June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

NGPC Adopts Resolution Accepting Nine Items of GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-06jun13-en.htm NGPC Adopts Resolution Accepting Nine Items of GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs 6 June 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 4 June 2013 and adopted a resolution accepting nine items of the GAC's Beijing advice with respect to New gTLD applications. The Resolution addresses most though not all of the GAC's non-Safeguard Advice and does not address any of the Safeguard Advice in Annex 1 of the GAC Beijing Communiqué. As such, this Resolution represents only the first of what will be a series of NGPC decisions addressing the GAC's Beijing advice. The NGPC took action to adopt the Scorecard attached to the Resolution as Annex 1. The Scorecard does the following: 1) it lists the nine items of non-Safeguard Advice addressed by the NGPC to date; 2) it indicates that the NGPC accepts each of those items of advice; and 3) it describes how ICANN will implement the advice. You can find the Resolution and Annex 1 Scorecard here<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun1…> as well as the letter on the NGPC's action from Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors to Heather Dryden, Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-06jun13-en.p…> [PDF, 2.68 MB]. The NGPC also addressed the following additional matters from the GAC Beijing Communiqué: 1. Written Briefing on the ability of an applicant to change its applied-for string In Section IV.1.d of the GAC Beijing Communiqué, the GAC requested a "written briefing about the ability of an applicant to change the string applied for in order to address concerns raised by a GAC Member and to identify a mutually acceptable solution." In response to the GAC's request, a written briefing on this matter is attached to the letter to Heather Dryden as Appendix 2. 2. Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations In Section IV.1.g of the GAC Beijing Communiqué, the GAC reiterated its advice that "appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch." The GAC also noted that it was "mindful of outstanding implementation issues and commits to actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward." The NGPC appreciates the GAC's willingness to collaborate to address the outstanding implementation issues. So that we may move forward, the NGPC formally requests that the GAC and a small number of NGPC members and ICANN staff begin a dialogue on the issues raised by the GAC. The NGPC's formal request was sent under separate cover and may be seen here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-2-06jun13-en…> [PDF, 285 KB]. 3. Public Interest Commitments Specifications In Section IV.5 of the GAC Beijing Communiqué, the GAC requested, "more information on the Public Interest Commitments Specifications on the basis of the questions listed in annex II." The NGPC's responses to these questions are attached to the letter to Heather Dryden as Appendix 3. Future Work of the NGPC As noted above, the 4 June 2013 Resolution only addresses a portion of the GAC's Beijing Advice. The NGPC has scheduled meetings on 11, 18 and 25 June to address the remaining items of advice, most notably the Safeguards Advice in Annex 1 of the GAC Beijing Communiqué. The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remain on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. 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

Call for Subject Matter Experts for the IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel and Advisors to All Panels
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-06jun13-en.htm Call for Subject Matter Experts for the IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel and Advisors to All Panels 6 June 2013 Today, ICANN's IDN Variant TLD Program<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds> moves forward with initiating the implementation of the IDN Root Zone LGR Procedure by publishing the Call for Subject Matter Experts for the IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/experts-lgr-integration…> [PDF, 168 KB] and Call for Advisors to the IDN Root Zone LGR Panels<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/advisors-lgr-panels-06j…> [PDF, 164 KB]. The IDN Root Zone LGR implementation project will undertake work to develop the rules that identify the valid repertoire of code points for IDN TLDs, as well as the rules for identifying and possibly delegating any IDN variant TLDs. The work is carried out as specified in the "Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/draft-lgr-procedure-20m…>" [PDF, 1.39 MB] (Procedure) and involves an Integration Panel, (to be staffed by paid experts), a set of Advisors to all Panels (formed of paid consultants, volunteers, or ICANN staff), and a set of Generation Panels (consisting of volunteers). The latter are subject to a separate call. Successful development of the IDN Root Zone LGR depends on having Integration Panel members with the right skills to perform the substantive work. Therefore ICANN is soliciting the participation of subject matter experts to serve on the Integration Panel and advisors to the Integration and Generation Panels. The Integration Panel will be comprised of a small number of technical experts in the following areas: DNS, IDNA, Unicode, and linguistics. The Call for Subject Matter Experts for the IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/experts-lgr-integration…> [PDF, 168 KB] describes the details of expertise needed, as well as the expert selection process. The Call for Advisors to the IDN Root Zone LGR Panels<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/advisors-lgr-panels-06j…> [PDF, 164 KB] describes the desired expertise for advisors and their selection process. Interested experts are invited to submit their CV and an expression of interest statement demonstrating how they meet the qualifications for one or other of the subject matter or advisor expertise areas. Expressions of interest should be sent to idnvarianttlds(a)icann.org<mailto:idnvarianttlds@icann.org> no later than 27 June 2013. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Presentation from new gTLD webinar on 5 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Jun '13

06 Jun '13

Hello All, Please find attached the presentation from the webinar held on 5 June 2013. It is also available from: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] Discussion Item: Changes to ICANN Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg 06 Jun '13

06 Jun '13

As a member of the PDP development team and as someone who has long preached that the formal PDP should not be the only way to develop policy (if it is not to be a picket-fence Consensus Policy or utilized the 2/3 rejection clause), I support this. Although perhaps this is a separate discussion, I would go further, and put an onus on ICANN and the Board to discus substantive issues of implementation with the GNSO and the community. The multi-year New gTLD implementation and the STI in particular establish this precedent, and it should be enshrined in the Bylaws. Alan (speaking on my own behalf) At 06/06/2013 11:29 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >All, > >In the rationale used in the BGCs >recommendation against the NCSGs Reconsideration Request, the BGC argues that: > >There is no defined policy process within ICANN >that requires Board or staff consultation with >the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting >in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO >Council outside of the Policy Development >Process. Therefore, even if staffs action here >was in direct contravention to the GNSO Council >statement in a letter, the Bylaws requirement for consultation does not apply > >Technically and legally, the BGC is correct. As >much as this goes against the very nature of the >multi-stakeholder model (and frankly the message >ICANN delivers to the world), the ICANN >Board/staff is free to ignore the GNSO Council >(and thus has no accountability for these >actions). This is true despite the fact that >the Bylaws also state: There shall be a >policy-development body known as the Generic >Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which >shall be responsible for developing and >recommending to the ICANN Board substantive >policies relating to generic top-level >domains. Therefore, what the BGC is telling us >is that despite the fact that the Bylaws charges >the GNSO with developing and recommending >substantive policies, it can ignore the GNSO >community at any time if the issue did not go through a formal PDP. > >I personally believe that is broken. Therefore, >I would like for the Council to consider >recommending to the ICANN Board a change to the >Bylaws for an additional measure of >accountability that at a minimum would require >some form of consultation if the GNSO Council >(on behalf of the GNSO Community) issues a >recommendation or develops policy outside of a >formal PDP. As the former chair of the PDP >Working Group that helped revise the PDP >process, I can tell you that we were encouraged >by the community to allow other mechanisms for >developing policy outside of formal PDPs. We >spent countless hours on this very topic. Yes, >if it does not go through a formal PDP, it may >not trigger a 2/3 Board vote to overturn the >recommendation, but it was never our intention >that after going through that process, the Board >to IGNORE the GNSO Community. At a time when >the community is trying to find ways to develop >policies outside of the stringent PDP, this is NOT an incentive for doing that. > >Therefore, I would like to see the following >changes made to the Bylaws (no pride in >authorship hereso feel free to suggest other >words). This is language that is VERY similar >to the language the GAC has in the Bylaws: > > > >The substantive policies and recommendations of >the Generic Names Supporting Organization >relating to generic top-level domains shall be >duly taken into account, both in the formulation >and adoption of policies, whether or not the >policy development process as set forth in >Article X, section 6 were followed. In the event >that the ICANN Board determines to take an >action that is not consistent with the GNSO >policies or recommendations, it shall so inform >the GNSO and state the reasons why it decided >not to follow that advice. The GNSO and the >ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in >a timely and efficient manner, to find a >mutually acceptable solution. If no such >solution can be found, the ICANN Board will >state in its final decision the reasons why the >GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed. > >If the multi-stakeholder model truly has any >meaning, I view these changes as >non-controversial and essential to preserve what >so many have so long been advocating. > >Thanks. > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: >+1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

1 0

Call for Expressions of Interest for 2014 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect
by Glen de Saint Géry 06 Jun '13

06 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05jun13-en.htm Call for Expressions of Interest for 2014 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect 5 June 2013 ICANN is immediately seeking expressions of interest for leadership roles in the 2014 Nominating Committee (NomCom) - that of the 2014 NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect. In October 2012 the ICANN Board resolved that "...the Board adopts the recommendation of the BGC and hereby appoints Yrjö Juhani Länsipuro as the 2013 NomCom Chair and Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the 2013 NomCom Chair-Elect." (See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-03oct12-en.htm#2…<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-03oct12-en.htm#…>) In accordance with the Bylaws, "[i]t is anticipated that upon the conclusion of the term of the Chair-Elect, the Chair-Elect will be appointed by the Board to the position of Chair." See Article VII, section 3.4. Accordingly, while it anticipated that the 2013 NomCom Chair Elect will succeed to the role of 2014 NomCom Chair, the incumbent NomCom leaders, in discussion with the Board Governance Committee (BGC), agree that in support of continuous improvement in its accountability and transparency, the NomCom will be initiating a new practice this year to evaluate performance of the NomCom leadership. Specifically, the NomCom will be undertaking 360 degree reviews of its Chair and its Chair-Elect, which typically consists of input from an immediate circle of colleagues - top down, bottom up and peer-to-peer, and in this case will consist of interviewing other NomCom leadership, NomCom members, as well as designated NomCom staff. These 360 degree reviews will be conducted by an independent third party provider. The BGC will utilize the outcomes of these 360 degree reviews in their processes leading up to the Board's formal appointment of the 2014 NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect. The NomCom Chair is responsible for organizing the NomCom in its activities to select certain ICANN Board members and individuals who will serve in key leadership positions within ICANN's supporting organizations (SOs) and advisory committees (ACs) in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. The Chair is a non-voting member of the NomCom selected by ICANN's Board to serve until the conclusion of the next ICANN Annual Meeting. The Chair-Elect is a position created within the Bylaws as an outcome of the independent review of the NomCom. The Chair-Elect position is not a replacement of the Advisor to the NomCom Chair, and is not intended to fill an advisory role. Rather, the Chair-Elect will receive the benefit of training while serving alongside the Chair, gaining skills and knowledge to be applied for the Chair-Elect's anticipated succession into the role of the Chair. Candidates for Chair-Elect should possess the same skills as candidates for the Chair. Position Description This position blends time management and negotiation skills with the practical aspects of conducting a world-wide search for individuals to fill various ICANN leadership positions. The NomCom Chair will be called on to schedule, organize and lead numerous in-person and telephonic meetings with a large committee of community members. The NomCom Chair is also responsible for managing the candidate identification and statement of interest process, with other committee members, and for managing the due diligence to be performed on nominated candidates, in cooperation with ICANN's General Counsel and any retained outside firm(s). Throughout all NomCom activities, the Chair is responsible for ensuring that all NomCom operating rules and procedures are followed, and that all required documentation and reports are prepared in a timely fashion and provided to the proper parties as necessary. Skills and Experience To properly serve as the NomCom Chair, the selected individual must have: 1. adequate time available to undertake the role; 2. excellent communication and negotiation skills to manage a committee of 20-21 members; 3. a clear understanding of the duties and responsibilities of each position for which the NomCom is selecting candidates; 4. experience on or with a Board of Directors of organizations with similar scale, scope and diversity as ICANN; 5. strong organization and leadership skills; 6. ability to remain unbiased; 7. no conflicts of interest, and 8. a thorough understanding of, and satisfy, all criteria set forth in ICANN Bylaws relating to the NomCom (see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VII<https://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VII>). Specific Duties and Responsibilities 1. Plans and schedules NomCom meetings as required, including ensuring posting schedules for public review. Please see attached for a Listing of the NomCom activities. 2. Appoints non-voting Associate Chair if so desired. 3. Reports to ICANN Board and the community on status of the NomCom. 4. Prepares and publishes the NomCom report. 5. Ensures that NomCom operating rules and procedures are followed. 6. Manages NomCom Selection Process, including: * Approves outreach/advertising methods for attracting candidates. * Conducts outreach with ICANN Constituencies, ACs and SOs (with Chairs of those groups), ICANN Board, and others. * With other committee members, reviews and evaluates candidate Statements of Interest (SOIs) and references submitted during NomCom process * Coordinates due diligence on nominated candidates in cooperation with ICANN's General Counsel and any outside firm(s) retained to perform due diligence activities. 7. Approves posting of NomCom announcements and schedules on ICANN website. 8. Ensures NomCom records are properly established, maintained and archived. Eligibility Exclusion No person who is an employee of or is a paid consultant to ICANN (including the Ombudsman) shall simultaneously serve as a member of the NomCom, including the post of Chair or Chair-Elect. Expenses All reasonable travel expenses and administrative costs incurred as a result of performing the duties as NomCom Chair or Chair-Elect in accordance with ICANN's policies will be reimbursed by ICANN upon the Chair or Chair-Elect's submission to ICANN of valid receipts and invoices. Expressions of Interest Expressions of Interest, which will be maintained as confidential, should be sent to NomComChair2014(a)icann.org<mailto:NomComChair2014@icann.org> no later than 30 June 2013. For more information about the NomCom see http://nomcom.icann.org/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Response from chair of the New gTLD Program Committee
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Jun '13

06 Jun '13

-----Original Message----- From: Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 7:07 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Steve Crocker; Bruce Tonkin; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org'; Cyrus Namazi; Fadi Chehade; Michelle Bright; Megan Bishop; Amy Stathos; John Jeffrey Subject: Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee Jeff and Jonathan, Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for clearly stating that the main issue for the GNSO Council is not so much about whether the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) upholds the decision relating to the BGC's recommendation on the reconsideration request 13-3, but there is a concern about the documented rationale supporting the recommendation. Let me assure you that on the Board and the NGPC we always thrive at improving the rationale supporting our decisions. We will therefore remove the reconsideration request 13-3 from the agenda of the NGPC meeting scheduled for 11th June. We are currently holding weekly NGPC meetings and the next two meetings are on 18th and 25th June. We will put reconsideration request 13-3 on the agenda for the 25th June meeting in order to give the GNSO Council sufficient time to discuss with its community and to write to the NGPC. All the best, Cherine On 05/06/2013 22:28, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: >Steve, > >Yes, thanks for the correction that it will be the new gTLD Program >Committee that will be considering the BGC recommendation on the 11th >(2 days before the GNSO Council Meeting). I was planning on doing a >presentation to the council on the 13th about the recommendation. > >In short, the BGC's recommendation basically (1) Assumes that if an >issue involves "implementation", then there is no reason to look to the >bottom-up process to get advice on that issue (and if they do get >advice (even consensus advice), they can ignore it and go with whatever >ICANN staff recommends; (2) the ICANN Staff/Board is the sole arbiter >in deciding whether something is Policy or Implementation regardless of >whether the group charged under the bylaws with developing policies >(here, the GNSO) believe that the issue does involve policy; and (3) >there is no meaningful review process or accountability if the >community believes that ICANN Staff's determination on whether >something is policy or not is plain wrong. The fact that >Reconsideration never looks at the substance of the issue at hand, but >only looks to whether a process was followed is incredibly problematic. > >In this recommendation, although the GNSO strongly stated the Trademark >plus 50 decision was in fact policy (with one group issuing a minority >opinion) and the ICANN staff initially agreed it could be considered >policy, ICANN staff later decided on its own that it was implementation. >Because ICANN Staff is not bound to accept the finding of the GNSO that >it was policy, and ICANN staff labeled it implementation, ICANN staff was >free to make the changes as it saw fit (again with no review). So >essentially the recommendation states: (1) ICANN staff determined that >it was implementation, (2) there is and can be no review of that >decision through the reconsideration process, and (3) there is no >requirement that ICANN staff get input from the community or even >listen to the community if the ICANN staff determines that something is implementation. > >To add insult to injury, the outside law firm that wrote the >recommendation wrote it in the style of a litigation brief making such >ludicrous arguments (which cannot be reviewed), like [and I am >paraphrasing]: "Yes, the ICANN CEO said previously that this issue CAN >be considered policy." It goes on to state that the CEO carefully >chose this word because in saying that it "CAN" be policy, that also >equally means that it might not be policy and therefore the written >statement by the CEO was not an admission that it was in fact policy. I >find this argument insulting. Is this really what we expect of ICANN as >an multi-stakeholder organization? Namely, to consistently use weasel >words (reviewed by legal counsel) so that one day if ever questioned on >a statement he or she made, the legal team can find a loophole and get >out of a commitment that ICANN makes. Shouldn't we expect more from an >organization that is supposed to look out for the public interest? > >Steve - In the end I could care less about the substantive decision to >allow the Trademark plus 50 (although a number of people do care about >this). The decision was made and my registry will implement that >decision because we have to. However, there were probably 50 other >ways that ICANN's BGC could have justified the decision it made. I >would rather have ICANN apologize for the way it handled the situation, >promise that it won't happen again that way, and then move on to the >real work of implementing the new gTLDs. Instead, we got an overly >legalistic brief which is an after-the-fact justification for what they >did using a rationale that destroys the multi-stakeholder model. > >I intend to provide more information during the Council meeting and >would encourage attendance from the BGC. However, I would ask that the >New gTLD Program Committee not proceed on making a decision on this >recommendation until it could be adequately discussed by the community. > >Sorry for the long note and I would be happy to give more concrete >examples from the recommendation. I just ask for more time. > >Thanks.

1 0

Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
by Bruce Tonkin 05 Jun '13

05 Jun '13

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-11jun13-en.h… 11 June 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes Main Agenda: * BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 * Info Discussion on ALAC Statement on IDN Variants * Plural vs. Singular * Any Other Business

3 4

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Jun '13

04 Jun '13

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04jun13-en.htm Date: 4 June 2013 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team (DT) that will develop a charter for a new Working Group (WG). The GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG will be tasked with exploring opportunities with respect to reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. The Drafting Team is expected to submit the proposed Charter to the GNSO Council for approval. What This Team Will Do The Drafting Team is expected to develop a Charter on the basis of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> taking into account the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf>, which recommended that such a Working Group should review how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other service providers in the sharing of complaint and abuse data that may also further educate Registrants and Internet users in submission of complaints to the appropriate party. Such a Working Group could also investigate more formal processes for requests of data, metrics and other reporting needs from the GNSO that may aid in GNSO policy development efforts. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this DT will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Drafting Team will be archived publicly. Drafting Team members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Drafting Team is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>. How to Join The GNSO Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The DT will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Uniformity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>). Background In 2010, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports'. The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'. The GNSO in collaboration with the community and ICANN Contractual Compliance deliberated the issues through due diligence analysis, a review of current state compliance reporting systems, and future state implementation plans within ICANN. Based on the information gathered, the GNSO Council recommended the creation of an Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to better aid the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff further outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics for the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. On 9 May 2013, the GNSO Council approved the report's recommendations to await any further action regarding Contractual Compliance metrics and reporting until the conclusion of their three-year plan towards the end of 2013. At such time the GNSO Council will consider other actions, if any. In the meantime, the GNSO Council also adopted the recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities of reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. An availability review of both ICANN internal and external data sources is expected to be performed to help inform the deliberations of the WG. More information can be found on the GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG page<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/uofr>. Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site should be sent to webmaster [at] gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Renewal of .BIZ gTLD Registry Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Jun '13

04 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-03jun13-en.htm Proposed Renewal of .BIZ gTLD Registry Agreement Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 3 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 24 June 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 25 June 2013 Reply Close Date: 15 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-03jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-biz-renewal-03jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-biz-renewal-03jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements * Legal/Regulatory * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposed agreement for renewal of the Registry Agreement for .BIZ. This proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and Neustar, Inc. Current Status: The .BIZ Registry Agreement is scheduled to expire 30 June 2013. Next Steps: After review of the public comments received, the ICANN Board will consider the proposed .BIZ Registry Agreement for renewal. Staff Contact: Cyrus Namazi Email Staff Contact<mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Renewal%20of%20.BIZ%20gTLD%20Registry%20Agreement%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed Renewal of .INFO gTLD Registry Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Jun '13

04 Jun '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-03jun13-en.htm Proposed Renewal of .INFO gTLD Registry Agreement Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 3 June 2013 Comment Close Date: 24 June 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 25 June 2013 Reply Close Date: 15 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-03jun13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-info-renewal-03jun13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-info-renewal-03jun13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements * Legal/Regulatory * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposed agreement for renewal of the Registry Agreement for .INFO. This proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and Afilias Limited. Current Status: The .INFO Registry Agreement is scheduled to expire 30 June 2013. Next Steps: After review of the public comments received, the ICANN Board will consider the proposed .INFO Registry Agreement for renewal. Staff Contact: Cyrus Namazi Email Staff Contact<mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Renewal%20of%20.INFO%20gTLD%20Registry%20Agreement%20public%20comment%20period> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0