July 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: [Soac-infoalert] Community Comment Opportunity - SO-AC Chairs Alert
by Jonathan Robinson 04 Jul '13

04 Jul '13

From: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: 03 July 2013 21:44 To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: David Archbold Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Community Comment Opportunity - SO-AC Chairs Alert Dear SO-AC Leaders, On behalf of Chair David Archbold and members of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group, this email is to formally alert you of the opportunity to review and provide comments on recommendation the Working Group plans to make to the ICANN Board about the application and future use of the ICANN Geographic Regions framework. 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 G+-+Documents> . At various times over the past few years, the ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO communities have graciously supplied representatives to serve on the Working Group. As a result, according the WG Charter, your communities now have the opportunity to review and provide formal comments on the Working Group's recommendations before they are submitted to the ICANN Board. Those recommendations are provided in a 24-page Final Report. The Final Report is posted on the ICANN.org web site here - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm. For your convenience, I have also attached a copy of the Final Report to this email message. Because of the time pressures caused by the upcoming Public Meeting, the Working Group is providing a full 90 days after the conclusion of the Durban meeting for your communities to discuss the Final Report recommendations and, if you choose, to submit a written statement back to the Working Group. Please advise me when you or your community have made a decision about providing any feedback so that I can inform the Working Group to prepare for such a communication. By my calculations, the 90-day review period will end on 17 October 2013. If you would like more information on the Working Group's effort and it's specific recommendations, the Working Group will host a community workshop mid-day on Thursday July 18 during the upcoming ICANN Public Meeting in Durban, South Africa (see - http://durban47.icann.org/node/39833). Working Group members have also agreed to make themselves available to you as needed for subsequent briefings or information sharing. I am happy to work to arrange a briefing from Dave Archbold or one of the Working Group members if you would like. Please contact me if you have any questions about this matter. I'll be happy to provide clarification or insights about the process to date. Best regards, Rob

1 0

Rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 - regarding trademark clearinghouse
by Bruce Tonkin 04 Jul '13

04 Jul '13

Hello All, As you will have seen - the new gTLD Program Committee approved the revised recommendation from the Board Governance Committee on Reconsideration Request 13.3. See attached for convenience. You may also be interested in the rationale below, where the discussions in the GNSO are referenced. I am keen to discuss further in Durban how the Board and staff can work more effectively with the GNSO on the implementation of policies. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13… ICANN's Bylaws call for the Board Governance Committee to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board with respect to Reconsideration Requests. See Article IV, section 3 of the Bylaws. The New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC"), bestowed with the powers of the Board in this instance, has reviewed and thoroughly considered the revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 and finds the analysis sound. Having a Reconsideration process whereby the BGC reviews and makes a recommendation to the Board/New gTLD Program Committee for approval positively affects ICANN's transparency and accountability. It provides an avenue for the community to ensure that staff and the Board are acting in accordance with ICANN's policies, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. This Request asserted that a staff action allowing up to 50 names that were previously determined registered or used abusively to be included in verified trademark records in the Clearinghouse created policy or was in contradiction of existing policy or process. The BGC considered the specific issue raised in the Request, and determined that the staff action here was implementation of existing policy, namely Recommendation 3 of the GNSO Council's policy recommendations on the introduction of new gTLDs. (See ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm , adopted by the Board at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-26jun08-en.htm .) The BGC further determined that there were no other policies or procedures that were alleged to be violated by this staff action. Upon making its determination, the BGC issued a Recommendation to the NGPC for consideration. Before the NGPC took up the matter, one GNSO Councilor raised some concerns over some of the language in BGC's Recommendation. The GNSO Council held a lengthy discussion regarding the BGC's Recommendation and asked that the BGC reconsider some of the language in the Recommendation, although not the ultimate conclusion. The BGC carefully considered the GNSO Council's request and stated concerns, and ultimately determined to revise its Recommendation. In doing so, the BGC properly noted that the Recommendation should not be seen as against the ongoing, community-wide discussion about policy and implementation. The BGC also noted that its revised Recommendation should not be construed as discounting the importance of consulting with community members. Community consultation is at the heart of the multi-stakeholder model, and is critical whether the community is acting as a policy development body or during the implementation of policy. Request 13-3 demonstrates the import of the ongoing work within the ICANN community regarding issues of policy versus implementation, and the need to have clear definitions of processes and terms used when seeking community guidance and input. The Committee recognizes that the GNSO Council continues to address some of these issues, and agrees with the BGC that it is advisable to pay close attention to the policy/implementation debate, and to make sure that the issues raised within this Request be part of that community work. Adopting the BGC's recommendation has no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system. This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

2 1

Resolutions from New gTLD Program Committee held on 2 July 2013
by Bruce Tonkin 04 Jul '13

04 Jul '13

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13… Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 2 July 2013 1. Main Agenda: a. Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Whereas, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("NCSG") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March 2013 regarding "Trademark Claims Protections for Previously Abused Names". Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the issues brought to and discussed by the GNSO Council regarding some of the language in the BGC's Recommendation. Whereas, the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately recommended that no further action was warranted with respect to Request 13-3. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… Resolved (2013.07.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs ICANN's President and CEO to assure that the issues raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the ongoing community discussion on policy versus implementation within ICANN. b. Initial Protection for IGO Identifiers Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué reiterated the GAC's previous advice to the Board 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 "IGO GAC Advice"). The IGO GAC Advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-IGO; Whereas, in response to a number of issues raised by the Board, the GAC noted in the Beijing Communiqué that it is "mindful of outstanding implementation issues" and that it is committed to "actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward"; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the advice on the New gTLD Program, including the IGO GAC Advice; Whereas, in a 6 June 2013 response letter to the GAC on the IGO GAC Advice, the ICANN Board Chairman proposed that a small number of NGPC members and ICANN staff begin a dialogue with the GAC on these issues http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-2-06jun13-en ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the IGO GAC Advice; Whereas, the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm includes IGO protections, but does not yet specify the names and acronyms to be protected; Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG03), the NGPC confirms that appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO identifiers will continue to be provided as presented in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm while the GAC, NGPC, ICANN Staff and community continue to actively work through outstanding implementation issues. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG04), the NGPC determines that pursuant to Specification 5 in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm , registry operators will implement temporary protections for the IGO names and acronyms on the "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 until the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 Meeting in Durban. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG05), the NGPC will dialogue with the GAC prior to its first meeting following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban to work through outstanding implementation issues concerning protections for IGO names and acronyms. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG06), if the NGPC and GAC do not reach an agreement on outstanding implementation issues for protecting IGO names and acronyms by the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban, and subject to any matters that arise during the discussions, the NGPC determines that registry operators will be required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 . c. Category 1 Safeguard Advice from GAC Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included Category 1 safeguard advice, which is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-1 (the "Category 1 Safeguard Advice"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11, 18 and 25 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, including the Category 1 Safeguard Advice; Whereas, the NGPC met on 2 July 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program; Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments on the Category 1 Safeguard Advice submitted during the public comment forum; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG07), the NGPC agrees to begin a dialogue with the GAC during the ICANN Meeting in Durban to clarify the scope of the requirements provided in the Category 1 Safeguard Advice. (Note: the dialogue with the GAC on Category 1 will also include discussion of GAC's Category 2.1 Safeguard Advice regarding "Restricted Access" since that advice applies to the strings listed under Category 1.) Resolved (2013.07.02.NG08), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants who have applied for TLD strings listed in the GAC's Category 1 Safeguard Advice, pending a dialogue with the GAC. d. Registry Agreement Whereas, the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing new gTLDs into the Internet's addressing system; Whereas, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) was produced to define the New gTLD Program, and included a draft New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by successful applicants and ICANN before proceeding to delegation; Whereas, on 5 February 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed "Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification," which announced proposed revisions to the agreement in response to developments since the last posting of the AGB in June 2012 and a general review of the contractual needs of the New gTLD Program; Whereas, on 29 April 2013, ICANN posted for public comment the "Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement," which included certain updates and changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement in response to community feedback on the version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 5 February 2013 and discussions of the agreement at the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing, China; Whereas, ICANN and a group selected by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registry Negotiating Team, have continued negotiating the proposed terms of the New gTLD Registry Agreement; Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued advice in a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included advice, which if implemented as suggested by the community, in some cases would require revisions to the New gTLD Registry Agreement; Whereas, on 25 June 2013, the NGPC adopted resolutions to revise the New gTLD Registry Agreement to respond to certain elements of the GAC's safeguard advice in the Beijing Communiqué http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13… ; Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community from the various public comment forums, and has determined that the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 includes significant improvements in response to the concerns raised by the community; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG09), the NGPC approves the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1; Resolved (2013.07.02.NG10), the President and CEO is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement and to move forward with implementation of the New gTLD Program. e. ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants - Discussion of letter No resolution taken.

1 0

ICANN Board Approves 2013 Registry Agreement
by Glen de Saint Géry 03 Jul '13

03 Jul '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03jul13-en.htm Last Contractual Hurdle Cleared in the Introduction of New Domain Names ICANN Board Approves 2013 Registry Agreement 3 July 2013 ICANN's New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) program has reached another milestone with passage of the 2013 Registry Agreement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-02jul13-en.p…> [PDF, 809 KB] (RA). The new baseline agreement was approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors. "New gTLDs are now on the home stretch," said Chris Disspain, a member of ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee. "This new Registry Agreement means we've cleared one of the last hurdles for those gTLD applicants who are approved and eagerly nearing that point where their names will go online." Among the key points in the new Registry Agreement: * Includes a Trademark Clearinghouse that will serve as a one-stop shop where trademark holders can protect their rights. * Provides for a process for a rapid, efficient way to take down infringing domain names. * Provides a procedure where trademark rights holders can assert claims directly against a registry operator for domain name abuse if that operator has played an active role in the abuse. * Requires registry operators to have a single point of contact responsible for handling abuse complaints. "We're getting to the point now where new gTLD applicants can see the finish line," said Akram Atallah, President of the ICANN's Generic Domains Division. "Much like the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement approved by the Board last week, this new Registry Agreement is the culmination of input from a wide range of stakeholders and marks a dramatic improvement over the previous baseline agreement." The New gTLD Registry Agreement is intended to enhance the security and stability of the Domain Name System while bolstering competition in domain name industry. The security provisions include: * A requirement that registry operators implement Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC), reducing so-called "man-in-the-middle" attacks and spoofed DNS records. * A requirement of enhanced WHOIS service at the registry level with a common interface, and more rapid search capabilities, facilitating efficient resolution of malicious activities. "This isn't just a gradual step forward," said Atallah. "This is a major move that translates to far greater security protections." To read the 2013 Registry Agreement, go here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-02jul13-en.p… [PDF, 809 KB] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

African Union Commissioner to Address ICANN's Durban Public Meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry 03 Jul '13

03 Jul '13

African Union Commissioner to Address ICANN's Durban Public Meeting 1<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-02jul13-en.htm> 2 July 2013 https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-02jul13-en.htm African Union Commissioner to Address ICANN's Durban Public Meeting 2 July 2013 Dr. Elham Ibrahim, the African Union Commissioner for Infrastructure and Energy, will address the welcoming session of ICANN47 on 15 July in Durban, South Africa. The participation of the honorable Commissioner in the opening session of ICANN47 reflects the partnership between the African Union and ICANN that began at ICANN42 in Dakar, Senegal. This partnership has continued to grow and strengthen since it began in 2011, especially over the past year. The African Union has been one of the strongest supporters of ICANN's African strategy, and the results of this strategy's implementation will be shared during our Durban meeting. Dr. Ibrahim has over thirty years of experience in electrical interconnection, energy strategy, network design and renewable energy. Prior to her position with the African Union, she served as the First Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Electricity and Energy in Egypt, as well as the General Manager for training and promotion in Egypt's New and Renewable Energy Authority (NREA). We are honored to have Dr. Ibrahim address the global ICANN community as it gathers in Africa. To read more about Dr. Ibrahim, you can go to http://ie.au.int/en/commissioner/biography. For more information about ICANN's upcoming meeting in Durban, South Africa, please visit http://durban47.icann.org. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review: Independent Expert - Request for Proposals
by Glen de Saint Géry 03 Jul '13

03 Jul '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02jul13-en.htm Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review: Independent Expert - Request for Proposals 2 July 2013 Deadline: 15 July 2013 The Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) signed by ICANN establishes ongoing reviews of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency - http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30s…<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30…>. Review of ICANN's execution of core tasks is undertaken by "review teams." The second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) is examining ICANN's activities to ensure they are accountable, transparent, and undertaken consistent with the public interest.1<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02jul13-en.htm#f…> The ATRT2's activities are focused on paragraph 9.1 of the AoC where ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders. The ATRT2 will make recommendations, as needed, to the ICANN Board for improvements by December 31, 2013. As part of its review effort, the ATRT 2 now issues a Request for Proposals<https://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/atrt2-01jul13-en.pdf> [PDF, 91 KB] (RfP) in order to appoint an independent expert. The purpose of this assignment is to assess the effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and whether the current GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs of the multi stakeholder model and Internet users. Interested parties are invited to provide relevant background material, written methodology for execution of this task, views on the tentative timeline, a proposed budget, resumes, references and financial information about the party by 15 July 2013 -23:59 UTC to Alice E. Jansen, ICANN, Strategic Initiatives Manager at alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>. The ATRT 2 will conduct conference calls with candidates on 22-23 July and expects to make its final selection of the independent expert on 26 July 2013. In its examination of ICANN's activities, the ATRT 2 recently published Questions to the Community for Public Comment. The questions and the responses are available at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm> ________________________________ 1<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02jul13-en.htm#n…> For information on the membership of ATRT and its activities including meeting schedules, agendas, minutes, etc. see https://community.icann.org/x/mQllAg. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Letter to ccNSO re. CWG principles
by Jonathan Robinson 03 Jul '13

03 Jul '13

All, Please note ccNSO follow-up to the the GNSO draft Principles Cross Community WG's. This may be one of the discussion points with the ccNSO or indeed within the Council itself in Durban. Jonathan From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] Sent: 28 June 2013 09:43 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Gabriella Schittek; Glen de Saint Géry; Marika Konings; Lesley Cowley Subject: Re: Letter to ccNSO re. CWG principles Dear Jonathan, Please find included the comments and suggestions on the GNSO draft Principles Cross Community WG's in response to the GNSO Council request to provide feed-back. The paper was adopted at the ccNSO Council meeting on 11 June 2013. The ccNSO Council looks forward to further dialogue on this topic, On behalf of the ccNSO Council Bart Boswinkel From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:46 PM To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Subject: Letter to ccNSO re. CWG principles Dear Lesley, Please see the attached letter intended as a follow up to our meeting in Beijing and previous discussions on the topic of CWGs. Best wishes, Jonathan

1 0

Draft Final Report ccNSO Study Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 Jul '13

02 Jul '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02jul13-en.htm Draft Final Report ccNSO Study Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs Comment Open Date: 2 July 2013 Comment Close Date: 1 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 2 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 30 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02jul13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-unct-final-02jul13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-unct-final-02jul13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ccNSO Study group on the use of country and territory names as Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Top-Level Domains * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): The treatment of country and territory names as Top Level Domains is a topic that has been discussed by the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, ALAC and the ICANN Board for a number of years. Issues regarding the treatment of representations of country and territory names have arisen in a wide range of ICANN policy processes, including the IDN fast track, IDN ccPDP, and the development of the new gTLD Applicant guidebook. It is in recognising the absence of the importance of country and territory names to a wide range of stakeholders, that the ccNSO Council convened the Study Group on the use of Country and Territory Names. The Study Group has completed its work and is now seeking feed-back and input from the ICANN community. Current Status: The Study Group informs the ICANN community of the results of its study and seeks public comment and feed-back on its draft Final report, in particular on its observations and recommendations. Next Steps: The Study Group will closely review all submitted comments to determine, at its reasonable discretion, whether the report needs to modified based on the comments received. The Study Group expects to formally publish its Final Report in September 2013 Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel Email Staff Contact<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Draft%20Final%20Report%20ccNSO%20Study%20Group%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Country%20and%20Territory%20Names%20as%20TLDs%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Study Group on the use of Country and Territory Names ("the Study Group") was established by a resolution of the ccNSO Council on 8 December 2010. The Study Group was tasked with developing an overview of: * The way in which the names of countries and territories are currently used within ICANN, be it in the form of policies, guidelines and/or procedures; * The types of strings, relating to the names of countries and territories that currently used, or proposed to be used, as TLDs; and * The issues that arise (or may arise) when current policies, guidelines and procedures are applied to these representations of country and territory names. The Study Group is comprised of representatives from across the ICANN stakeholder community and conducted its work between May 2011 and June 2013. In summary, the Study Group developed the following comments and observations: * Throughout its deliberations, the Study Group observed an incredible level of complexity associated with any attempt to definitively categorize country or territory names, especially when such an effort includes multiple languages or scripts. * A consistent observation was the inability of individual "lists" or resources to provide comprehensive, consistent or universal guidance regarding the various representations of country and territory names, in particular as a result of geo-political changes, the creation of new countries and the dissolution of others. * ICANN's current policies and procedures (as they may relate to ccTLDs, IDNs or current and potential new gTLDs) do not afford consistent treatment of country and territory names. This may give rise to stakeholder and end-user confusion and uncertainty. * ICANN's current policy framework (the Applicant Guidebook) for the introduction of new gTLDs affords an unprecedented level of protection for country and territory names, though notes that such protections are only confirmed for the first and current round of new gTLD applications. · The current Fast Track and IDN ccTLD policy are restricted. The major restrictions are the requirements that: * the IDN ccTLD string is a meaningful representation in a designated language of the territory, and * only one string per designated language If adopted the IDN ccTLD policy should be reviewed in five years, which includes a review of these restrictions. Recommendations * It is recommended that the ccNSO Council establish a cross community working group to: * Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; * Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's; and o Should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. The GNSO, ALAC and GAC should be invited to participate in such a WG. * In light of the need for further work on the treatment of country and territory names, the complexity of the issue at hand and the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies, it is also recommended that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN Board extend the current rule in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook regarding the exclusion of all country and territory names in all languages, for consecutive rounds of new gTLD applications. Section II: Background: The treatment of country and territory names as Top Level Domains is a topic that has been discussed by the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, ALAC and the ICANN Board for a number of years. Issues regarding the treatment of representations of country and territory names have arisen in a wide range of ICANN policy processes, including the IDN fast track, IDN ccPDP, and the development of the new gTLD Applicant guidebook. References to country and territory names and their use are also present in guidelines such as the GAC's "Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains" and "Principles regarding new gTLDs", foundation documents such as RFC1591 and administrative procedures such as those followed by IANA, in accordance with ISO3166-1, in the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. However, there has never been an overarching, cross-constituency study undertaken on how country and territory names are used across the ICANN community. There is no analysis of how the various rules and procedures relating to how country and territory names are used, whether there are inconsistencies between each, whether current frameworks are appropriate, and consideration of whether a more unified policy approach is required, or desirable. It is in recognising the absence of such a study, and the importance of country and territory names to a wide range of stakeholders, that the ccNSO Council convened the Study Group on the use of Country and Territory Names. In September 2011, the Study Group formally corresponded with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in order to seek UNESCO's expert views upon the use of country and territory names as they pertain to the internationalization of the Internet. The approach was made in accordance with ICANN's Co-operation Agreement with UNESCO to promote linguistic diversity on the Internet, which was signed in December 2009. Based upon this high-level agreement, Study Group members and UNESCO commenced work on developing a survey that could be circulated to UNESCO Member States. The survey was based upon the typology developed by the Study Group and was intended to serve as both a test of the typology and an exercise for gathering the expert input of UNESCO Member States on their perspectives relating to country and territory names. It was determined that, for the sake of administrative and methodological expediency, the survey would be sent to a subset of Member States that display appropriate linguistic, script and geographical diversity. Section III: Document and Resource Links: The Interim Report can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-02jul13-en.pdf [PDF, 705 KB] Additional Resources: Further information on the Study Group is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm Section IV: Additional Information: Throughout the early stages of the Study Group's working schedule, group members also identified, and shared with other ICANN stakeholders, issues which were outside of the group's scope. These included: * Developing a formal definition of what is and isn't a ccTLD * Intervening in first round of the new gTLDs process * Passing judgement on the effectiveness or appropriateness of previous policy approaches * Making recommendations for additional protections for country and territory names * Developing a definitive recommendation for how country and territory names should be treated in future policy processes. It should be noted that the Study Group also determined that, in order to ensure its deliberations were expansive and comprehensive, it would address a very wide range of possible representations of country of territory names. As a guiding principle, the group attempted to capture and assess the many possible representations of the names of sovereign States that may bechosen, and how this would impacted, and be dealt with, by existing policy structures within ICANN. However, the group stressed throughout its outreach to community members that this thorough approach was not, at any stage, an attempt to expand the definition of "country and territory names" in the ICANN policy context, nor an endorsement for the expansion of current protections. Making these clarifications was an important part of the Study Group's preliminary work, as it helped set a clear focus and work plan for the group, prevented internal misunderstandings and also allayed some of the community's concerns and possible misunderstandings about the intended outcomes of the Study Group. ________________________________ (*) 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

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 13 June 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 13 June 2013 for your review. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 10 July 2013. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slides from Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program Update Webinar held on 27 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Hello All, From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Attached are the slides from the: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program Update Webinar Date: 27 June 2013 A status update on the IDN Variant TLD Program and current projects. This webinar will address questions about the prerequisites for implementation of IDN Variant TLDs and upcoming community involvement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0