February 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN announces ATRT2 review team
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2013

Feb. 18, 2013

Hello All, See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15feb13-en.htm I see that two have been selected from the GNSO. Avri Doria from the Non-Contracted party house, and Brian Cute from the Contracted party house. I gather last time that the GNSO had 4 people. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 5

next new gTLD applicant update webinar - 5 March 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2013

Feb. 18, 2013

From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Applicant Update Webinar Date: 05 March 2013 Time: 00:00 - 01:30 UTC (4:00pm - 5:30pm PST) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldwebinar

1 0

WHOIS Registrant Identification Study
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 16, 2013

Feb. 16, 2013

Hello All, The report on the Registrant Identification Study has been published. See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm and attached. The key conclusions are: (1) Percentage of registrants that are natural versus legal persons: - 39 percent (± 2.4 percent1) appear to be registered by legal persons - 33 percent (± 2.3 percent) appear to be registered by natural persons - 20 percent (± 2.0 percent) were registered using a privacy or proxy service. - We were unable to classify the remaining 8 percent (± 1.4 percent) using data available from WHOIS. (2) Percentage of domain name uses that are commercial versus non-commercial: - When pay-per-click ads are included in the monetary activities that make up potentially commercial activity, 57 percent (± 2.4 percent) of all sampled domains were perceived to have potentially commercial activity. - When pay-per-click ads are not included in the monetary activities that make up potentially commercial activity, approximately 45 percent (± 2.4 percent) of all sampled domains were perceived to have potentially commercial activity. (3) Relative percentage of Privacy/Proxy use among legal persons: - 15.1 percent (± 2.9 percent) of domains used by legal persons were registered using a privacy or proxy service. (4) Relative percentage of Privacy/Proxy use among domains with commercial use: -  22.9 percent (± 2.7 percent) of domains with potentially commercial activity were registered using a privacy or proxy service. Additional interesting findings related to the three focus questions for this study are: 5) Differences in how domains are used based on registrant type Domain names registered by legal persons were - More likely to be used by legal persons—52.2 ± 3.9 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 36.6 percent. - Equally as likely to be used for some kind of potentially commercial activity —59.9 ± 3.9 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.6 percent. - Equally as likely to have WHOIS addresses in the U.S.—59.4 ± 3.9 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.9 percent. - More likely to be both registered and used by the same legal person—27.8 ± 3.5 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 16.8 percent. - More likely to be used by a for-profit entity—39.9 ± 3.8 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 25.6 percent. (6) Domain names registered by natural persons were - More likely to be used by natural persons—10.4 ± 2.6 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 5.4 percent. - Equally as likely to be used for some kind of potentially commercial activity as the overall sample—55.4 ± 4.3 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.6 percent. - Less likely to have WHOIS addresses in the U.S.—46.0 ± 4.3 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.9 percent. - More likely to have undetermined domain user/registrant relationships—72.5 ± 3.9 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 54.8 percent. - More likely to be used by a non-business entity—11.8 ± 2.8 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 6.4 percent. (7) Domain names registered using a Privacy/Proxy service were - More likely to be parked—30.7 ± 5.0 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 20.5 percent. - More likely to be used for some kind of potentially commercial activity—64.6 ± 5.2 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.6 percent. - More likely to be registered with a WHOIS address in the U.S.—74.3 ± 4.8 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.9 percent. - More likely to have a user/registrant relationship of a customer of a privacy/proxy service—92.8 ± 2.8 percent,3 as compared to the entire sample’s 20.4 percent. - More likely to be used by an entity with an unclear business structure—71.4 ± 4.9 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 65.7 percent. 8) Differences in how kinds of domains users identify themselves based on domain registrant type Domain names used by legal persons were - More likely to be registered by legal persons—55.1 ± 4.0 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 38.6 percent. - More likely to be used for some kind of potentially commercial activity—79.8 ± 3.2 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.6 percent. - Equally likely to have WHOIS addresses in the U.S.—54.9 ± 4.0 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.9 percent. - More likely to also be registered by that legal person—35.5 ± 3.9 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 16.8 percent. - More likely to be used by for-profit businesses—60.7 ± 3.7 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 25.6 percent. Domain names used by natural persons were: - More likely to be registered by natural persons—60.4 ± 10.2 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 32.8 percent. - Less likely to have potentially commercial activity—36.8 ± 10.1 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.6 percent. - Equally likely to have WHOIS addresses in the U.S.—49.9 ± 10.4 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 56.9 percent. - More likely to be registered by that natural person—69.7 ± 9.6 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 16.8 percent. - Never used by a business; this is by design—when coding apparent business structure, if the user was a natural person, then the business structure was coded as not a business. 9) Differences in domains with potentially commercial activity (pay-per-clicks ads included) Domain with detected potentially commercial activity were - More likely to have legal person users—51.5 ± 3.3 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 36.6 percent. - Less likely to have user/registrant relationships that cannot be determined—44.8 ± 3.2 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 54.8 percent. - Less likely to have an unclear business structure—55.2 ± 3.2 percent, as compared to the entire sample’s 65.7 percent. For both Apparent Registrant Type and Registrant WHOIS Address County/Region of the World differences between the relative percentage among domains with potentially commercial activity and the entire sample’s percentage are small. Thus, knowing that a domain has potentially commercial activity does not provide any additional insight as to the registrant type or the WHOIS address of the registrant.

1 0

Action Items arising from the Council leaders/ staff face to face meeting in Amsterdam in January 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 15, 2013

Feb. 15, 2013

Dear Councillors, Action Items arising from the Council leaders/ staff face to face meeting in Amsterdam in January 2013. Effective operational management of the Council Action Item #1: Explore ways to improve the communication and interaction between the two houses and the different SO/ACs to allow for greater coordination and better understanding of the issues and agendas of the various actors in the policy process, including exploring the possibility of organizing an intercessional meeting or special session that would be focused on promoting collaboration between Council members. Action Item #2: With a view to make the launch of Issue Reports - and by extension Policy Development Process (PDPs) - more informed and effective, the existing template that is in the PDP manual should be further promoted by posting it on the GNSO Council web-site. Council members should be strongly encouraged to complete the template prior to tabling their request. Staff should also investigate whether the template could be modified to serve for requests that are not PDP related. This template might encourage stakeholders to elaborate on motivation for their request including their potential goal, consequences, outcome and costs of the policy that they are seeking. Action Item #3: Encourage Council members to serve as a 'shepherd' who takes 'ownership' of a certain issue and is able to follow up on the discussions and serve as a point of reference for other Council members who may have questions. This would follow a similar model which is currently being used by the ICANN Board. Such a 'shepherd' would also be paired with a member of the ICANN policy staff to ensure that there is additional support available, if needed. Action Item #4: Wolf-Ulrich was asked to report to the NCPH about this meeting as well as report on the outcome of next weeks meeting to the Council leadership. Improving work efficiency of new and existing Council members Action Item #5: Staff to publish modules for GNSO Council input and review by mid-February. Action item #6: Aim to publish the first draft of the GNSO Council Agenda for the next meeting two weeks in advance of the next meeting. Workload management Action item #7: Include links to WG work plans and upcoming milestones in the project list (Policy Staff). Beijing Action Item #8: Provide additional guidance to Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (SGs) to report on at the beginning of the Wednesday GNSO Council meeting in Beijing Action Item #9: Reach out to the ccNSO, GAC and ICANN Board to confirm joint meetings in Beijing and already provide them with a list of suggested topics for discussion. Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Action Item #10: GNSO Council communication with the GAC ought to be improved, for example by institutionalizing information sharing between the GAC and the GNSO Council. Propose this as a topic for the next GNSO - GAC meeting in Beijing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Update on status of implementation of PEDNR Recommendations
by Marika Konings Feb. 15, 2013

Feb. 15, 2013

Dear All, As requested on today's GNSO Council meeting, please find below an update on the status of implementation of the PEDNR recommendations from Mike Zupke, Director Registrar Programs: We are pleased to inform the Council that we plan to announce implementation of the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) within the next 10 days. I understand there might be some frustration over the time it has taken to get here, but in light of the many parallel projects currently underway, such as RAA negotiations & registrant bill of rights, several significant amendments to the IRTP, and our new gTLD operational readiness initiatives, I think the state of progress is about where we might have expected it to be, and is in fact, more or less on target with our original project plan. The one last bit we need to do before rollout of the ERRP is get input from affected parties (registries, registrars) about the amount of time they will reasonably need to implement the policy changes. The PEDNR implementation review team can expect to hear from me about that tomorrow. With regard to PEDNR¹s recommendation to create educational materials, we are scheduled to join ALAC on its 26 February call to initiate the recommended consultative process. We will also need to engage registrars and other stakeholders and are in the process of determining what might be appropriate for the Beijing meeting. Obviously, the consultation with ALAC, registrars, and other stakeholders will require more time than would have been required were we to develop materials in house, but this is the course the GNSO and the Board recommended, and I think it will result in a better final product. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. And as always, I¹m available to councilors off list if they have questions they¹d prefer to ask directly. With best regards, Marika Sr. Policy Director ICANN

2 1

ICANN announces members of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG)
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 15, 2013

Feb. 15, 2013

See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14feb13-en.htm

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 14 February 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 14 February, 2013 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20130214-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Vice Chair from NCPH
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

All, Please note below. Jonathan From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: 12 February 2013 22:46 To: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com) 'Glen de Saint Géry'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de) Cc: Marilyn S. Cade (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com) Robin Gross (robin(a)ipjustice.org) Tony Holmes; Kristina Rosette; Chris LaHatte (chris.lahatte(a)icann.org) Subject: GNSO Council Vice Chair from NCPH Jonathan and colleagues, This is to inform you that CSG and NCSG leadership met on the sidelines of the recent NCPH intersessional meeting and agreed that Wolf Ulrich Knoben will continue to serve as the Vice Chair of the Council from our House for the remainder of this term. The two stakeholder groups also agreed on a protocol for selection of Vice Chair for the term beginning at the ICANN annual meeting in Buenos Aires, and further agreed to meet no later than the second ICANN meeting of 2014 to set procedures for selection of vice chair for the following term and perhaps beyond. The two SGs thank ICANN Ombudsman Chris LaHatte for his assistance in helping us reach this agreement. Steve Metalitz, for CSG

2 1

Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO
by Jonathan Robinson Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

All, Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions. In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early. The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them. Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so. Therefore the following questions arise: 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r

7 8

RE: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
by Neuman, Jeff Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

Marika, Rather than working off of one statement Fadi made in Amsterdam and another statement he made in LA, can we get for tomorrow's meeting of the Council a definitive statement from ICANN as to where the "Strawman" actually is, what are the next proposed steps, and frankly where we are with the full implementation. I note that we are pretty much half way through this month and the final statement of work with the providers of the Clearinghouse is still expected to be completed this month (according to the latest webinar in which icann indicated they are on target for completing this in February). That being the case, logic would dictate that if icann is indeed on schedule, then the final solution must already be known. Therefore, before we engage in a seemingly endless discussion hypothesizing about statements made in different parts of the world, perhaps we can get a definitive statement directly from the source. Thanks. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 04:27 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz; john(a)crediblecontext.com Cc: Mason Cole; council(a)gnso.icann.org List Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council All, it may be worth noting that Fadi in his meeting with the NCPH in LA further clarified the comments made in Amsterdam as follows: One is to clarify a comment I made in Amsterdam on Friday - after Davos I stopped in Amsterdam and the press and some other people carried my comment and extrapolated it in ways that were not true. So I don't have time to go fix it with the public but you are who matters so I'm just going to explain it. I did say publicly that I believed the way the trademark clearinghouse activities happened, I have made a mistake. And people construed that to mean I felt the whole thing was a mistake and we shouldn't of done it and, you know, this - let me clarify. I think as I have told you and I told some of you in person, I'm new to this process, (understand) that I'm new to this process and that I have learned - a lot to learn and I still have a lot to learn. It will be awhile before I fully appreciate the world I'm in now. And as such, what I explained is that the way I went about solving what I thought was an issue in Toronto and I needed to do something about it and I still believe is an issue, I don't believe that the claims or the things that you brought to my attention, you know, are not right. Quite the opposite, I think they're very right, that's why I engaged, that's why I jumped on it. The mistake I did is that I did not fully appreciate the process and understand how the process should work. And some people got very upset with me and I have now a complaint with the (best) person who's spending two hours with me this afternoon with the complainant to discuss with and that's fine. That's the process and I respect it deeply and I'll be there for it but I am not at all saying and will not say and in fact I'm in vehement agreement with many of you in this room that we do have some issues and they have to be solved. If we are a responsible industry we have to face these issues and deal with them. If I made a mistake (in how) that's fine, I'll fix that and get on with how, but I am not shying away from the importance of the matters you brought to my attention and that I still believe need to be addressed. (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/39421288/transcript+CSG+-+…) With best regards, Marika From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz <vgreimann(a)key-Systems.net> Date: Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:25 To: "john(a)crediblecontext.com" <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council I think Fadi has made it very clear during the meeting in Amsterdam that he has now understood the BC and IPC requests that led to the strawman as a second bite of the apple, as he called it. The proposed contents of the strawman would certainly constitute an expansion of the rights of a trademark holder in the domain world. I therefore support sending the draft letter as is. Sent from my iPad On 13.02.2013, at 01:11, john(a)crediblecontext.com wrote: Mason, Did I not suggest the "expansion of rights" language is a bit over the top? Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com> Date: 2/12/13 3:00 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Council colleagues -- As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply. The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council. Thanks -- Mason

3 2