May 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 June at 11:00UTC.
by Glen de Saint Géry May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 June at 11:00UTC. Please remember that the deadlines for submitting motions is Monday, 3 June at 23:59 UTC. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+June+2013 http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13jun13-en.htm motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 16 May 2013 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16may13-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 11:00 UTC<http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 13:00 Paris; 23:00 Wellington Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 16 May 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-16may13-en.htm> posted as approved on 30 May 2013 Item 2: Opening remarks from the Chair (10 minutes) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include brief review of Projects List<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> and Action List<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes) TBC. Item 4: MOTION - To Adopt Revised GNSO Council Operating Procedures (10 minutes) The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity. The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. Motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 4.2 Discussion of motion. 4.3 Vote (Threshold: Simple majority of Both 4 CPH, 7 NCPH). Item 5: MOTION - TBC (10 minutes) Motion Link to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 5.1 Reading of the motion 5.2 Discussion of motion. 5.3 Vote Item 6: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes) A Final Issue Report on the translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library) After consulting with the Expert Working Group (EWG), staff recommends that a PDP be initiated because the work of the PDP Team will help inform the work of the EWG. Also, as recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team, the Final Issue Report recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations; ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. An overview of the Final Issue Report was provided in Beijing. Voting on this motion was deferred at the GNSO Council Meeting of 16 May 2013. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP. 6.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Vote (Threshold: 33% of Both 3 CPH, 5 NCPH; OR 66% of ONE 5 CPH, 9 NCPH) Item 7: DISCUSSION - Reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse (15 mins) On the 19th April 2013, the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC). On the 16 May 2013, the BGC Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request was published. Concerns have been raised within the Council about: 1. The nature of the response to this particular request. Specifically in terms of the arguments presented within the response and the perceived or actual implications of these arguments on the workings of the multi-stakeholder model. 2. More generally about the effectiveness of the reconsideration process. The Council will consider the content of the recent Recommendation on the Reconsideration Request and the discussion will focus not on the outcome of the Reconsideration Request but rather on the arguments presented and any potential implications for the GNSO and the multi-stakeholder model. Item 8: DISCUSSION - Forthcoming reviews of the GNSO and GNSO Council (15 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, both the GNSO Council and the GNSO will come up for ICANN Board initiated review. In order to be effectively prepared for these reviews, it was proposed in Beijing that a group be formed to understand the issues and begin to take appropriate next steps. One key suggestion from Beijing was that any group (such as the Council) being reviewed undertakes a form of self-review. Here the Council will confirm the intended course of action and provide input into a draft call for volunteers for a non-PDP WG. Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (10 mins) During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/active-ux-21mar13-en.pdf>' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm…) The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. Ideally, input is requested on: a) Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented), b) Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and c) c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html) At the 16 may 2013 Council Meeting, the Council received a presentation on the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/presentation-variant-tlds-ux-16may1… 9.1 Discussion 9.2 Next steps - Any additional action to be taken? 9.3 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Chiao) Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Planning for Durban (20 minutes) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning. GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort. The Council has had the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience, including most recently in Beijing. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 10.1 - Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 10.2 - Discussion 10.3 - Next steps Item 11: Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 UTC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 08:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 08:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST12:00 Abuja, Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1DST12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST13:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+1DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+1DST 14:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia (WST<http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html> ) UTC+12+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) For other times see: http://tinyurl.com/qajy5ap Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Document and Motion deadline Monday 3 June 2013 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e MONDAY,3 June 2013 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 13 June 2013 at 11:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Security Studies on the Use of Non-Delegated TLDs, and Dotless Names
by Glen de Saint Géry May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28may13-en.htm Security Studies on the Use of Non-Delegated TLDs, and Dotless Names 28 May 2013 ICANN's mission and core values call to preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. In pursuing these goals and following the direction of its Board of Directors as well as the advice of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, ICANN is announcing two studies regarding: 1) the use of non-delegated TLDs and 2) potential risks related to dotless domain names. On 31 January 2013, ICANN security team received the SAC 057: SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates. On 18 May, the ICANN Board directed staff to commission a study on the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises. Today, ICANN is announcing that a study has been commissioned on the potential security impacts of the applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to namespace collisions with non-delegated TLDs that may be in use in private namespaces including their use in X.509 digital certificates. As part of this study, the expert study team will develop a framework for assessing the risk level and classify the risk level for the strings as identified in the study. The report will also provide options for ICANN as to how to mitigate the various risks and will describe the pros and cons of the options. On 23 February 2012, the SSAC published the SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains. A domain name that consists of a single label is referred to as a "dotless domain name". Use of dotless names could provide potential innovations to the domain name industry and new gTLD applicants, but their use also raises usability, functionality, security and stability concerns as described in the SSAC report. On 23 June 2012, the ICANN Board directed staff to consult with the relevant communities regarding implementation of the recommendations in SAC 053 and to provide a briefing paper for the Board, detailing the issues and options available to mitigate such issues. During the period of August to September 2012, a public comment period was held regarding the SAC 053 report. The public comment period made clear that dotless domain names are a subject of active discussion in the ICANN community, that no clear conclusion could be drawn, and that a greater effort to identify and explore solutions to the concerns raised before implementing SAC 053 recommendations could be useful. Today, ICANN is announcing that it has commissioned a study on the potential risks related to dotless domain names based on SAC 053 report. The study report will identify and describe the potential risks that dotless names raise with particular focus on those related to security and stability. The report will also provide options for ICANN as to how to mitigate the various risks and will describe the pros and cons of the options. In both cases ICANN intends to deliver the study teams findings before the ICANN 47th meeting in Durban, South Africa. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Summary report posted - Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services
by Marika Konings May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

Dear All, For your information, the summary report of public comments received on the Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services has now been posted (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-e n.htm). As per the Board instructions as well as noted in the report itself, the Final Issue Report is not expected to be delivered until the EWG concludes its work and their recommendations / conclusions can be included in the Final Issue Report. With best regards, Marika

1 0

Re: [council] RE: Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
by Alan Greenberg May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

Jeff (and others), I believe that your (upper case) wording below is incorrect in a very substantive way. you say "50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS", The 20 March document (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio…) specifies that a TM holder can add up to 50 strings PER TMCH RECORD. That implies that for a mark that is registered in multiple (perhaps 100+) jurisdictions, and is thus has a similar number of entries in the TMCH, the number of abused strings that could be entered into the TMCH for a single TM character string could be far larger than 50. Alan At 22/05/2013 10:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >Bruce, > >Thanks for forwarding. I think there are some points in here that >need to be discussed at the community level and some flaws (in my >view) in the logic of the assumptions behind the decision. I would >like to propose adding this as a topic for the next council meeting >and inviting one or more members of the BGC to our call. > >I will provide more of a background on my concerns with the decision >in a subsequent e-mail, but I would like to get this on the agenda >and get the invites out there to the BGC. I would also request that >the ICANN Board to NOT adopt this recommendation until a full >discussion can take place. > >PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY CONCERNED WITH THE RULE ALLOWING >50 VARIATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ABUSED MARKS. AS A REGISTRY, WE ARE >BUILDING IN THE CAPABILITY AND WILL LEAVE THAT DEBATE TO >OTHERS. BUT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE WORDING OF THIS >DECISION AND THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE ALONG WITH THE IMPACT ON THE >MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL ESPECIALLY IF THIS DECISION IS EVER USED TO >SET PRECEDENT IN FUTURE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS. > >This decision was clearly written by legal counsel (and probably >from outside legal counsel). It was written as a legal brief in >litigation would be written, and if upheld, can undermine the entire >bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. If ICANN wanted to justify >their decision to protect their proclamation for the 50 variations, >they could have done it in a number of ways that would have been >more palatable. Instead, they used this Reconsideration Process as a >way to fundamentally alter the multi-stakeholder model. It not only >demonstrates how meaningless the Reconsideration process is as an >accountability measure, but also sends a signal of things to come if >we do not step in. > >Jonathan - can we add this to the agenda and invite the BGC members >to the next Council meeting? > >Thanks. > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin >Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:32 AM >To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [council] Regarding reconsideration request from the >Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the >Trademark Clearinghouse > >Hello All, > >For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request >13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG). > >These have been published at: > >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration > >The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its >meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

4 4

ICANN thanks members of the Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP) used to evaluate applications for financial support in the new gTLD program
by Bruce Tonkin May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013

Hello Al, See below. Particular thanks to Zahid Jamil, a member of the GNSO Council, for chairing the panel. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-28may13-en ICANN Acknowledges Members of the Support Applicant Review Panel ICANN would like to acknowledge and thank members of the Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP) for their service to the Applicant Support Program (ASP). The work, the time and the dedication this independent volunteer panel exhibited is greatly appreciated. ICANN first sought volunteers to serve on the panel in 2011. Some 80 individuals from around the word encompassing a broad range of expertise volunteered. Five were selected. Collectively they have experience in the domain name industry, in managing small businesses, awarding grants, and assisting others on financial matters in developing countries. The panel was asked to review applications for financial support. Applicants were evaluated based on the following criteria: 1.public interest benefit 2.financial need 3.financial capabilities The Applicant Support Program was designed to make the new gTLD application process as inclusive and affordable as possible for new gTLD applicants. It sprung from a Board-initiated, community-based Working Group that was tasked with developing a sustainable approach in support of New gTLD applicants in need of financial and operational assistance. The Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group provided much of the direction and rationale for the Applicant Support Program which was subsequently approved by the Board in January 2012. See attached for biographies of the members of the panel.

1 0

Update on NGPC Progress on GAC Advice on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry May 28, 2013

May 28, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22may13-en.htm Update on NGPC Progress on GAC Advice on New gTLDs 22 May 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) held a discussion in Amsterdam on 18 May 2013 regarding how and when it could address the Beijing GAC advice. The NGPC structured the discussion around the attached GAC Advice Framework<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-framework-21may13-en.pdf> [PDF, 52 KB]. The Framework organizes the individual advice items into discrete groupings to allow the NGPC to prioritize its work. The NGPC's goal is to carefully consider GAC advice and community input and to make decisions that will allow the greatest number of new gTLD applications to move forward as soon as possible. As mentioned in our last update<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10may13-en.htm>, the NGPC is developing a scorecard for the advice, marking items as a "1A," "1B" and "2." In Amsterdam, the NGPC made progress on identifying the potential "1As," i.e., those items for which the NGPC has a tentative position that appears to be consistent with the GAC's advice. Final scoring of the items will not be possible until the applicant responses to the GAC Advice are summarized and reviewed. The NGPC anticipates that it will discuss these items further during its next meeting tentatively scheduled for early June. The NGPC also began discussing the GAC Advice on Safeguards. Currently there is an open Public Comment Forum<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-e…> seeking input on how the NGPC should address the GAC's Safeguard Advice. The Public Comment Forum closes on 4 June 2013. As shown in the attached, the NGPC is evaluating the safeguard advice grouped as follows: * Safeguard Advice Applicable to all strings * Category 1 Safeguard Advice: Consumer Protection, Sensitive Strings, and Regulated Markets * Category 2 Safeguard Advice: Restricted Registration Policies (Restricted Access and Exclusive Access) Over the next few weeks, the NGPC will hold a series of calls to discuss applicant responses to the GAC advice, the Safeguard advice and related public comment, and other matters including responding to the GAC's advice on singular and plural strings, its questions in Annex 2, and its requests for briefing papers. The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. As mentioned above, the NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing advice. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: Advice requested by the ICANN Board
by Steve Crocker May 26, 2013

May 26, 2013

Jonathan, Apologies for a delayed response. Your letter arrived at a particularly hectic time of the WTPF meeting and the Board's retreat. If I understand your letter properly, this belongs primarily with the gTLD group within ICANN and also with Denise, who is handling the preparations for the fourth AoC review, viz the one focused on consumer choice, competition and trust. Cherine may have other thoughts, so I will wait for him to weigh in too. (I have forwarded your original message to both Cherine and Denise.) Thanks, Steve On May 13, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> wrote: > Dear Steve, Dear Cherine, > > Please see the attached regarding consumer trust, consumer choice and competition in the context of the domain name system. > > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan > > > > Jonathan Robinson > Chair > ICANN GNSO Council > > jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com > Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 > skype: jonathan.m.r > > > > <CTCC Update - GNSO Council Chair to ICANN Board - Final - 13 May 2013.pdf>

1 0

Regarding reconsideration request from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group relating to decision on the Trademark Clearinghouse
by Bruce Tonkin May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

Hello All, For information, I have attached details on reconsideration request 13.3 from the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG). These have been published at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration The Board's Governance Committee considered the request at its meeting in Amsterdam on 16 May 2013, and its recommendation is now posted. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

ICANN Board resolutions from 18 May 2013
by Bruce Tonkin May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013

Hello All, See below. Key resolutions include: - location of October 2014 ICANN Meeting - Los Angeles - study on the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises. The study should consider the potential security impacts of applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage. - approval of the Arab Center for Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to be a UDRP provider Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-18may13-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes Resolved (2013.05.18.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 11 April 2013 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board. b. FY2014 Budget Approval Timing Whereas, the FY2014 Budget is currently out for public comment, which closes on 20 June 2013. Whereas, ICANN typically approves each year's budget during one of ICANN's Public meetings. Whereas, ICANN's mid-year meeting this year, in Durban, South Africa (14-18 July 2013), is taking place after the initiation of the 2014 Fiscal Year, which begins on 1 July 2014. Resolved (2013.05.18.02), the ICANN Board intends to approve the FY2014 Budget during the ICANN public meeting in Durban, South Africa. Resolved (2013.05.18.03), for the period of time beginning on 1 July 2013 through to the date the Board approves the FY2014 Budget, the Board directs the President and CEO to operate ICANN in a manner consistent with the FY2014 Budget that is posted for public comment. c. Site of the October 2014 ICANN Meeting in North America Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2014 in the North America region as per its policy, and in line with the Board's 20 December 2012 Resolution on 2014 meeting locations. Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of all available meeting venues in North America and finds the one in Los Angeles, California to be the most suitable. Whereas, the Board Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee agreed to Los Angeles, California as the site for the ICANN 2014 North America Meeting. Resolved (2013.05.18.04), the Board approves Los Angeles, California as the location of the ICANN 2014 North America Public meeting, which is scheduled for 12-17 October 2014. Resolved (2013.05.18.05), the 2014 Los Angeles ICANN Public meeting is designated as ICANN's 2014 Annual Meeting. Resolved (2013.05.18.06), the Board reaffirms its 20 December 2012 resolution authorizing the President and CEO to make all necessary arrangements to conduct the 2014 ICANN Meetings, including all necessary contracting and disbursements. d. ACDR Proposal to be a UDRP Provider Whereas, the Arab Center for Dispute Resolution (ACDR) submitted a proposal to ICANN to be approved as an UDRP provider. Whereas, the ACDR proposal was posted for public comment on 28 September 2010 and a revised version was posted on 1 March 2013, which took into account comments received; ACDR has produced a further revised proposal addressing a final issue raised in the 1 March 2013 public comment forum. Whereas, the revised ACDR proposal meets the suggested elements as set forth in Information Concerning Approval Process for Dispute Resolution Service Providers. Resolved (2013.05.18.07), the Board approves the application of ACDR to become a UDRP provider, and advises the President and CEO, through the General Counsel's Office, to enter into discussions with ACDR regarding the process for ACDR's provision of UDRP services. Rationale for Resolution 2013.05.18.07 The Board's approval of the ACDR application brings to a close the work of the ACDR (in cooperation with ICANN staff) in working to meet the standards and elements of the process for approval of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") providers. This enhances ICANN's accountability through adherence to its processes. In addition, the approval of the first UDRP provider located in the Middle East enhances ICANN's accountability to the Internet community as a whole, enhancing choice for UDRP complainants. The ACDR's proposal was posted twice for public comment. All of the comments received were provided to ACDR for consideration. Some of the comments in opposition addressed issues such as the level of fees, which is fully within the ACDR's purview. Other commenters suggested that ICANN develop contracts with each of its UDRP providers as a means to require uniformity among providers. Contracts have never been required of UDRP providers. On the issue of uniformity among providers, however, the ACDR's proposal does two things: first, highlighted areas where risk of non-uniform conduct was perceived (such as issues with commencement dates and definitions of writings) have been modified; second, the proposal now includes an affirmative recognition that if ICANN imposes further requirements on providers, the ACDR will follow those requirements; third, the ACDR has revised a specific portion of its Supplemental Rules that was highlighted by commenters as a potential risk to uniformity. This is a positive advancement and helps address concerns of ICANN's ability to, in the future, identify areas where uniformity of action is of its obligation to abide by ICANN modifications that could enhance uniformity among providers. ICANN's consideration of the ACDR's proposal also highlights the import of accountability to the community. After the community requested the opportunity to see the proposal again prior to approval, the Board agreed and asked staff to proceed with a further comment period. In addition, the Board also requested that staff report to the community on how ICANN's earlier consideration of UDRP provider uniformity issues was concluded. As a result, a briefing paper has been prepared and will be publicly posted. There is a minimal resource impact on ICANN as a result of this decision in assuring that ICANN staff is available to work with the ACDR in starting and maintaining its work as a provider. There is no expected impact on the security, stability or the resiliency of the DNS as a result of this decision. This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was received. 2. Main Agenda: a. SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates Whereas, the delegation of TLDs in a way that promotes security and a good user experience is a longstanding topic of importance to ICANN's Board and the global Internet community. Whereas, on 15 March 2013, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 057: SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates. Whereas, enterprises have local environments that may include strong assumptions about which top-level domains exist at the root level of the public DNS, and/or have introduced local top-level domains that may conflict with names yet to be delegated at the root level of the public DNS. Whereas, in its stewardship role, ICANN wishes to determine what these potential clashes are. Resolved (2013.05.18.08), the Board directs the President and CEO, in consultation with the SSAC, to commission a study on the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises. The study should consider the potential security impacts of applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage. Resolved (2013.05.18.09), the Board requests RSSAC to assist ICANN in the collection of data and observations related to root server operations that are relevant for the study, and to work with root server operators to enable sharing of such data and observations as appropriate, in the most expedient way possible. Resolved (2013.05.18.10), The Board directs the President and CEO to reach out to the Certificate Authority/Browser forum to collect statistics on the distribution of internal name certificates by top-level domain, in the most expedient way possible. Resolved (2013.05.18.11), the Board requests the SSAC to consider offering additional advice based on its assessment of the issues identified in the ICANN study, in the most expedient way possible. Rationale for Resolutions 2013.05.18.08 - 2013.05.18.11 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? The internal certificate issue identified by SSAC in SAC 057 is a symptom that enterprises have local environments that include strong assumptions about the static number of top-level domains and/or have introduced local top-level domains that may conflict with names yet to be allocated. Regardless of whether these assumptions are valid or not, to be proactive in its stewardship role, ICANN wishes to determine what security and stability implications these potential conflicts have, especially since applications for new gTLDs are in the process of being evaluated by ICANN for delegation into the root. This study also sets a precedent for potential future TLD rounds, where similar studies might need to be conducted as a matter of due diligence. What are the proposals being considered? The Board requests the ICANN President and CEO to commission a study on the use of TLDs not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises. The study would also consider the potential security impacts of applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage. In fulfilling the study, the Board is also considering requesting RSSAC to assist root operators in providing some statistics and observations. Finally the Board is considering requesting the SSAC to consider whether it has additional advice for the Board based on its analysis of the study. What Stakeholders or others were consulted? The SSAC presented the "SAC 057: SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates" to the ICANN community in Beijing. As a result, the SSAC received feedback from the community on this issue and their input informed the SSAC's request. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Some community members have raised concerns about the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS and its impact to enterprises when ICANN delegates these TLDs into the public DNS. Some have asked for an evaluation of such risks so that the ICANN community can make informed decisions. Some have said that their studies show no significant risk to the security and stability of the DNS and have exhorted ICANN to continue on the course of evaluation and eventual delegation of all successful gTLD applications, regardless of conflict due to internal name certificates. What significant materials did Board review? The SSAC Report on Internal Name Certificates1 [PDF, 1.14 MB], The SSAC Report on invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System (15 November 2010 with corrections)2 [PDF, 507 KB], Report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on Root Scaling (6 December 2010)3 [PDF, 175 KB] What factors the Board found to be significant? In taking its action, the Board considered the recommendations of the SSAC in SAC 045, 046 and 057. Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts? The Board's action to direct staff, through the President and CEO, to commission a detailed study on the risks related to the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises will provide a positive impact on the community as it will enhance the understanding of this issue by providing additional information on security impacts of applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage. This will permit the community and the Board to understand in more detail the potential security and stability concerns if TLDs that are in conflict are delegated, and the impact on the overall functionality of the Internet. Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public? This action is not expected to have an impact on ICANN's resources, and directing this work to be done may result in changes to the implementation plans for new gTLDs. While the study itself will not have a fiscal impact on ICANN, the community or the public, it is possible that study might uncover risks that result in the requirement to place special safeguards for gTLDs that have conflicts. It is also possible that some new gTLDs may not be eligible for delegation. Are there any Security, Stability or Resiliency issues relating to the DNS? SAC057 has identified several security risks to the DNS. This study intends to provide a more quantitative view of the problem, and to provide information that would inform future decisions. This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment is not required. However, any recommendations arising out of the work directed through this resolution are likely to require community input prior to Board consideration. b. SSAC Budget Request Whereas, on 11 April 2013, the Board approved SO/AC budget requests submitted through the Fast-Track Process for inclusion in the FY2014 Budget. Whereas, the Board did not approve at that time a request from the SSAC regarding additional travel to the ICANN meeting in Durban. Resolved, (2013.05.18.12), the Board now approves the SSAC request in the amount of US$20,000 for additional travel to the ICANN meeting in Durban for inclusion in ICANN's Fiscal Year 2014 budget as part of the SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Fast-Track Process. Rationale for Resolution 2013.05.18.12 The SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Fast-Track Process leads to budget approval earlier than usual is a reasonable accommodation for activities that begin near the beginning of FY14. This slight augmentation to ICANN's established budget approval process and timeline helps facilitate the work of the ICANN Community and of the ICANN Staff, and does not create additional expenses. Upon the recommendation of the Board Finance Committee, and in light of the specific role that the SSAC plays within ICANN, this decision is important to the work regarding the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, though no direct anticipated impact on the security, stability or resiliency on the DNS is expected as a result of this decision. This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which ICANN received community input. 3. Executive Session: a. CEO At-Risk Compensation Whereas, each Board member has confirmed that he/she does not have a conflict of interest with respect to establishing the amount of payment for the President and CEO's FY13 T2 at-risk compensation payment. Whereas, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve payment to the President and CEO for his FY13 T2 at-risk compensation. Resolved (2013.05.18.13), the Board hereby approves a payment to the President and CEO for his FY13 T2 at-risk compensation component. Resolved (2013.05.18.14), specific items within this resolution shall remain confidential as an "action relating to personnel or employment matters", pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws. Rationale for Resolutions 2013.05.18.13 - 2013.05.18.14 When the President and CEO was hired, he was offered a based salary, plus an at-risk component of his compensation package. Consistent with all ICANN staff, the President and CEO is evaluated against specific goals that he sets in coordination with the Compensation Committee. In Beijing, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve the President and CEO's at-risk Compensation for the second trimester of FY13 and the Board agrees with that recommendation. While this will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, it is an impact that was contemplated in the FY13 budget. This decision will not have an impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. This in an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment. b. Confidential Resolution [Resolutions Redacted] Resolved (2013.05.18.18), specific items of this resolution [Resolutions 2013.05.18.15, 2013.05.18.16 and 2013.05.18.17] shall remain confidential as an "action relating to personnel or employment matters", pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, and the entire resolution shall remain confidential pursuant to this same Bylaws provision pending determination by the President and CEO that the non-confidential portion can be made public. Rationale for Resolutions 2013.05.18.15 - 2013.05.18.18 [Rationale Redacted]

1 0