August 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

.cam decisions may wind up in gnso
by John Berard Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

Note Akram's comment. Berard http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/ Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 22 August 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-22aug13-en.htm 22 August 2013 Consent Agenda * Minutes of 27 June 2013 Board Meeting * FY14 Budget * Renewal of .info contract * Renewal of .org contract * Renewal of .biz contract * Construction contract for Los Angeles office expansion * Redelegation of .BW (Botswana) * Redelegation of .PT (Portugal) Main Agenda * AOB

1 0

Resolutions from the new gTLD program committee meeting on 13 August 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13aug13… 13 August 2013 1. Main Agenda: a. Dotless Domains Whereas, dotless domains consist of a single label and require the inclusion of, for example, an A, AAAA, or MX, record in the apex of a TLD zone in the DNS. Whereas, Section 2.2.3.3 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) prohibits the use of dotless domain names without evaluation of the registry services and ICANN's prior approval. Whereas, on 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains [PDF, 183 KB], and recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should be contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases. Whereas, on 23 June 2012, the ICANN Board adopted resolution 2012.06.23.09 tasking ICANN to consult with the relevant communities regarding implementation of the recommendations in SAC053. Whereas, on 24 August 2012, ICANN staff published the SAC053 Report for public comment requesting input to consider in relation to implementing the recommendations of the SSAC report. Whereas, in May 2013 ICANN commissioned a study on the stability and security implications of dotless domain name functionality to help ICANN prepare an implementation plan for the SAC053 recommendations, and on 29 July 2013 Carve Systems delivered a report to ICANN identifying the security and stability issues that should be mitigated before gTLDs implement dotless domain names (the "Carve Report"). Whereas, on 10 July 2013 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a statement on dotless domain names, recommending against the use of dotless domain names for TLDs. Whereas, the NGPC has considered the risks associated with dotless domains as presented in SAC053, the IAB statement and the Carve Report, and the impracticality of mitigating these identified risks. The NGPC has also considered the comments received from the community on this issue. 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 (2013.08.13.NG01), the NGPC acknowledges the security and stability risks associated with dotless domains as presented in SAC053, the IAB statement and the Carve Report and affirms its commitment to its security and stability mandates as the New gTLD Program is implemented. Resolved (2013.08.13.NG02), in light of the current security and stability risks identified in SAC053, the IAB statement and the Carve Report, and the impracticality of mitigating these risks, the NGPC affirms that the use of dotless domains is prohibited. Resolved (2013.08.13.NG03), the President, Generic Domains Division is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement these resolutions. b. Durban GAC Advice Draft Scorecard No resolution taken. c. Reconsideration Request 13-4 Whereas, DotConnectAfrica Trust's ("DCA Trust") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-4, sought reconsideration of the Board action (through the New gTLD Program Committee) on 4 June 2013, accepting advice from ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee regarding DCA Trust's new gTLD application for .AFRICA, and determining that this particular new gTLD application will not be approved. Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-4. Whereas, the BGC recommended that Reconsideration Request 13-4 be denied because DCA Trust has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration. Resolved (2013.08.13.NG04), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-4, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… [PDF, 120 KB]. d. Approval of NGPC Meeting Minutes Resolved (2013.08.13.NG05), the Board approves the minutes of the 18 June 2013, 25 June 2013 and 2 July 2013 New gTLD Program Committee Meetings.

1 0

Extension of Deadline - 6 Sept 2013 - Explore the Draft Next Generation gTLD Directory Services Model
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

Dear All, At the request of ICANN Community Members, the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services has extended its open consultation period until 6 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC in order to provide the Community with additional time to comment on the proposed model and recommendations (see announcement: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08aug13-en.htm) Please note that the EWG is meeting in late August to begin revising the initial report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> [PDF, 1.7 MB]. Comments received by 23 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC will be most useful. The Community is also invited to read the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services' frequently asked questions<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs> which the EWG developed and assembled in Durban to help answer commonly asked questions regarding the EWG's draft recommendations. Where may I submit my comments? There are different avenues through which you may submit comments: * Online questionaire<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-…> - To help focus attention, the EWG requests your feedback on a set of questions but welcomes comments on any aspect of the Initial Report. * Public Email address: input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org> Input is publicly archived. To read the responses and input received to date, please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-… Thanks, Very best regards ICANN staff ---- Background ICANN has embarked on an effort to reinvent today's WHOIS system. A significant milestone was reached on 24 June 2013<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm> with the publication <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm> of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services> (EWG)'s initial report for community input and comment. The initial report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> proposes 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. The EWG has identified the design features and principles that they believe are essential in this new system, and a proposed Model for the next generation data directory services to replace WHOIS. What's Next? The Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services aims to publish its final report in October for discussion at the Buenos Aires meeting and is scheduled to meet in-person in Washington, DC in late August to discuss final recommendations in light of the input and comments received. The suggested model will be submitted to ICANN's CEO and Board when the work is concluded. The 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. More Information The EWG 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. The EWG considered the important community work done over the last decade by the GNSO, the SSAC, the WHOIS Review Team, the GAC and others. The Initial Report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> [PDF, 1.7 MB] reflects the EWG's consensus view of the design principles and features needed for a new system. The proposed Model highlights how these design principles and features could be fulfilled in the ICANN domain ecosystem. * For more information, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs> prepared by the EWG related to its Initial Report. * To view translations of the Initial Report and/or Initial Report Executive Summary, please refer to: translations<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm> * To view the Expert Working Group's activities, please refer to the EWG wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189>. * Consultation archives are available: webinar archives<http://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/webinars/gtld-directory-services-24j…> (8 July 2013) and session archives<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39627> (15 July 2013 - Durban).

1 0

Webinars on the trademark clearinghouse osted by IBM
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

Hello All, IBM is holding a series of webinars on the implementation of the trademark clearinghouse - sunrise and trademark claims services. See: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars I have attached the presentation from their upcoming webinar: Introduction to the Trademark Database (TMDB) for Sunrise and Claims - Hosted by IBM Date: 14 Aug 2013, 15:00 - 17.00 UTC The Sunrise portion of the Trademark Database Sunrise and Claims (S&C) services went live on 9 August 2013. This webinar will cover an introduction to the TMDB web client, a brief overview of the S&C processes and the TMDB system, and a brief overview of the TMDB test function. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Action Items & Agenda for September Council Meeting
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

All, Two issues to consider please: 1. The list of Action Items. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items a. Please cast your eyes down the list in order to be well-informed about the current activity of the Council. b. Also, check carefully if your name appears next to any item as the Responsible Council Member and if so, please move the item on if possible. c. Please reply if you notice that anything we should be doing has been left off. 2. Agenda for September Council meeting. a. This will naturally be derived from a combination of our meeting in Durban plus the list in 1 above. b. Please let me know if you believe anything else of substance should be included. Thanks Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

New gTLD update - 8 Aug 2013
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

Hello All, From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars See attached update from the Applicant Update Webinar Date/Time: 08 August 2013, 01:00 - 2:30 UTC Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Correction: Draft minutes of the GNSO Council Public meeting held on 17 July 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council Public meeting held on 17 July 2013 for your review. The attached version has been updated with a link to the paper adopted at the ccNSO Council meeting on 11 June 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccnso-comments-cwg-principles-11jun13-en.pdf> in: Item 9: DISCUSSION - Cross Community Working Council agreed to refer the paper adopted at the ccNSO Council meeting on 11 June 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccnso-comments-cwg-principles-11jun13-en.pdf> 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 19 August 2013. Thank you very much. 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

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council Public meeting held on 17 July 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council Public meeting held on 17 July 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 19 August 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

1 0

GNSO Review - Links to prior work
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

All, In Durban I promised to provide links to prior work on the review of the GNSO and GNSO Council. Earlier this year, Bruce Tonkin assisted me with this information and so I'd like to acknowledge his assistance. Jonathan ---- The bylaws actually envisage a review of each Supporting Organization each Supporting Organization Council. The bylaws state: "Section 4. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ICANN STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 1. The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group. The results of such reviews shall be posted on the Website for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board no later than the second scheduled meeting of the Board after such results have been posted for 30 days. The consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board." ----- The Council was the first ICANN body to go through an independent review in 2004. A bit of the history is laid out at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/improvements/reviews -en.htm Patrick Sharry carried out the independent review: http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf Previously (during the time of Bruce Tonkin being chair) the Council undertook its own internal review against the same terms of reference. The outcomes of the self-review are available in Appendix 3 of Patrick Sharry's report: http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec2-22dec04.pdf Bruce argues (and I think I agree with him) that a body being reviewed will benefit from undertaking a self-review. That way the body to be reviewed will be prepared and in a good position to effectively engage with the independent reviewer.

1 0