general principles of fairness and with RFC1591 to afford an affected manager the opportunity to appeal a notice of revocation issued by the IANA Operator to an independent body. The FOI WG seeks community feedback on the following questions: 1. Is the approach used by the working group satisfactory? 2. Do the issues identified by the working group for this topic capture the major problems associated with the topic? If not what is missing? 3. Is the proposed interpretation of the relevant sections of RFC 1591 effective and supported? 4. Are the proposed recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic? Section II: Background: The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG): Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group (DRDWG) identified the following issues pertaining to "Unconsented Redelegations": No procedure for re-delegation of a ccTLD without the consent of the incumbent operator. RFC1591 nor ICP1 discuss the re-delegation of a ccTLD without the consent of the incumbent operator. Instead both of these documents discuss the revocation of a delegation by IANA, for cause, followed by a re-delegation to a new operator. This is somewhat confusing given that in these types of situations the revocation has never caused a ccTLD to be removed from the root prior to being delegated to a new operator &ndash thus trying to ensure continued resolution of the domains registered in the relevant ccTLD. This further illustrates some of the issues surrounding the re-delegation of ccTLDs without the consent of the incumbent operator. The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA functions manager and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current Policy Statements. Section III: Document and Resource Links: The Interim Report can be found at: Interim Report on Revocation<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-interim-28oct13-en.pdf> [PDF, 220 KB] Additional Resources: Further information on the work of the FoI WG is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm Section IV: Additional Information: The Interim Report addresses the third of the following topics and which will be considered individually and in the order presented: * Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests * Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as Local Internet Community or LIC). * Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations * Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. * Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and re-delegation. ________________________________ (*) 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

Re: Fake Renewal Notices
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. Oct. 28, 2013

Oct. 28, 2013

Dear Mason: I have a few questions with respect to fake renewal notices on behalf of the IPC, and I am hopeful you will be able to provide the Council with an update on the matter at your convenience. By way of background, here is what the Council's pending projects list most recently provided: At its meeting in July, the GNSO Council considered the report of the Fake Renewal Notices DT (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-updated-report-20jun1…) On the recommendation of the RrSG, a number of alternative approaches are now being pursued to address this issue, including working with ICANN Compliance, reaching out to the relevant local authorities and considering whether it would be appropriate to address this as part of the RAA negotiations. Mason Cole provided a status update by email in February (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14235.html) The Council will consider at its next meeting whether to close this project. And your latest update was as follows: You may recall that the council investigated a PDP but ultimately decided to reserve resources for such a PDP for other work, since the matter could be dealt with more effectively by registrars communicating to relevant law enforcement (particularly in North America). Since that time I have been collecting from registrars examples of fake renewal notices, which I will provide to the attorney that works with our SG -- she will help us submit them to the FTC in the US and other relevant law enforcement and consumer protection agencies. I realize it's been a while since the council has been updated on this, but I want to make sure we have as complete a case as possible when we approach the authorities. I anticipate doing so shortly and will of course update the council when that step is complete. My question is whether the RrSG was able to collect examples for fake renewal notices and provide them to law enforcement agencies, as well as pursue additional efforts on the matter. Was there any report delivered on these efforts? And what specifically has been done to address fake renewal notices or deceptive advertising practices from resellers? We look forward to receiving an update from you on these inquiries. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================

2 1

Updated Project list - clean and red-line versions
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 26, 2013

Oct. 26, 2013

Dear Councillors, In preparation for the Council meeting on 31 October 2013, attached please find the red line and the clean version of the Projects List for your review. The Projects List is also posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf 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

For your review - updated GNSO PDP Improvements Table
by Marika Konings Oct. 25, 2013

Oct. 25, 2013

Dear All, In relation to agenda item 8 Prospective Improvements to the Policy Development Process - of the upcoming GNSO Council meeting, please find attached an updated version of the table. As you may be aware, the ATRT2 Draft Report (see http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13- en.pdf) includes a number of recommendations concerning the GNSO PDP, some of which closely relate to those under discussion by the GNSO Council. We thought it could be helpful to include those in the overview to facilitate the discussions. As noted in the action items, 'Council members are requested to encourage their groups to review the proposed improvements and consider which suggestions can be supported and implemented'. With best regards, Marika

1 0

new gTLD update webinar - 23 Oct 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 25, 2013

Oct. 25, 2013

Hello All, Please see attached the presentation from the new gTLD update webinar. Applicant Update Webinar Date/Time: 23 October 2013, 17:00 - 18:30 UTC General information on program developments. Topics include: GAC Advice, Objections & Dispute Resolution, Community Priority Evaluation, Auction, Contracting, Pre-Delegation Testing, Name Collision, Trademark Clearinghouse, etc Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

FW: Response to the GNSO letter Re: String similarity determinations and GNSO policy
by Jonathan Robinson Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

All, The attached note from Cherine Chalaby is self-explanatory. Jonathan From: Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] Sent: 24 October 2013 12:05 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Steve Crocker; Akram Atallah; Christine Willett Subject: Response to the GNSO letter Re: String similarity determinations and GNSO policy Dear Jonathan, On behalf of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), I thank you for providing the recent GNSO letter on the String Similarity Determinations and GNSO Policy. The NGPC appreciates the attention the GNSO has given to this topic and has reviewed the letter carefully. Please find attached the full response of the NGPC to the GNSO letter. All the best, Cherine From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Date: Wednesday, 18 September 2013 19:29 To: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, Cherine Mohsen Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> Subject: String similarity determinations and GNSO policy Dear Steve, Dear Cherine, Please see the attached letter on behalf of the GNSO Council relating to string similarity determinations and GNSO policy. Best wishes, Jonathan

2 1

Audited Financial Statements Posted Within 120 Days After the Fiscal Year End
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23oct13-en.htm Audited Financial Statements Posted Within 120 Days After the Fiscal Year End 23 October 2013 ICANN continues to provide accountability and transparency regarding its financial results, with another unqualified audit report from independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP, for the fiscal year ended June 30th, 2013. The Report of Independent Auditors and Financial Statements for ICANN for the years ending 30 June 2013 and 2012 is available on the "Financial Information for ICANN<https://www.icann.org/en/about/financials>" page of the ICANN.org site and also included in this announcement. An unqualified opinion means that the financial statements are presented fairly in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Article XVI of ICANN's Bylaws, the audited financial statements are to be posted within 120 days following the close of the fiscal year, or by 28 October 2012. ICANN's FY12 Audited Financial Statements are now posted<https://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun12-en.p…> [PDF, 1.08 MB] and are available to the community. The Community is invited to review ICANN's audited financials and to provide commentaries and/or questions. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Request for comments: Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Draft Report & Recommendations
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-21oct13-en.htm Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Draft Report & Recommendations * Français<https://www.icann.org/fr/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-…> * Español<https://www.icann.org/es/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-…> * Русский<https://www.icann.org/ru/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-…> * Português<https://www.icann.org/pt/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-…> * 简体中文<https://www.icann.org/zh/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-…> * العربية<https://www.icann.org/ar/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-…> Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 21 October 2013 Comment Close Date: 22 November 2013 - 11:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 23 November 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 December 2013 - 11:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-21oct13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-atrt2-recommendations-21oct13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-recommendations-21oct13> Brief Overview Originating Organization: Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Categories/Tags: * AoC * ATRT 2 * Policy Processes * Reviews/Improvements * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): To inform its work, ATRT 2 seeks input on its Draft Report & Recommendations. Current Status: ATRT 2 is completing its analysis and preparing to hold consultations with Community, staff and Board, with the goal of issuing final recommendations and report by 31 December 2013. Next Steps: ATRT 2 seeks public comments and will hold consultations during ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires. Staff Contact: Alice Jansen (on behalf of ATRT2) Email Staff Contact<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Second%20Accountability%20and%20Transparency%20Review%20Team%20%28ATRT%202%29%20Draft%20Report%20and%20Recommendations%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: With the goal of producing final recommendations by 31 December 2013, the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2), mandated by paragraph 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), is completing its analysis and holding consultations with Community, staff and Board. To inform its work, the ATRT 2 now seeks input from the Community on its Draft Report & Recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct1…> [PDF, 3.06 MB] compiled for the Community's consideration. Community participation is essential to the success of the review, and all input will be carefully considered. The ATRT 2 welcomes any additional feedback. Section II: Background: The Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) issues this request for Public Comment on a set of Draft Proposed Recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct1…> [PDF, 3.06 MB] that it has developed as part of its review of ICANN's execution of its commitments to accountability and transparency under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). The ATRT2 will provide final recommendations to the ICANN Board no later than December 31, 2013. ATRT 2, mandated by paragraph 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), commenced its activities in February 2013. The Review Team has collected feedback from the Community by means of a questionnaire as well as numerous consultations during the past six months. ATRT 2 has considered this feedback carefully in drafting its preliminary recommendations. With the goal of producing final recommendations by 31 December 2013, the Review Team is currently in the process of completing its analysis and preparing to hold consultations with Community, staff and Board. ATRT 2 has three fundamental tasks under the AoC: 1. to assess ICANN's implementation of Recommendations of the three prior AoC Review Teams; 2. to offer new Recommendations to the ICANN Board to further improve ICANN's accountability and transparency ; and 3. to offer Recommendations concerning improvements to the Review process itself. ATRT 2 has organized the work into four work streams: * ATRT1 – review of implementation of ATRT1 Review Team recommendations and offer any follow-on recommendations – AoC 9.1 (a)-(e); * Security, Stability and Resiliency – review of implementation of SSR Review Team recommendations - AoC 9.2(a)-(c); * WHOIS – review of implementation of WHOIS Review Team recommendations AoC 9.3.1; * Consider the extent to which assessments and actions undertaken by ICANN have been successful in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its decision-making, and acts in the public interest. To inform its work, the ATRT 2 now seeks input from the Community on Proposed Draft Recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct1…> [PDF, 3.06 MB] compiled for the Community's consideration. Community participation is essential to the success of the review, and all input will be carefully considered. The ATRT 2 welcomes any additional feedback. Section III: Document and Resource Links: None 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

first new gTLDs are now live in the DNS
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

The first gTLDs from the 2012 round of applications are now live in the DNS. See http://xn----1mcbc7cp0fnu.xn--mgbaam7a8h (this is .شبكة - web/network in Arabic) - operated by AusRegistry (http://www.ariservices.com/news-ARI_Registry_Services_powers… ) http://nic.xn--80asehdb (this is •онлайн - online in Cyrillic script) - operated by CORE Internet Council of Registrars (http://cyrillicregistry.com ) http://nic.xn--80aswg (this is .•сайт - "site" in Cyrillic script) - - operated by CORE Internet Council of Registrars (http://cyrillicregistry.com ) http://nic.xn--unup4y (this is •游戏 - games in Chinese) - operated by Donuts (http://www.donuts.co ) Always nice to see working code. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RAA PDP motion
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. Oct. 23, 2013

Oct. 23, 2013

Dear all: In view of our prior discussions in relation to advancing the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation PDP, attached please find a draft motion that, if passed, would adopt the latest version of the charter. The effect of the motion, if passed by the Council, would then be to set up the PDP Working Group as soon as possible. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================

2 2