June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

New gTLD briefing materials for 4 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin 27 Jun '13

27 Jun '13

Hello All, From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings Attached are the Board briefing materials from the new gTLD program committee meeting on 4 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Agenda for new gTLD Program Committee meeting on 2 July 2013
by Bruce Tonkin 27 Jun '13

27 Jun '13

Agenda | New gTLD Program Committee From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-02jul13-en.h… 2 July 2013 Main Agenda: *Reconsideration Request 13-3 *ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants *IGO Protection *Category 1 items 1-5 *Registry Agreement *Any Other Business

1 0

RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
by john＠crediblecontext.com 27 Jun '13

27 Jun '13

Jonathan, I will repeat what I said initially. Jeff's proposed letter was accurate in exposing a set of issues that was of intense interest to the Council. It was incorrect is suggesting the view was unanimous and that there was some decision taken on the part of the Council about it. Raise the matter -- I was the one who brought of the notion of exectivication of decision making at ICANN -- sure, but be clear it is our concern, not our judgement. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3 From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Date: 6/26/13 7:30 am To: "'WUKnoben'" <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell(a)gmail.com>, council(a)gnso.icann.org, john(a)crediblecontext.com Personally, I have no difficulty with the principle of the point made by John and supported by Wolf-Ulrich. That said, I believe Jeff has articulated a concern regarding this item which was then discussed and there was clearly some (un-quantified) support on the Council for this position. Therefore, what would be helpful to me, and likely to the Council as a whole, is to hear any arguments as to why the concerns articulated are not necessarily concerns. I hope I am not doing anyone a disservice here but I thought I heard questions seeking clarification or detail and some proposed variations to the wording of our communication with BGC, but not necessarily any substantive arguments as to why the concerns raised (originally by Jeff) should not be concerns. Thanks, Jonathan From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: 26 June 2013 12:58 To: Maria Farrell; council(a)gnso.icann.org; john(a)crediblecontext.com Subject: Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3 With respect to the fairness to those who did not raise similar concerns or couldn't support the concerns raised at the last council meeting I join John's comment. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: john(a)crediblecontext.com Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:41 AM To: Maria Farrell ; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3 Maria, I am a fan of short-hand and jargon (it make life quicker and excludes the uninitiated) but your letter should have more correctly said "Some members of the GNSO Council expressed concern..." It is clear there is no position taken and no unanimity. A fine but important point. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3 From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell(a)gmail.com> Date: 6/25/13 1:48 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Council colleagues, Below for your information is a copy of a letter sent on behalf of the NCSG to the Board of Directors, which was received by the Board (via Bruce Tonkin's kind intercession) on 19 June. Bruce says the Board would be interested to meet and discuss the broad concerns about the multistakeholder model raised in the reconsideration request, and also confirms that the request itself will be discussed at the BGC meeting of 25 June. If and when we have any scheduling information about a meeting with the Board, we will share it so that others may be aware. All the best, Maria Dear ICANN Board of Directors: I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3). The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion. This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse. The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups. The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions. If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance. We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens. The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption. We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board. We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion. Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed. Truly, Robin Gross NCSG Chair

6 8

Presentation from the DNA
by Jonathan Robinson 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

All, I have had a request from Adrian Kinderis (who some of you may know from his time as a councillor) to present the DNA to the Council in a 15 minute session over the weekend in Durban. The Domain Name Association (DNA) is a new non-profit global business association that represents the interests of the domain name industry and it describes its mission as being to: "Promote the interests of its members by advocating the use, adoption, and expansion of domain names as the primary tool for users to navigate the Internet." Please indicate any interest, lack of interest or neutrality on this. Thanks, Jonathan

11 16

GNSO schedule Durban
by WUKnoben 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

Dear all, attached I send you the final draft schedule of the GNSO weekend sessions in Durban which should be published this week. Any further comments? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Consultation on the Source of Policies & User Instructions for Internet Number Resource Requests
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/iana-policies-user-instruction… Consultation on the Source of Policies & User Instructions for Internet Number Resource Requests Comment / Reply Periods Comment Open Date: 25 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 16 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 17 July 2013 Reply Close Date: 7 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-iana-policies-user-instructions-25jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-iana-policies-user-instructions-25jun…> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Internet Protocol Addressing Purpose (Brief): A consultation on the Source of Policies & User Instructions for Internet Number Resource Requests Current Status: Initial public consultation Next Steps: Review comments received Staff Contact: Leo Vegoda Email Staff Contact<mailto:leo.vegoda@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Consultation%20on%20the%20Source%20of%20Policies%20and%20User%20Instructions%20for%20Internet%20Number%20Resource%20Requests%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract (SA1301-12-CN-0035) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objectives: C.2.6 Transparency and Accountability - [No later than 1 October 2013], the Contractor shall, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, develop user instructions including technical requirements for each corresponding IANA function and post via a website. C.2.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders - [No later than 1 October 2013], the Contractor shall, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, develop for each of the IANA functions a process for documenting the source of the policies and procedures and how it will apply the relevant policies and procedures for the corresponding IANA function and post via a website. The interested and affected parties are identified in C.1.3 as: ...the multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model for the domain name system (DNS) that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) represents; the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB); Regional Internet Registries (RIRs); top-level domain (TLD) operators/managers (e.g., country codes and generic); governments; and the Internet user community. The IANA functions are identified in C.2.9 as: (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters; (2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management; (3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs). This consultation relates to the user instructions for the allocation of Internet numbering resources. Section II: Background: This is one of a series of consultations to identify source documents and publish user instructions for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Consultation on the Source of Policies & User Instructions for Internet Number Resource Requests<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/source-user-ins…> [PDF, 458 KB] * Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related documents<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> * ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU<https://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm> * Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860> 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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun… Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 25 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 25 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 26 July 2013 Reply Close Date: 16 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Top-Level Domains * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): The joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN working Group (JIG) seeks input from the community on its draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs. The draft includes recommendations to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for further action to resolve policy and other relating to the universal acceptance of IDN TLDs The Working expects to finalize and publish its Final Report, and submit their report, after taking into account the comments received. Current Status: Seeking public comment on its draft Final Report is part of the process for developing recommendations to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils as defined in the charter of the JIG. Next Steps: The JIG will closely review all submitted comments to determine, at its reasonable discretion, to modify its report. The Working expects to formally publish its Final Report by the end of August and submit it to both the ccNSO and GNSO Council for adoption and further action. Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel Email Staff Contact<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Draft%20Final%20Report%20on%20Universal%20Acceptance%20of%20IDN%20TLDs%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The issue of the Universal Acceptance of TLDs (Top-Level Domains) is not new. The introduction of new gTLDs, especially those that are longer than 3 characters exposed this Universal Acceptance issue in the 2000 experimental expansion round, and was continued to be felt through the 2004 sTLD extension round. The introduction of IDN ccTLDs through the IDN ccTLD fast track in 2010 further exposed the issue and also made this into an issue of common interest between ccTLDs and gTLDs. Based on extensive discussion, both in the WG and with the community, the JIG intends to recommend to the ccNSO and GNSO Council that they will recommend: 1. IDN TLD operators (including IDN ccTLD, IDN gTLD and IDN gTLD Accredited Registrars) are recommended to support Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs in their own systems. Part of this recommendation is that ICANN's IDN Guidelines be updated to include provisions for IDN TLD registries and registrars to support the Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs within their own systems (i.e. for registration systems and services to accept name server records, child hosts, contact information with IDN TLDs) 2. ICANN should allocate specific resources for the advocacy of Universal Acceptance beyond the development of informational materials and toolkits. 3. ICANN should develop of informative reference materials for new IDN TLDs (including gTLD and ccTLD) to handle issues of Universal Acceptance 4. ICANN initiates efforts, lead by staff, with participation from the community, for further studies to investigate the scope of the issue and what other services or actions could be taken by ICANN to support the Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs beyond outreach and awareness campaigns The WG seeks feed-back and input on the specific recommendations. Section II: Background: This is a Final Report from the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group (JIG) on the recommendations for actions to be taken by ICANN and the ICANN community to address the issue of Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs in support of the implementation of IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs. The document incorporates the findings from the Initial Report along with the public comments received respectively: · Initial Report published for public comments: January 6, 2012<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/universal-acceptance-idn-tlds-…> · Public Comment period conducted: January 6 - March 23, 2012<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jan12-en.htm> · Report of Public Comments: May 23, 2012<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-universal-acce…> [PDF, 188 KB] The JIG (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group) was created to discuss issues of common interest between the ccNSO and the GNSO on IDNs (Internationalized Domain Names), especially IDN TLDs. The JIG has identified 3 issues of common interest to date: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs 2. IDN TLD Variants 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs This report is specific to issue 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs. This Final Report is submitted to the ccNSO council and the GNSO council respectively for their consideration and adoption according to their own rules and procedures. Section III: Document and Resource Links: The Draft Final Report can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun13-en.pdf [PDF, 135 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: Additional Information on the JIG can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg.htm ________________________________ (*) 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

FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
by Maria Farrell 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

Dear Council colleagues, Below for your information is a copy of a letter sent on behalf of the NCSG to the Board of Directors, which was received by the Board (via Bruce Tonkin's kind intercession) on 19 June. Bruce says the Board would be interested to meet and discuss the broad concerns about the multistakeholder model raised in the reconsideration request, and also confirms that the request itself will be discussed at the BGC meeting of 25 June. If and when we have any scheduling information about a meeting with the Board, we will share it so that others may be aware. All the best, Maria Dear ICANN Board of Directors: I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3). The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion. This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse. The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording <http://t.co/ss2MwpdWEa> of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups. The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions. If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance. We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens. The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption. *We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.* We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion. Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed. Truly, Robin Gross NCSG Chair

6 5

REMINDER: Pre-Durban ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 27 June 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03jun13-en.htm Pre-Durban ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 27 June 2013 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Durban remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 27 June at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 27 June 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). Among other topics, updates will be provided on: * Protection of IGO/INGO names in gTLDs PDP * 'Thick' Whois Policy Development Process * Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP * 10th Anniversary of the ccNSO * IDN ccPDP * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group * Update on RSSAC Reorganization 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. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)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 Launches Strategic Planning Portal
by Glen de Saint Géry 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-24jun13-en.htm ICANN Launches Strategic Planning Portal 24 June 2013 ICANN has launched a Strategic Planning Portal. Community input is a vital element of ICANN and the new Portal further integrates the community's feedback in shaping the future direction of ICANN and its work. This new website will allow interested individuals and organizations from around the globe to suggest what ICANN's new, overarching vision and five-year plan should contain, and then to review and provide comments on a proposed strategic plan. ICANN is seeking public feedback on a wide range of issues, including internationalization and regional development, security and stability, operational excellence and more. These key areas will be discussed online and during the upcoming public ICANN meeting in Durban, South Africa. Input will be used to shape our strategic vision. Visit the new Strategic Planning Portal here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement<https://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement> For more information about ICANN's 47th public meeting in Durban, South Africa, visit http://durban47.icann.org. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0