February 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Composition of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team
by WUKnoben 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

All, In regards to the recent ATRT appointments the CSG (and the RrSG) asked the selectors for a rationale why only two endorsed candidates from the GNSO have been appointed, especially given that in the past there had been 4 appointments made. Steve Crocker as chairman of the board and being one of the selectors gave the following reasons: "...We had to make some tough decisions because there were quite a few well qualified candidates. We did place a bit of emphasis on choosing people with experience in governance and/or experience with governments. This wasn't our exclusive focus, but we did weight our selection a bit in that direction. We felt this was consistent with the focus on accountability and transparency. We expect each member of the team to look at the full range of issues and not to be solely pursuing the issues of a particular constituency. We also expect the people from the GNSO, Brian Cute and Avri Doria, will be reasonably familiar with the full range of GNSO issues and not solely within their particular stakeholder groups. Finally, we recognize that the people who applied to be on the team, including both endorsed and those who were not endorsed, almost certainly have some useful and relevant thoughts to share. The team is not yet in operation and has not yet set its agenda, but we have suggested the team might usefully listen to the candidates who were not included. The initial reaction from the team members seems positive, and so it seems likely they will choose to do this..." Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 28 Feb 2013
by Bruce Tonkin 22 Feb '13

22 Feb '13

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-28feb13-en.htm 28 February 2013 Consent Agenda: Minutes of 2 February 2013 Meeting Arab Center for Dispute Resolution's Proposal to Serve as UDRP Provider Board Review of NCSG PIA / CC Application Rejection Action for Board Compensation Committee Main Agenda: Re-delegation of the .ML domain representing Mali Delegation of .укр domain representing Ukraine Any Other Business

1 0

Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Feb '13

21 Feb '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21feb13-en.htm Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 21 February 2013 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. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Beijing remotely or in person, you're invited to an update on the background and current status of major policy issues which are likely to be discussed during the Beijing Meeting. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 21 March at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 21 March at 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * WHOIS related activities * The locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings * Protection of IGO and INGO Names * IDN ccNSO PDP * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories * SSAC report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation Taxonomy The webinar will cover other topics which will be raised during or otherwise relevant to the Beijing Meeting. In addition, staff will provide a briefing on the ALAC's activities related to current policy development issues of the Supporting Organizations. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 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 each 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, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Appoints First URS Provide
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Feb '13

21 Feb '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-20feb13-en.htm ICANN Appoints First URS Provide 20 February 2013 The National Arbitration Forum<http://www.adrforum.com/> (FORUM) has secured the first appointment by ICANN to administer the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). FORUM submitted an outstanding proposal demonstrating how it would meet all requirements presented in the RFI<https://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/urs-24sep12-en.pdf> [PDF, 112 KB] and detailing its implementation approach. The company has a proven track record boasting resolution of over 19,000 claims in 12+ years of administering UDRP cases. Additionally, FORUM has already developed, and is currently operating a TLD-specific rapid relief system. ICANN would like to thank everyone who responded to the RFI. FORUM will be one of multiple providers appointed to administer URS services. The process will be similar to that of appointing UDRP providers in which consideration is given to achieving competitive provisioning and geographical spread of providers. URS is a rights protection mechanism for new gTLDs that facilitates rapid suspension of domain names in clear-cut cases of trademark infringement. It is intended to complement the existing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) by offering a lower-cost, faster path to resolution. Learn more about Uniform Rapid Suspension<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting
by Glen de Saint Géry 21 Feb '13

21 Feb '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/uofr-20feb13-en.htm Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 20 February 2013 Comment Close: 22 March 2013 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-20feb13-en.htm> Reply Open: 23 March 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-uofr-20feb13@icann.org> Reply Close: 12 April 2013 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-uofr-20feb13/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement. Current Status: This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Uniformity%20of%20Reporting%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose This Preliminary Issue Report is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Reporting, as a required preliminary step before a Policy Development Process (PDP) may be initiated. The 2009 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports' and as a result recommended in its Final Report that "the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes." In March of 2012 based on the GNSO Council request, the ICANN Contractual Compliance Department presented its findings on existing systems that: * report and track violations and/or complaints; * detail improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future * identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage; Further, the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Contractual Compliance Department and former members of the RAPWG volunteered to provide additional information on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented. Alumni members created and presented the findings to the GNSO Council in September of 2012. During GNSO Council deliberations in October 2012, The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement. ICANN Staff welcome community input on the findings as well as conclusions of this Preliminary Issue Report. Section II: Background The request for an Issue Report on this topic follows the work of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG). The RAPWG was tasked by the GNSO Council with defining abuse, making a determination between registration abuse versus use abuse, defining the most common forms of abuse, and understanding the effectiveness of abuse provisions within agreements in order to identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. The RAPWG identified a total of 14 recommended actions that could address various forms of registration abuse. Some recommendations addressed WHOIS access issues, fake renewal notices, UDRP Review, malicious use of domain names and several others. The specific recommendation ultimately prompting this Issue Report stated: "the need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports and that the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes." Section III: Document and Resource Links Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-prelim-20feb13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.49 MB] Section IV: Additional Information * Thought paper from RAPWG Alumni Group<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html> * The ICANN Contractual Compliance Department Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un…> [PDF, 522 KB] * The RAPWG Final Report, section 9.1<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.7 MB] (*) 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

Draft Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 14 February 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 14 February 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> section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 1 March 2013. 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

Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
by Mason Cole 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

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

8 10

URGENT: Topics for Beijing weekend session
by Mason Cole 19 Feb '13

19 Feb '13

All -- I'm working now to organize the agendas for our time in Beijing. I would like to ask specifically for any matters or issues you'd like included in our weekend work agenda -- I apologize for having to press but planning is well under way by staff and resources are already tight. So if you would, please send me items of interest you'd like to have considered for the agenda as soon as possible. I need to turn an agenda draft back to staff very quickly. FYI, here are items staff has suggested, or has received requests for, thus far: - New gTLD update - SSAC update - IGO-INGO PDP review - IETF update - Thick Whois PDP discussion - SCI status update - IRTP Part D PDP update - gTLD Directory Services update We are also slotting in weekend sessions with the Board and GAC, though this is subject to confirmation. Our lunch meeting with the ccNSO is penciled for Monday. Finally, we have a brainstorm session tentatively scheduled for Saturday morning. Thanks for your contributions. Feel free to mail back on or off list. Thanks -- Mason

3 3

FW: SCI Liaison
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Feb '13

19 Feb '13

All, Please see the note below from Ron Andruff, Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation. In general, the responsibility of the SCI is to provide an on-going capability to review GNSO processes and particularly to work on improvements where these processes are seen to have shortcomings. My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested by Ron below. This could be supplemented by a variation of 2 i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC of the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate. Currently, Jennifer Wolfe and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben are primary members to the SCI, Thomas Rickert and Jeff Neuman are alternate members. It seems to make sense for one of these to become Council Liaison appointed by the Council. Two questions: 1. Any objections to this approach? 2. If not, any volunteers from existing primary members or alternates? Thanks, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; mcole(a)5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI

4 4

Update to SOI
by Jonathan Robinson 19 Feb '13

19 Feb '13

All, Through my personal consultancy company, Ipracon Ltd, I have entered into an agreement to assist Deloitte Bedrijfsrevisoren BV ovve CVBA with their work on the implementation of ICANNs TMCH. You may recall that ICANN contracted or plans to contract separately with both Deloitte (Clearinghouse Services) and IBM (Database and Interface with Registries). I will work only with Deloitte, exploiting expertise I gained through both execution work on the .xxx sunrise and the subsequent RFI response I participated in on for the TMCH. I will not work with IBM and will not have anything to do with their work with registries or the pricing of that service. Accordingly, I have updated my ICANN SOI. The full SOI can be seen here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jonathan+Robinson+SOI Thank-you. Jonathan For reference, an extract from ICANNs November 26 2012 blog (which I believe to be the most current public information) is copied below: ICANN has continued to negotiate the agreements for database services with IBM and for validation services with Deloitte to include additional terms that will provide ICANN with maximum operational flexibility and guaranteed stewardship of the trademark database. Here is an overview: § ICANN retains all intellectual property rights in the Trademark Clearinghouse data. § Deloittes validation services are to be non-exclusive. ICANN may add additional validators after a threshold of minimum stability is met. § Trademark submission fees are capped at USD 150 per record. Discounts are available for bulk & multi-year submissions. § IBM will charge Deloitte for database access via an application processing interface (API), and will charge registries and registrars for real-time access to the database during the sunrise and claims periods. § ICANN may audit Deloittes performance (and revenues/costs) to confirm that the costs and fees for validation services are reasonable. We are moving to sign agreements as soon as possible and the agreements will be posted once signed. http://blog.icann.org/page/2/

1 0