March 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP)
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Mar '13

17 Mar '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.htm Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 5 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 6 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 27 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): Seeking comments on the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure Current Status: Awaiting comments Next Steps: Review public comments and revise if necessary Staff Contact: Olof Nordling Email Staff Contact<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Public%20Interest%20Commitments%20Dispute%20Resolution%20Procedure%20%28PICDRP%29%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: As previously reported, a dispute resolution procedure will be put in place to address complaints that a Registry in the New gTLD Program may not be complying with the Public Interest Commitment(s) in Specification 11 of their Registry Agreement with ICANN. A draft procedure has been created for this purpose. The draft procedure, or Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP), closely tracks the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) that has already been vetted with the community through several public comment periods and subsequent revisions. The purpose of this Public Comment Forum is to obtain public input on the PICDRP, and to inform revisions to the PICDRP, if appropriate. Section II: Background: Specification 11 in over 500 new gTLD Registry Agreements will have voluntary Public Interest Commitments that the Registry has made and with which the Registry has agreed to comply. To effectively and efficiently resolve any issues that might arise regarding non-compliance with a Registry's Public Interest Commitments, a third party-administered dispute resolution procedure will be put in place. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Draft Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, 199 KB] * For the approved RRDRP, please see: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/rrdrp-04jun12-en.pdf [PDF, 257 KB] 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

Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Mar '13

17 Mar '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 26 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 27 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 17 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization Working Group tasked with addressing the issue of locking of a domain name subject to Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Proceedings has published its Initial Report for public comment. Current Status: The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published its Initial Report and is soliciting community input on the preliminary recommendations contained in the report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email Staff Contact<mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20%E2%80%93%20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: In its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, 883 KB], the PDP Working Group presents eleven preliminary recommendations, which are expected to usefully clarify and standardize how a domain name is locked and unlocked during the course of a UDRP Proceeding for all parties involved. Amongst others, these recommendations include: * A definition of 'locking' in the context of a UDRP Proceeding - the term "lock" means preventing any changes of registrar and registrant [without impairing the resolution of the domain name]1<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> (Preliminary recommendation #1) * Proposed modification of the UDRP rules to no longer require that the complainant sends a copy of the complaint to the respondent to avoid cyberflight2<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> (Preliminary recommendation #2) * Requirement for the registrar to 'lock' the domain name registration within 2 business days following a request for verification from the UDRP Provider (Preliminary recommendation #3) * Clarifying how to deal with changes to contact information and/or lifting of proxy / privacy services (Preliminary recommendation #7 and #8) * Clarifying the process for the unlocking of a domain name registration following the conclusion of a UDRP proceeding (Preliminary recommendation #9) In addition to these recommendations, the WG has put forward two possible options in its report to clarify the process in case a settlement is reached and is requesting community input on these two options or possible alternatives. It is important to emphasize that most of these preliminary recommendations codify existing practices in line with the UDRP and are not expected to require any changes to the existing policy. However, should these recommendations be adopted in their current form, minor changes may need to be made to the UDRP rules and/or UDRP Provider supplemental rules. Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially review section 5 and 6 of the Initial Report in order to obtain a further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards to these recommendations as well as further details with respect to the preliminary recommendations. In addition to input on the preliminary recommendations, the WG is also interested to receive further feedback on the expected impact should these recommendations be adopted. The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. ________________________________ 1<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would welcome community input on the proposed addition. 2<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> Cyberflight in this context means changing the registrant information with the intent to escape from the dispute. Section II: Background: The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. To address this issue, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15 December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf [PDF, 883 KB] * Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy<https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules<https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules> * Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ Section IV: Additional Information: N/A ________________________________ (*) 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

Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services
by Glen de Saint Géry 17 Mar '13

17 Mar '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13… Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 19 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 20 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This Public Forum invites comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on the gTLD registration data services<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p…> [PDF, 946 KB]. The Report forms part of a ICANN Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP) that aims to review the purpose and accuracy of domain name registration data and directory services, as well as its underlying technical protocol - currently also known as 'Whois'. Current Status: The Preliminary Issue Report explores the issue of gTLD registration data services, which includes the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity to share perspectives on this topic as well as the contents of the Preliminary Issue Report. In parallel to this Preliminary Issue Report, the ICANN Board has convened an Expert Working Group (EWG) whose findings will feed into the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comment forum and once the Expert Working Group has concluded its work, a Final Issue Report will be published and the PDP will be initiated. Staff Contact: Lars Hoffmann Email Staff Contact<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20gTLD%20Registration%20Data%20Services%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: Comprehensive 'Whois' policy reform remains the source of long-running discussions within the ICANN as well as wider Internet community. Any discussion of 'Whois' - hereafter called gTLD registration data and directory services - typically includes topics such as purpose, accuracy, availability, privacy, anonymity, cost, policing, intellectual property protection, security and malicious use and abuse. The Board specifically called out two of these topics in its request; purpose and accuracy. With regard to purpose, at a minimum the most basic purpose, which is commonly accepted, is that gTLD registration data allows domain name holders to be contacted. However, who would be granted the right to access the data under what circumstances and contact the holder and by which means, is a set of difficult follow-up questions that need to be answered. In relation to accuracy, There are many data elements in the Whois database required under the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements; if only one of these data fields is incorrect, does that mean the Whois information is inaccurate? And how can the accuracy of data be verified and/or measured, especially considering that if data is not accurate the purpose of gathering the data might be questionable in the first place. This Preliminary Issue report lays out in detail many of the issues mentioned above and how they relate to the gTLD registration data and directory services. In addition, it also provides an overview of many of the affected Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and other relevant parties. Furthermore, the Report explains in details the continuous issues with regard to accuracy and purpose of gTLD registration data services and elaborates on the need for changes to the technical aspects. In addition to requesting the Issue Report, the Board has directed the formation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) that is currently working on a comprehensive proposal how to solve the issues surrounding the purpose and accuracy of domain registration data services. The EWG is tasked with providing concrete solutions to many (if not all) of the issues raised in this Report. In accordance with the Board's direction, the outcome of the EWG will feed into the Final Issue Report which will form the basis for the next steps in the Policy Development Process. Section II: Background: After the submission of a Report drafted by the Whois Policy Review Team in 2012, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November 2012<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> that led to the creation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) and, in parallel, also launched a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). ICANN's requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries have undergone some important changes; yet after more than 12 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies the policy is still in need of comprehensive reforms that address the significant number of issues related to gTLD registration data services. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate and submit a summary of the comments received together with the Final Issue Report. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p… [PDF, 946 KB] * Board resolution from 8 November 2012 - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> * Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189 * Closed and archived GNSO Whois Policy Work - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive Section IV: Additional Information: N/A ________________________________ (*) 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

Independent Objector has filed 24 objections against new applied-for gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin 17 Mar '13

17 Mar '13

Hello All, For information, the new gTLD programme Independent Director has lodged 24 objections against new applied-for gTLDs before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The objections are on the grounds of Limited Public Interest and Community. See: http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/news/ In the Community category, the affected strings are: .amazon, .charity, .healthcare, .hospital, .indians, .med, .medical, .patagonia In the public interest category, the affected strings are: .health, .healthcare, .hospital, .med, .medical Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Action items GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013:
by Glen de Saint Géry 15 Mar '13

15 Mar '13

Dear Councillors, Please find the list of action items arising from the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 14 March 2013: Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair Action Items: Consider discussion on how the Council should deal with giving advice when requested. Review Amsterdam Action items to ensure that there is follow up. Renew call for Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Council liaison for Working Group. Item 4: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Policy vs. Implementation Action Item: Staff to ensure that the Policy vs. Implementation panel discussion session in Beijing is an un-conflicted session. GNSO participation is strongly encouraged. Please contact Marika Konings for participation on the panel. Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study Action Item: Start discussions on the provision of proxy/privacy services which could help frame a possible request for an Issue report to launch a Policy Development Process. Jeff Neuman volunteered to take the lead. Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Beijing Action Items: Provide input to Jonathan Robinson for the Brainstorming session on Saturday morning GNSO Working session. Provide submissions on the Council mailing list for the GNSO Weekend discussions with: · Fadi Chehadé - President and CEO · Christine Willett and Senior staff Form a small working group composed of GNSO and ccNSO representatives to discuss and prepare the topics for the joint meeting with ccNSO/GNSO Councils on Monday, 8 April 2013, 12:30-14:00 in Beijing. GNSO Volunteers: Petter Rindforth, Joy Liddicoat, Ching Chiao, Maria Farrell, Wendy Seltzer Item 7: Any Other Business (AOB) Update and discussion on recent changes to Registry and Registrar agreements Councillors are strongly encouraged to provide comments on the proposed RAA posted for comment at: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-07mar13-en.htm and Councillors are reminded that no comments could be taken as agreement to the proposal. Strawman proposal Request staff to provide update on 'Strawman' proposal and add as an agenda item for Beijing meeting Open vs Closed TLDs Request staff to provide update on next steps with regards to Open vs Closed TLDs Applicants for Meeting Strategy Working Group Inform the Meeting Strategy Working Group organisers that: The Council noted and reviewed the list of candidates for the Meeting Strategy Working Group and does not wish to take further action. Council proposed to remove Woldmariam, Mesfin F, an Acedemic from Africa from the list if there were no further clarifications of his representation on the GNSO by midnight UTC Thursday, 14 March 2013. 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Report from 3.4.13 ccNSO Council meeting
by john＠crediblecontext.com 15 Mar '13

15 Mar '13

To the GNSO Council: As liaison to the ccNSO Council, I participate in its meeting on Tuesday, March 12. There were four bits of the hour-long meeting (they seek to keep to a strict 60 minute limit) that are of particular interest to us. 1. Chair Lesley Cowley reported on calls with Jonathan Robinson regarding a meeting in Beijing between the two councils. Such a meeting, in as much as the two worlds -- country code and generic TLDs -- are so different they demand a bit of forethought in an attempt to develop a more substantive agenda. This was reflected in the three items that are likely to be on that agenda: a. Internet governance (most of the regional reports were of collaboration with national government organizations on the matter; additionally, there is concern that the internet governance discussion does not reflect the unique nature of the cc’s) b. The effect of new gTLDs on ICANN's table of organization (with the understanding that the cc's are keen to remain separate and apart from such changes) c. Handling direct requests from the Board and other Advisory Committee (the ccNSO feels it has a method in place to handle such things and will likely brief us on it) 2. Vice Chair Keith Davidson reported on a meeting with Fadi who said that ICANN intends to further internationalize the organization by putting executives in Singapore and Istanbul. No discussion on who or when. 3. A number of the ccNSO Council members expressed concern over findings of the Echo reputation study done by and about ICANN. The discussion focused on how different its negative results were from the positive results from studies about ccTLDs. 4. Cowley noted that it was unlikely that the ccNNO Council will meet with the GAC in Beijing "as the GAC is focused on new gTLDs" Cheers, John Berard

4 3

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 14 March 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 14 March 2013 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20130314-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar The Adobe Connect chat transcript may be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-14mar13-en.pdf 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

Request for Issue Report Wiki Template for review
by Marika Konings 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

Dear All, One of the outcomes of the Operations and Organisation meeting that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online template to complete the request for an Issue Report. The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to gather as much information as possible and engage in early discussions with others prior to submitting a request for an Issue Report. The hope is that by encouraging completion of all the information requested in the template, it will be possible to identify what information may still be needed and encourage collaboration between different interested parties at an early stage. You can find the wiki template page here: https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg <https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg> . The template can be completed by either by following the instructions or by downloading the word template from the same page. The idea would be that once completed, Council members can either create a PDF and submit that together with a motion to the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki link in the motion. Please note that this template is tailored to requests for Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual. Please note that this template is still in draft form. Feel free to try out the wiki template by following the instructions on the page. We can subsequently delete any 'practice pages' that are generated. Following your feedback, we can make any changes as deemed appropriate and draft a short announcement explaining the form's purpose, usage and relevant links. We can also add a link to the wiki page from the GNSO home page or any other reference locations that would be appropriate. We look forward to receiving your feedback. With best regards, Marika

2 1

Call for Volunteers for Proxy and Privacy Services exploratory group
by Neuman, Jeff 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

All, On the call today, there seemed to be interest from some members of Council to start discussions on the provision of proxy/privacy services. This could include discussions of under what circumstances is it appropriate to relay information sent to the proxy/privacy service provider and when is it appropriate to relay information? Should there be an accreditation process for these providers? Should there be a special agreement governing those services, etc. Lets get this discussion started so that we can help frame a possible request for an issue report to get a pdp started. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

5 4

New RAA Draft
by Zahid Jamil 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

Dear Chair, Would it be possible in Beijing to have staff deliver a presentation and update on the new Draft RAA and possibly a document which shows comparisons between the LEA Recommendations and the current draft? Best regards, 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 iPad

2 1