June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Explore the Draft Next Generation gTLD Directory Services Model
by Glen de Saint Géry June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm Explore the Draft Next Generation gTLD Directory Services Model 24 June 2013 ICANN has embarked on an effort to reinvent today's WHOIS system. Be part of the solution and join the discussion...online and at ICANN's Durban meeting. Share Your Thoughts<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13…> There are different ways to share your perspective with us: * Provide your input through our online questionaire<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13…> * A webinar<https://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/webinars/gtld-directory-services-24…> on Monday, 8 July at 15:00-16:30 UTC * A consultation in Durban<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39627> on Monday, 15 July * Submit comments by email: input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org> As the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), we have proposed a paradigm shift - a new system in which gTLD registration data is collected, validated and disclosed for permissible purposes only, with some data elements being accessible only to authenticated requestors that are then held accountable for appropriate use. Our objective is to reexamine and define the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD directory data, consider how to safeguard the data, and propose a next generation solution that will better serve the needs of the global Internet community. [cid:image003.png@01CE7267.0BB71970]<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/ards-model-950x600-24jun13…> In our Initial Report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> [PDF, 1.7 MB], we identify the design features and principles that we think are essential in this new system, and a proposed Model for the next generation data directory services to replace WHOIS. Help shape this paradigm shift by sharing your reaction to our recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> [PDF, 1.7 MB] and answering the questions linked below (click on "Share Your Thoughts"). Did we meet our objective? Do the recommendations address your concerns? How can we make them better? Share Your Thoughts<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13…> There are different ways to share your perspective with us: * Provide your input through our online questionaire<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13…> * A webinar<https://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/webinars/gtld-directory-services-24…> on Monday, 8 July at 15:00-16:30 UTC: we will walk you through our proposal and invite you to share your views and input. * A consultation in Durban<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39627> on Monday, 15 July: we will present the outcome of our work and open the floor for any questions or feedback you may have. A recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting; * Submit comments by email: input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org> All input received by August 12 will be carefully considered as we finalize our recommendations and bring our work to a conclusion. To help focus your attention, we request your feedback on a set of questions, although you are free to comment on any aspect of the Initial Report. Sincerely, Members of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG)<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services> More Information Our work stems from the Board's directive<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> to redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, while balancing data accuracy and access issues with safeguards for protecting data. We considered the important community work done over the last decade by the GNSO, the SSAC, the WHOIS Review Team, the GAC and others. Our Initial Report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> [PDF, 1.7 MB] reflects our consensus view of the design principles and features needed for a new system. Our proposed Model highlights how these design principles and features could be fulfilled in the ICANN domain ecosystem. What's Next? We will consider your input and present a final report containing our recommended design principles, features, and suggested Model to ICANN's CEO and Board when our work is concluded. This output will feed into a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process to serve as a foundation for the GNSO's creation of new consensus policy, and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Letter from GNSO Council Chair on Protection of IGO & INGO Identifiers
by Jonathan Robinson June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013

All, Please see attached for correspondence sent to the Heather Dryden / the GAC. Jonathan

1 0

FW: The work of the EWG in relation to GNSO policy work
by Jonathan Robinson June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013

All, Resent as the original did not make it onto the Council list. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 19 June 2013 17:05 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: FW: The work of the EWG in relation to GNSO policy work All, Please see attached for letter sent to Jean-Francois Baril Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 19 June 2013 17:04 To: 'Jean-Francois.Baril(a)icann.org' Cc: fadi.chehade(a)icann.org Subject: The work of the EWG in relation to GNSO policy work Dear Jean-Francois, Please see the attached letter from the GNSO Council. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

RE: The work of the EWG in relation to GNSO policy work
by Jonathan Robinson June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013

All, I note the publication of the initial output of the EWG here: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm and the references in the report to the role of the GNSO. See for example the following which appears on page 7 within the Executive Summary. -- Following public consultation on this Initial Report, the EWG will publish and deliver a Final Report to ICANN's CEO and Board to serve as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate. As specified by the Board, an issues report based on the Final Report will form the basis of a Board-initiated, tightly focused GNSO policy development process (PDP). -- My underlining. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 19 June 2013 17:05 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO (council(a)gnso.icann.org) Subject: FW: The work of the EWG in relation to GNSO policy work All, Please see attached for letter sent to Jean-Francois Baril Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 19 June 2013 17:04 To: 'Jean-Francois.Baril(a)icann.org' Cc: fadi.chehade(a)icann.org Subject: The work of the EWG in relation to GNSO policy work Dear Jean-Francois, Please see the attached letter from the GNSO Council. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

2 1

Community-wide Working Group Completes Recommendations for Continued Use of ICANN Geographic Regions Framework
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2013

June 23, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm Community-wide Working Group Completes Recommendations for Continued Use of ICANN Geographic Regions Framework 22 June 2013 The Geographic Regions Review Working Group, a community-wide working group established by the Board, has nearly completed its work developing recommendations to the ICANN Board for the continued use of the ICANN Geographic Regions Framework. The Working Group has produced those recommendations in a Final Report document that is being shared today with the community. According to the Working Group Charter, each community Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee that contributed members to the Working Group will now have the opportunity to formally review and comment on this document before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. The Working Group will host a workshop during the upcoming ICANN Public Meeting in Durban, South Africa and briefings will be made available to the leadership of all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs) as needed. The Working Group was formed by the Board to (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN's Geographic Regions are used; (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN's Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. A full record of the Working Group's past reports and public workshops and presentations can be found at the Working Group's Confluence Wiki space<https://community.icann.org/display/georegionwg/Geographic+Regions+Review+W…>. The Final Report will soon be formally shared directly with the leadership of the SOs and ACs participating in the Working Group. They will have a full 90 days after the conclusion of the Durban meeting to discuss the Working Group's recommendations with their communities and, if they choose, to submit written statements back to the Working Group. Later this year, after that exchange has taken place, the Working Group will formally submit its Final Report recommendations to the ICANN Board for consideration. A copy of the Final Report can be found here: * English<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun1…> [PDF, 287 KB] ICANN Staff Contact - Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Public Comment:Proposed Renewal of .ORG gTLD Registry Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2013

June 23, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/org-renewal-21jun13-en.htm Proposed Renewal of .ORG gTLD Registry Agreement Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 21 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 21 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 22 July 2013 Reply Close Date: 12 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-21jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-org-renewal-21jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-org-renewal-21jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): ICANN is posting today for public comment the proposed renewal of the 2008 .ORG Registry Agreement. The proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and Public Interest Registry, and will be considered by ICANN after public comment. Current Status: Per recent amendment #5, the current agreement will expire on 31 August 2013. Next Steps: After review of the public comments received, ICANN will consider the proposed .ORG Registry Agreement for renewal. Staff Contact: Karla Valente Email Staff Contact<mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Renewal%20of%20.ORG%20gTLD%20Registry%20Agreement%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: ICANN is posting today for public comment the proposed renewal of the 2008 .ORG Registry Agreement. The proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and Public Interest Registry, and will be considered by ICANN after public comment. Per recent amendment #5, the current agreement will expire on 31 August 2013. The current registry agreement for .ORG provides for presumptive renewal so long as certain requirements are met. The agreement also provides that upon renewal, changes may be made to render the terms similar to other comparable agreements. The proposed renewal agreement includes modified provisions to make the agreement in line with other comparable agreements, as well as additional provisions that are currently proposed in the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm>. Included in the proposed renewal agreement are the following provisions: * Threats to Security and Stability: A new provision has been added to allow the registry operator to temporarily prevent the registration of one or more names in the TLD in order to respond to an imminent threat to the security and/or stability of the TLD or the Internet. * Use of Registrars Accredited Under the 2013 RAA: A new provision is included to require the registry operator to amend its Registry-Registry Agreement to require registrars to use the 2013 RAA if registrars representing 67% of the registrations in the TLD sign the 2013 RAA. If the remaining registrars do not sign the amended Registry-Registrar Agreement requiring registrars to become a party to the final 2013 RAA within a certain time period, then the registrars' access to the TLD registry system will be suspended (that is, those registrars will not be permitted to add new registrations). This requirement is dependent upon the registry operators of identified comparable gTLDs also submitting similar requests to amend their Registry-Registrar Agreements. * Emergency Transition provisions: A new provision proposed in the New gTLD Registry Agreement is included in the renewal agreement to provide for emergency transition in the event the registry is unable to sustain certain critical registry functions for a period of time. * Code of Conduct: The registry operator will be required to comply with the Registry Code of Conduct as proposed in the New gTLD Registry Agreement. * Resolution of Disputes: The dispute resolution procedures were updated similar to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to require the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation before they may initiate arbitration. * WHOIS: The WHOIS output is required to be compatible with ICANN's common interface for WHOIS (InterNIC), and if requested by ICANN, the registry operator must provide a link on its website to a webpage designed by ICANN containing WHOIS policy and education materials. * Cross-ownership Restrictions: The renewal agreement lifts restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers. Posted for public comment are both clean and "redline" versions of the agreement and modified appendices as follows: * Proposed Renewal Registry Agreement<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/draft-org-agreement…> [PDF, 396 KB] * Redline showing changes from current .ORG Registry Agreement<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/draft-org-agreement…> [PDF, 444 KB] * Proposed Renewal Agreement Appendices<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/draft-org-appendice…> [PDF, 1.09 MB] * Redline showing changes from current .ORG Appendices<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/draft-org-appendice…> [PDF, 1.18 MB] * Summary of Changes<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/draft-org-renewal-s…> [PDF, 421 KB] Contractual Compliance Review: As part of the renewal process, ICANN conducted a review of recent .ORG Registry Agreement performance. The compliance review covered areas including: Timeliness and Content of Monthly Reports; Add Grace Period Limits Policy; Bulk Zone File Requirements; and Payment of Required Fees. The Public Interest Registry was found to be in substantial compliance with their contractual requirements. The assessments can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/reports/operator-pir-org-03jun… [PDF, 267 KB] Section II: Background: ICANN and Public Interest Registry entered into Registry Agreements on 8 December 2008 for the operation of the .ORG top level domain. The current .ORG agreement may be viewed at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org Section III: Document and Resource Links: Current .ORG Registry Agreement and Appendices<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Public Comment:GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process
by Glen de Saint Géry June 23, 2013

June 23, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/structures-charter-22jun13-en.h… GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 22 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 28 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 29 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 18 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-structures-charter-22jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-structures-charter-22jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Board: Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) Categories/Tags: * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): To solicit community feedback concerning a formalized process, proposed by the Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), for amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters. Current Status: After multiple iterations and thorough discussion by its members over several months, the SIC has approved a recommendation that a proposed GNSO Charter Amendment Procedure (described below) be posted for public comment. Next Steps: Upon receipt and review of community feedback pursuant to this solicitation, the SIC will determine if any substantive changes to the proposed procedure are advisable and will subsequently consider requesting ICANN Board approval of the process. Staff Contact: Robert Hoggarth Email Staff Contact<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20GNSO%20Structures%20Charter%20Amendment%20Process%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section 5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group ... and each of its associated Constituencies shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." During this time of significant organizational changes within ICANN and its GNSO community, it is important that Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies have the flexibility to update, modify and evolve their charters so that those governing documents remain accurate and viable. There is currently no formalized procedure for a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency to request recognition by the ICANN Board of Directors for a charter amendment. To address this procedural gap, the Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) has formulated a process (below) that is intended to accommodate the periodic need to amend charter documents with the ICANN Bylaws requirement for formal validation by the Board. GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process - As Proposed Phase I: Amendment Preparation GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies should formulate charter amendments through their own internal processes and notify policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> upon initiation of such efforts. [Note: If the SG Charter requires it, proposed amendment(s) to Constituency Charters must first be submitted to the applicable SG for review and evaluation before being forwarded to Staff and Board.] Phase II: Staff Review Upon receipt of the proposed amendment(s), ICANN Staff will analyze the proposal and, within 10 business days, submit the community proposal with a report to the Board identifying any fiscal or liability concerns. Phase III: Public Comments After Board review of the Staff report and the proposed charter amendments, the Board will direct the opening of a Public Comment Forum. Upon its completion, within 30 calendar days, Staff will provide a report summarizing the community feedback. Phase IV: Board Review At the next available opportunity after the publication of the Staff report the Board shall either: 1. Recognize the proposed charter amendment by a simple majority vote; or 2. Reject the proposed amendment by a supermajority (2/3) vote and provide a specific rationale for its concerns. In its review of the proposed amendments, the ICANN Board may ask questions and otherwise consult with the affected SG or Constituency. If it is not feasible for the Board to take action on the proposed amendments after two meetings, the Board shall report to the affected SG or Constituency the circumstance(s) that prevented it from making a final action and its best estimate of the time required to reach an action. Section II: Background: In July 2009, as part of the comprehensive GNSO Improvements program, the ICANN Board approved the formal Charters of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) (see ICANN Board Resolution 2009.30.07.09). A Constituency Charter reconfirmation effort was initiated by a Board resolution at its 1 October 2008 meeting and discontinued in 2009 in favor of a new regular review cycle. During the intervening three years or so, there had been no additional formal charter activity until May 2012 at which time the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) submitted a set of changes to its charter. After discussing the substance of the RySG's amendments, the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) determined that a process should exist that would cause charter amendments to be formally reviewed not only by the Board, but the ICANN community as well before being finalized. The SIC has now asked the staff to seek community review and comment on the proposed process outlined above. Section III: Document and Resource Links: None Section IV: Additional Information: * SIC Meeting Minutes - 6 April 2013<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bsic-06apr13-en.htm> * SIC Meeting Minutes - 28 March 2013<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bsic-28mar13-en.htm> * SIC Meeting Minutes - 31 January 2013<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-bsic-31jan13-en.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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Regarding new gTLD Contracting Information Request
by Bruce Tonkin June 22, 2013

June 22, 2013

Guidance for Applicants: Contracting Information Request From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-21jun13… 21 June 2013 ICANN is planning to send a Contracting Information Request (CIR) to applicants, in priority order, as they become eligible for contracting. The CIR is the first step in the Contracting process and it's important to make sure that the form is completed and submitted correctly in order to avoid potential delays. We've created a guidance document, as well as samples of letters that may be required, to help applicants provide all of the information necessary to enter Contracting. Review the CIR Guidance and Sample Documents (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting#cir )> The Contracting Information Request will be available as an online form, accessible through the Customer Portal. When an applicant becomes eligible to enter Contracting, ICANN will notify the applicant's primary contact via email. The email will contain a link to the CIR. ICANN encourages applicants to download and review the Guidance form now in order to prepare for completing the CIR. Additional information on Contracting: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars#contracting-1… Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Public Comment: Thick Whois Initial Report - GNSO Policy Development Process
by Glen de Saint Géry June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.… Thick Whois Initial Report - GNSO Policy Development Process Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 21 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 14 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 15 July 2013 Reply Close Date: 4 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-thick-whois-initial-21jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-thick-whois-initial-21jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Thick Whois Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries has published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.21 MB] for public comment. Current Status: The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.21 MB] 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%20Thick%20Whois%20Initial%20Report%20%E2%80%93%20GNSO%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Thick Whois PDP WG was tasked to provide the GNSO Council with 'a policy recommendation regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD registries, both existing and future'. Following its analysis of the different issues outlined in its Charter, including: response consistency; stability; access to Whois data; impact on privacy and data protection; cost implications; synchronization / migration; authoritativeness; competition in registry services; existing Whois applications; data escrow, and registrar Port 43 Whois requirements (see section 5 of the Initial Report), on balance the Working Group concludes that there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. As a result, the Working Group recommends that: The provision of thick Whois services should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future. The WG expects numerous benefits as a result of requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. Nevertheless, the WG recognizes that a transition of the current thin gTLD registries would affect over 120 million domain name registrations and as such it should be carefully prepared and implemented. In section 7.2 of the Initial Report, the WG outlines a number of implementation considerations. In section 7.3 of the Initial Report the WG also provides other observations that emerged from this discussion which while not directly related to the question of thin or thick did and should receive due consideration by other bodies. 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. Section II: Background: ICANN specifies Whois service requirements for generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries through the Registry Agreement (RA) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries and registrars satisfy their Whois obligations using different service models. The two common models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name. * A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service. * With thin registries, registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin registries. * Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD Registries at its meeting on 22 September 2011. The Issue Report was expected to 'not only consider a possible requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not'. Following the delivery of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Initial Report on the Thick Whois Policy Development Process<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.21 MB] Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/whgQAg 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

Invitation to Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program Update
by Glen de Saint Géry June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

Date: 27 June 2013 Time: 23:00 - 00:00 UTC Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/idnvarianttld Dear Colleagues, The IDN Variant Program team invites you to join us for an IDN Variant TLDProgram Update Webinar. Details are available in the Webinar announcement at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-13jun13-en.htm We are looking forward to your participation. IDN Variant Program Team ICANN Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0