August 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Extension of Public Comment period to 15 August: Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review Comment period closes: Extended to 15 August 2013 [23:59] Reply period close date: Extended to 6 September 2013 [23:59] Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 July 2013 Comment Close Date: 15 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 16 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 6 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15jul13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-gnso-review-15jul13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) Categories/Tags: * GNSO * ICANN Board/Bylaws * Organizational Reviews * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering recommending to the ICANN Board of Directors that the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4, be postponed and that a new schedule for the review be established within the next 6 months. The SIC seeks comments from the ICANN Community to better form its recommendation or to reconsider its recommendation. Current Status: Questions to the ICANN Community Next Steps: Public comments are requested to inform Board Structural Improvements Committee action. Staff Contact: Alice Jansen Email Staff Contact<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Potential%20Postponement%20of%20the%20GNSO%20Review%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering recommending to the ICANN Board of Directors that the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) be postponed and that a new schedule for the review be established within the next 6 months. The GNSO review is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4. The SIC is considering this recommendation because there are two substantial, relevant activities that have commenced. They are the second Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Accountability and Transparency Review<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2> (ATRT2) and ICANN's Strategic Planning Process<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement>. The ATRT2 will include an assessment of the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross-community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. The Strategic Planning Process includes consideration of attributes and characteristics of ICANN's community structures and processes, engagement of end-users, and other issues. Both of these activities will require dedicated participation by the GNSO, and may have implications for the GNSO review. The SIC seeks comments from the ICANN Community to better form its recommendation or to reconsider its recommendation. The SIC is most appreciative of any comments from the ICANN Community but is particularly interested in comments that are in response to the following question: Are there other factors that the SIC should consider with regard to this recommendation? Update - 7 August 2013: the public comment period is extended at the request of the GNSO Council. Section II: Background: ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4 call for the Board to 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 first GNSO review was launched in 2006. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * ICANN Organizational Reviews<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews> * ICANN Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Letter to the ICANN GAC re IGO / INGO PDP WG
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

All, Please see attached. Best wishes, 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

2 1

COUNCIL Attendance Chart for review
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the GNSO Council attendance chart for the period October 2012 to August 2013. Please review the chart and please let me know off the Council list, no later than Monday 12 August 2013, whether there are any adjustments to be made. We will then update the appropriate pages on the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/IGM+Oct+2012-Oct+20…. Due to a technical issue, these pages have not been updated for several months, but will be maintained from now on. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org De : Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Envoyé : lundi 5 août 2013 11:12 À : Glen de Saint Géry; Marika Konings Objet : RE: revised COUNCIL updated attendance chart Yes, if that is the case, we should flag it. Here is the process I suggest: 1. Publish 2. Inform councillors and give them the opportunity to correct anything that is not correct (a few days, say 5 working days) 3. Communicate the record to all SG / Constituency leadership with a recognition that this has not been done recently (due to a technical issue) but will be maintained from now on. Thanks, Jonathan From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: 02 August 2013 13:14 To: Marika Konings; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: revised COUNCIL updated attendance chart De : Marika Konings Envoyé : vendredi 2 août 2013 13:45 À : Glen de Saint Géry; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Objet : Re: COUNCIL updated attendance chart Would it be helpful to have AA (Absent with apologies) and AN (Absent no apologies) categories to reflect this difference? Best regards, Marika From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Friday 2 August 2013 13:35 To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: COUNCIL updated attendance chart Dear Jonathan, I have sent the attendance chart to Ken Bour to update on the Wiki as he has so kindly offered to do, but I thought that you may be interested as it provides the span of attendance since you were chair, from 17 October 2012 to 1 August 2013. To be noted: 13 November GNSO Council Induction by the Chair 16:00 UTC This meeting does not appear on the attendance sheet as it was not counted as a Council meeting. Note that Alan Greenberg, though marked A for the times that he missed, always excused himself, while for the other 'A' s it was not always the case. Please let me know if you have any questions? 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

FY14 Community Travel Support Guidelines
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/travel-support/travel-support-guideli… FY14 Community Travel Support Guidelines 2 August 2013 travel-support-guidelines-fy14-02aug13-en<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/travel-support/travel-support-guideli…> [PDF, 197kB] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment Request: Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 2, 2013

Aug. 2, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-recommenda… Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 2 August 2013 Comment Close Date: 23 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 24 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02aug13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-recommendations-02aug13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-locking-domain-name-recommendations-0…> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Policy Staff Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): Obtain community input on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council prior to ICANN Board consideration. Current Status: The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group delivered its Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.01 MB] to the GNSO Council on 5 July 2013. The report and its recommendations were adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council on 1 August. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policies that are considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations. Next Steps: ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that will be submitted to the Board in conjunction with the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email Staff Contact<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20%28PDP%29%20Recommendations%20for%20Board%20Consideration%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) unanimously approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/40865> at its meeting on 1 August 2013 the recommendations of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group. The 17 recommendations, which are pending for Board action, are intended to clarify and standardize the process for locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings, including: * Definition of 'locking' * Requiring registrar to apply lock within 2 business days following request for verification * Removing obligation for complainant to notify the respondent at the time of filing, but add automatic extension of 4 days to response time upon request * Step by step clarification of requirements of different parties involved * Development of educational and informational materials to assist in informing affected parties of new requirements and recommended best practices For the full details of these recommendations, you are strongly encouraged to review section 7 of the Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.01 MB]. You are invited to submit your comments before final consideration of these recommendations by the ICANN Board. Section II: Background: Currently there is no requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings and no definition of 'status quo', which has resulted in different interpretations and confusion of the policy. To address this issue, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15 December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. The Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment on 15 March 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.…<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…>), followed by its Final Report on 5 July 2013. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.01 MB] * Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules> 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolution 1 August 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 2, 2013

Aug. 2, 2013

Dear All, The resolution to adopt the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations carried unanimously at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 1 August 2013. WHEREAS 1. On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. 2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 5 July 2013; 3. The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to addressing the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings; 4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations. Now therefore be it resolved, 1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations as detailed in the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf 2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to the members of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group. 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

Re: Ballot on Motion on the Adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 2, 2013

Aug. 2, 2013

On 08/01/2013 12:26 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > > > Dear Wendy, > > Pursuant to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures section 4.4 Absentee Voting Procedures > GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf> > absentee voting is allowed on the motion on the Adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations. > > Your absentee ballot follows. Please indicate your preference with an X and send the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing list. > > > > * On the motion I vote: > > * [ X ] Yes > > * [ ] No > > * [ ] Abstain > > * Password: Green-5 Note that I vote in favor only because Recommendation 4's "reveal" of registrants behind privacy or proxy services is a "may." I expect that we will gather data for future evaluation of how often these procedures are used as denial-of-service attacks or identification attacks against legitimate domain registrants. Thank you, --Wendy > > > > This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 15:20 UTC on Thursday, 1 August 2013. > (The completed ballot is due NLT 15:20 UTC, Sunday, 4 August 2011) > > Motion on the Adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations > > Made by: Jeff Neumann > Seconded by: Brian Winterfeldt > > WHEREAS > > 1. On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. > > > > 2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 5 July 2013; > > 3. The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to addressing the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings; > > 4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations. > > Now therefore be it resolved, > > 1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations as detailed in the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf > > 2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings ! Implementa tion Review Team to the members of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group. > > In case of any connectivity issues, please feel free to contact me on my cell phone. > > 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 > > Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54 > > glen(a)icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0

URGENT REMINDER: Your feedback requested - GNSO Council Development Session in Buenos Aires
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 1, 2013

Aug. 1, 2013

REMINDER - Complete the doodle poll please ! http://www.doodle.com/uq77rvafpx3cthkb Dear All, As Jonathan already mentioned in Durban, the GNSO Council has received funding under the FY14 Special Community Requests to organise a Council Development Session directly after the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. The objective of this meeting is to allow for the Council, including those members newly seated in Buenos Aires, to get to know each other better, provide information on the functioning and operations of the GNSO Council and allow for planning for upcoming projects and activities, with the aim to further enhance the co-operation within and effectiveness of the GNSO Council. We are currently working on the logistics as well as the programme for this meeting and plan to keep you up to date on a regular basis with regards to the details. For now, we would like to ask you to make sure to reserve Friday 22 November in your diaries for this meeting (with planned departure on Saturday 23 November). Furthermore, we would like your input on the logistics for Thursday evening / Friday morning and would like to ask you to respond to the following doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/uq77rvafpx3cthkb (in short, the question is whether people prefer to travel to the new venue, approx. 1 hour outside of Buenos Aires, on Thursday afternoon/evening or on Friday morning). Thanks for your assistance, Marika

2 1

Public Comments requested: .MOBI Cross-Ownership Removal Request
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 1, 2013

Aug. 1, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/mobi-xo-removal-26jul13-en.htm .MOBI Cross-Ownership Removal Request Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 26 July 2013 Comment Close Date: 16 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 17 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 8 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26jul13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-mobi-xo-removal-26jul13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-mobi-xo-removal-26jul13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): ICANN is posting today for public comment the Afilias Limited request to removal of the cross-ownership restrictions reflected on the .MOBI Registry Agreement dated 10 July 2005. Current Status: ICANN conducted a competition review in accordance to the process and has determined that the request does not raise significant competition issues. Next Steps: Following the public comment period, a summary and analysis will be posted, the request will be considered by ICANN and the result will be made public. Staff Contact: Karla Valente Email Staff Contact<mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20.MOBI%20Cross-Ownership%20Removal%20Request%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: Afilias Limited requests the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions reflected on the .MOBI Registry Agreement dated 10 July 2005. See: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi> This request is submitted according to the "Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs" adopted by the Board on 18 October 2012. See: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership>. According to the approved process, in order to lift cross-ownership restrictions, existing gTLD registry operators could either request an amendment to their existing Registry Agreement to remove the cross-ownership restrictions or request to transition to the new form of Registry Agreement for new gTLDs. Any proposed material amendments to gTLD registry agreements would be subject to public comment prior to ICANN approval. Section II: Background: The current .MOBI agreement dated 10 July 2005 has cross-ownership restrictions See: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi> On 18 October 2012 the Board approved the "Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs". See: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership>. Previously Fundació puntCAT, the registry responsible for .CAT had a similar request approved by the Board. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Current .MOBI Registry Agreement and Appendices: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi> * Board approved process: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership> * Proposed Afilias Limited Amendment<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi/proposed-mobi-ame…> [PDF, 51 KB] * Proposed Redlined Agreement<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/mobi/proposed-mobi-agr…> [PDF, 248 KB] 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comments requested: PRO Cross-Ownership Removal Request
by Glen de Saint Géry Aug. 1, 2013

Aug. 1, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-26jul13-en.htm PRO Cross-Ownership Removal Request Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 26 July 2013 Comment Close Date: 16 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 17 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 8 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-26jul13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-pro-xo-removal-26jul13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-pro-xo-removal-26jul13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): ICANN is posting today for public comment the Afilias Limited request to removal of the cross-ownership restrictions reflected on the .PRO Registry Agreement dated 22 April 2010. Current Status: ICANN conducted a competition review in accordance to the process and has determined that the request does not raise significant competition issues. Next Steps: Following the public comment period, a summary and analysis will be posted, the request will be considered by ICANN and the result will be made public. Staff Contact: Karla Valente Email Staff Contact<mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20.PRO%20Cross-Ownership%20Removal%20Request%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: Afilias Limited requests the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions reflected on the .PRO Registry Agreement dated 22 April 2010. See: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro> This request is submitted according to the "Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs" adopted by the Board on 18 October 2012. See: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership>. According to the approved process, in order to lift cross-ownership restrictions, existing gTLD registry operators could either request an amendment to their existing Registry Agreement to remove the cross-ownership restrictions or request to transition to the new form of Registry Agreement for new gTLDs. Any proposed material amendments to gTLD registry agreements would be subject to public comment prior to ICANN approval. Section II: Background: The current .PRO agreement dated 22 April 2010 has cross-ownership restrictions See: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro> On 18 October 2012 the Board approved the "Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs". See: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership>. In early 2013 Fundació puntCAT, the registry responsible for .CAT had a similar request approved by the Board. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Current .PRO Registry Agreement and Appendices<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro> * Board Approved Process<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership> * Proposed Afilias Limited Amendment<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro/proposed-pro-amend…> [PDF, 48 KB] * Proposed Redlined Agreement<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/pro/proposed-pro-agree…> [PDF, 94 KB] 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0