September 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Action Items
by Jonathan Robinson 10 Oct '13

10 Oct '13

All, Regarding the GNSO Council Action Items, at our last meeting, we agreed to confirm the requirement with respect to the following: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 1. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee). Jeff Neumann to draft 2. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2. A volunteer to draft. a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency. b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT. 3. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board. Jonathan to draft. a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice. c. To propose solutions such as: - Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice (something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions) - Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws Having seen the outcome of the latest reconsideration request i.e. as follows: Based on the foregoing, the BGC concludes that Booking.com has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that Booking.com's request be denied without further consideration. This Request challenges a substantive decision taken by a panel in the New gTLD Program and not the process by which that decision was taken. As stated in our Recommendation on Request 13-2, Reconsideration is not a mechanism for direct, de novo appeal of staff or panel decisions with which the requester disagrees, and seeking such relief is, in fact, in contravention of the established processes within ICANN. It strikes me that point 2 above, assisted by the latest reconsideration decision, remains valid. Looking at points 1 & 3 above, it strikes me that 1 is no longer required and has been dealt with by other communications and actions but 3 may still be valid. Therefore, please can you assist me by confirming (or denying) that going forwards, we should complete the action by: 1. Dropping Action 1 above 2. Completing Action 2 above (If so, a volunteer to draft please?) 3. Completing 3 above. Thank-you. Jonathan

2 3

REMINDER: Document and Motion deadline Monday 30 SEPTEMBER 2013 at 23:59 UTC for Council meeting on 10 OCTOBER 2013 at 18:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

Dear Councillors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e MONDAY,30 SEPTEMBER 2013 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 10 October 2013 at 18:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+Oct.+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

5 5

Motion for approval of a charter for the Translation and Transliteration Contact Information PDP WG
by Jonathan Robinson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

All, Please see attached, a draft motion to approve the work of the drafting team i.e. a final version of the Charter for the Translation and Transliteration Contact Information PDP WG. In addition, please note the Charter which has been attached for completeness. Thank-you, Jonathan

2 1

Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 5 September 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 5 September 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 10 October 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<http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

WSWG Motion
by Jonathan Robinson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

All, Please see attached for a motion for the forthcoming GNSO Council meeting, dealing with the work of the Whois Survey Working Group. The Motion seeks to approve the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final Report and Recommendations. Thanks, Jonathan

1 0

Motion on CCWG DT work
by Jonathan Robinson 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

All, Please see attached a motion proposed for consideration at the forthcoming GNSO Council meeting. I believe that it is self-explanatory and of course, we can have more context in the actual meeting. For reference, I chaired the original drafting team which produced the original draft principles. Thank-you. Jonathan

2 1

Study on Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse
by Glen de Saint Géry 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-e… Study on Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 24 September 2013 Comment Close Date: 22 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 23 October 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 November 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-24sep13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:comments-whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This study, conducted by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom, analyzes gTLD domain names to measure whether the percentage of privacy/proxy use among domains engaged in illegal or harmful Internet activities is significantly greater than among domain names used for lawful Internet activities. Furthermore, this study compares these privacy/proxy percentages to other methods used to obscure identity - notably, Whois phone numbers that are invalid. These findings will help the community understand the role that privacy and proxy service abuse plays in obscuring the identities of parties engaged in illegal or harmful activities, including phishing, cybersquatting, hosting child abuse sexual images, advanced fee fraud, online sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and more. Current Status: This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the community to consider the study results detailed in this report, provide feedback and request further clarifications. In parallel, ICANN and NPL will conduct Webinars to facilitate feedback by summarizing this study's purpose, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Next Steps: NPL will consider all comments submitted to this Public Comment forum during the comment period, incorporate any needed clarifications, and then publish a final version of this Whois Privacy and Proxy Service Abuse study report. It is expected that this report will inform future GNSO policy development in relation to the Whois system. Staff Contact: Mary Wong Email Staff Contact<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Study%20on%20Whois%20Privacy%20and%20Proxy%20Service%20Abuse%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: At the request of the GNSO Council<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+28+April+20…>, ICANN engaged the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom to test the hypothesis that "A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity." To provide empirical data of use to Whois policy-making, NPL set out to measure whether the percentage of privacy/proxy use among domains engaged in various kinds of illegal or harmful Internet activities is greater than among domain names used for lawful Internet activities. Additionally, because privacy/proxy policy changes could prompt malicious registrants to elude contact in other ways, NPL also measured other methods used to obscure perpetrator identity - notably, invalid Whois phone numbers. This study, led by Dr. Richard Clayton of the University of Cambridge, gathered large representative samples of domain names implicated in various illegal or harmful online activities, ranging from unsolicited phishing, typosquatting, and malware distribution to hosting child abuse sexual images, advanced fee fraud (also known as "419 scams"), and online sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Key technical inputs were also provided by Professor Tyler Moore of Southern Methodist University and Dr Nicolas Christin of Carnegie Mellon University. By examining sampled incidents and Whois data associated with domain names across the top five gTLDs - .biz, .com, .info, .net and .org - this study measured how often privacy or proxy services were abused by perpetrators (alleged and confirmed). Additionally, these results were compared to privacy/proxy use among domains engaged in lawful and harmless activities (e.g., banks and legal pharmacies), chosen to mirror studied illegal/harmful activities. Finally, researchers attempted to call registrants for a subset of these domain names not using privacy or proxy services, to determine whether they could in fact be contacted with only Whois data. This draft report summarizes project activities, methodology, sampled data and findings, including statistical analysis of differences observed by the research team. These study findings will help the community understand the role that privacy and proxy service abuse plays in obscuring the identities of parties engaged in illegal or harmful Internet activities. The GNSO Council is now seeking community review and feedback on the draft report. The purpose of this Public Comment period is to ensure that study results have been communicated clearly and to solicit feedback on desired clarifications (if any). Section II: Background: As part of its effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of the gTLD Whois system, the GNSO Council expressed an interest in conducting an in-depth study of privacy and proxy service abuse among gTLD domain names registrants engaged in illegal or harmful Internet activities. At the GNSO's request, ICANN issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in May 2010 describing a study to methodically analyze a representative sample of gTLD domains associated with a variety of illegal or harmful Internet activities. By comparing how often these "bad actors" use privacy/proxy services with overall privacy/proxy use, the GNSO hoped to prove or disprove its hypothesis that a significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services in order to obscure the perpetrator's identity. After considering RFP responses received from researchers willing to undertake this Privacy/Proxy Abuse study, as well as questions raised by both researchers and reviewers, the GNSO Council decided to fund a somewhat revised study proposed by NPL. Specifically, NPL proposed studying many but not all of the illegal/harmful activities enumerated by the RFP, using samples obtained largely from "live feeds" and authoritative sources. NPL declined to study DoS attacks, DNS poisoning, IP theft, and on-line stalking using incidents submitted by victims, questioning their relevance and/or the ability to gather reliably representative samples. In April 2011, this revised study was approved by the GNSO Council and awarded to NPL. When initiating this study, the GNSO Council asked that the study report expressly note that this study's purpose is only to analyze "bad actors". Notwithstanding the legal or harmless domain names studied here for comparison purposes, many legitimate privacy/proxy customers are unaccounted for within the scope of this study. This study does not attempt to measure privacy/proxy use or Whois accuracy across all gTLDs, as did broader studies such as that performed by NORC at the University of Chicago in 2010. The findings from this study are intended to provide empirical data needed to understand the role that privacy and proxy service abuse plays in obscuring the identities of parties engaged in illegal or harmful activities. This empirical data will create a baseline for evaluating potential Whois and Privacy/Proxy service policy changes. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Whois Privacy and Proxy Service Abuse Study Draft Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/pp-abuse-study-20sep13-en.pdf> [PDF, 624 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Terms of Reference<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-abuse-study-18may10-en.pdf> [PDF, 321 KB] Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Staff Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…> [PDF, 437 KB] GNSO Council Motion April 2011<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+28+April+20…> NPL Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study<http://blog.icann.org/2012/04/national-physical-laboratory-of-the-uk-select…> Additional Whois studies have also been conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, as summarized at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ ________________________________ (*) 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 - "Reverse Liaison " with the GAC
by Jonathan Robinson 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

The objective of this mail is to kick-off a discussion thread which clarifies the GNSO Council's view on the concept of a "Reverse Liaison" to the GAC. Introduction The concept of a Reverse Liaison came up in the GNSO Council discussion with the GAC in Beijing. The discussion was focussed on improving the GAC engagement with the policy work of the GNSO. The most concept of Improved GAC engagement with the policy work of GNSO dates back to [ ]. The GNSO Council refined the Reverse Liaison concept little further in Durban, recognising that it would need to be an individual (or potentially individuals) very familiar with GNSO Council business but not necessarily on the Council due to schedule constraints. What do we mean by Reverse Liaison? . A person who is able to effectively and accurately represent the current status of all aspects of current GNSO policy work . A person who is able to be present at GAC in-person and telephone meetings What qualifications? . Familiarity with and experience of GNSO current policy work and the policy development process . A former GNSO Councillor (how long since they were on the Council? Just left in order to be completely current?) What does the Council expect? . Attendance at Council meetings? . Written and/or oral reports to GNSO Council? What does the GAC expect? . We need to discuss this with the GAC Other practical issues? . Councillors are funded? Will this position be funded for travel and accommodation? . What is the tenure? Assuming we can effectively resolve all of the above and any other related issues, I suggest that we aim to propose to ICANN in writing that ICANN funds this on an experimental basis for an initial year in the first instance. This could be reviewed for effectiveness at or before the next ICANN annual meeting (in 2014) with a view to agreeing to continue or terminate the role. Once we have agreement on the major points above, we will need to discuss and agree it with the GAC and then move forward to attempt to get it funded. A lot of effort between now & Buenos Aires! Thanks, Jonathan

3 3

FW: GNSO Council - Induction & Training - Friday 22 November 2013
by Jonathan Robinson 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

All, Please be aware of the following letter which was recently sent out to constituency and SG chairs in order to invite participation in the first session of the meeting planned for Friday 22 November 2013 (10h00-11h30). The key purpose of the letter was twofold: 1. To ensure they were aware of the event and best placed to ensure that incoming councillors are too. 2. To ask whether they could offer themselves or an alternate member of the leadership group, to participate in the first session, in addition to councillors. Thanks, Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 20 September 2013 14:14 To: 'Keith Drazek'; Michele Neylon; 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Kristina Rosette'; 'Tony Holmes'; 'Robin Gross'; 'William Drake'; 'Marie-Laure Lemineur' Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'gnso-secs(a)icann.org' Subject: GNSO Council - Induction & Training - Friday 22 November 2013 Importance: High Dear Colleagues, I am writing, I trust, to remind you of an event we are planning to run in Buenos Aires. On Friday 22 November, the plan is to run an induction and training session for the new GNSO Council i.e. the Council to be seated and in place from the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting onwards. The background to this is that, when I started in as GNSO Council chair in October 2012, it struck me that the preparation or induction was in place for incoming councillors was limited and necessarily remote i.e. by email and telephone. Significantly, the first time the then new council got together in person was many months later in Beijing. There are many good reasons to orient and prepare councillors for their work on the Council in the year ahead and so this is one initiative that we agreed to pursue at our council leadership / staff session back in Amsterdam in January 2013. We subsequently applied to ICANN for funding for an event and this funding was agreed. The support will finance the event and an overnight stay, but not travel, so it must necessarily occur simultaneous with, or adjacent to, an ICANN meeting. Hence the reason we arrived at Friday 22 November 2013. The event will run from approximately 10h00 and will be completed with a dinner in the evening. The intended attendees at the meeting are the full GNSO Council which will be in place subsequent to the council meeting on Wednesday 20 November i.e. the then new council. The agenda hasnt yet been fully developed but the objective is clear; ensure that incoming and existing councillors are as well trained and oriented as possible and moreover, that the whole council is as well-prepared as possible to function effectively together in the year ahead. By function effectively together, I mean that they can work effectively together as a council and be clear on the one anothers relationships with, and responsibilities to, their respective constituencies and/or groups. Therefore, the reason I am writing to you is twofold as follows: 1. To ensure you are aware of this event and well placed to ensure that your incoming councillors are too. 2. To ask whether you could offer yourselves, or if you are not available, an alternate member of your leadership group, to participate in the first session (Friday 22 November 10h00-11h30) in addition to your councillors who we expect will be there for the full day and evening. The purpose of 2 above is to make sure that, from the outset, the Council as a whole is as well aware as possible of the relationship with and connection to the broader GNSO and the groups constituting the GNSO. If you have any questions or suggestions relating to this event, or indeed any aspect of the chairing of the Council, please do get in touch with me. I am personally committed to a well-managed and effective GNSO Council and am open to any feedback in how best to achieve that. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r

1 0

GNSO / GNSO Council / GAC Interaction
by Jonathan Robinson 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

All, As per Item 10 from our 5 September 2013 Council meeting and the actions arising, there is an opportunity to clarify where we are currently with respect to future engagement with the ICANN GAC and to set out possible next steps. We currently have two opportunities to pursue and develop as far as improved engagement with the GAC on GNSO Policy work is concerned as follows: 1. Establishing what we have started to refer to as a "Reverse Liaison" and 2. A detailed examination of existing points of engagement and seeking to be clear on where these are or are not adequate . I suggest that we pick them up as two independent (but obviously related) threads and seek to make progress. Clearly, both will need discussion with the GAC but I think it will be worthwhile to ensure we have some initial clarity first. I'll kick off both threads and welcome input and discussion as to how we move forwards. Thanks, Jonathan

1 0