June 2017 - council - lists.icann.org

Missing Interpretation Headsets
by Terri Agnew June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Dear all, We have had a large amount of Interpretation headsets go missing over the last 2 days - currently we are missing 20. If you could please kindly pass on to your groups to please return the headsets to any session rooms with interpretation, that would be greatly appreciated! Interpretation headsets should be left behind in the rooms after each session. Thank you! SO/AC Support Staff

2 1

Proposed motion for the selection of the Empowered Community representative
by Susan Kawaguchi June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Hello, Please see the attached proposed motion from the Standing Selection Committee for the Empowered Community representative from the GNSO. After several weeks of meetings, discussions and reviewing the requirements for this role the committee determine this process was the most beneficial to the council. Best regards, Standing Selection Committee

5 8

FOR DISCUSSION: Draft motion to approve Fundamental Bylaw amendment
by Mary Wong June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Dear Councilors, In view of the discussion at the Community Forum this morning on the proposed amendment to ICANN’s Fundamental Bylaws and the Council’s intention to vote on the proposal at its July meeting, please find attached a draft motion that staff hopes will facilitate your discussion of the matter this week in Johannesburg. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Updated Project List
by Nathalie Peregrine June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Dear Councilors, Attached please find the updated Project List in both red-line and clean version before the Council meeting. This list has been posted on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc…> and be directly viewed at :http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_meetings…> Thanks so much, Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

FW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Update from the Co-Chairs on Geographic Names Sessions @ ICANN 59
by Steve Chan June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Dear Councilors, Below, please find a message from the co-chairs of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG regarding the cross community session on geographic names at the top-level. Of note, there are materials that you may want to review prior to the sessions at ICANN59. Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Friday, June 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "Julia Golomb <jgolomb(a)cbuilding.org>" <jgolomb(a)cbuilding.org>, David Fairman <dfairman(a)cbuilding.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Update from the Co-Chairs on Geographic Names Sessions @ ICANN 59 All, Avri and I just wanted to provide an update to the Working Group on the Geographic Names Sessions on Tuesday and Thursday @ICANN 59. ICANN has retained the services of David Fairman and Julia Golomb from Consensus Building Institute (CBI) to help facilitate the Geographic Names sessions @ ICANN 59 and possibly beyond. In preparation for those sessions, they will be reaching out to those that submitted proposals for the April Webinar as well as several community members to get some background on all of the various positions around this subject. The purpose of their reaching out to these persons is strictly for their own education and to help them understand the complexities of the subject matter. They believe, and we agree, that getting that background will provide for much more fruitful discussions. CBI (a non-profit collaboration and dispute resolution organization based in the US, www.cbuilding.org) is assisting us in preparing and facilitating the Johannesburg ICANN59 cross community sessions. As a reminder, the goal of the sessions @ICANN59 is to clarify key geo names at the top level policy issues, build a shared understanding of community interests and concerns, develop options that could gain broad community support, and start down a path to consensus on a comprehensive proposal that can be accepted by the ICANN Community. In preparation for ICANN 59, we are asking that everyone review the materials that we plan to present for discussion at the sessions: · background document: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077479/Geo%20Names%20Web… · summary of proposals from community members: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sKx_vyFhhscBUyaFMwqirj8r1D6g7IFtUSa…; and · co-chairs’ draft additional compromise strawperson: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m69loOZthxrQdcCj1dIUJLkezQXr9rwGxXrechd…. Because of the limited amount of time for these sessions, we are not going to be having a panel rehash the same presentations that were discussed during the webinar. We are therefore asking that everyone come prepared. We especially would like to call some attention to the last document referenced above (the Co-Chairs’ draft additional compromise strawperson). After spending some time reviewing all of the proposals, Avri and I have tried to draft a Strawperson that includes a number of elements from most of the proposals we saw. We could not draw from every proposal since some of them were diametrically opposed to each other. That said, this is just a strawperson and not a proposal. Avri and I are not advocates for this document, but we would be happy to answer any questions as to why the draft says what it says. The sole purpose of putting this strawperson together is to stimulate conversation beyond the discussions that have taken place so far. We understand that there are some very strong held positions by many members of the community, but we hope that by putting this together, we can hopefully stimulate discussion on potential compromises. Please let us know if you have any questions and feel free to forward this note to your constituencies, stakeholder groups, advisory committees, etc. Sincerely, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman Subsequent Procedures PDP Co-Chairs

5 7

Fwd: Root Zone Scaling Myths
by Rubens Kuhl June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

> Just to answer a question from James Bladel during the part of the GNSO Working Session I couldn't attend due to conflicting schedule, it was determined at 2009 that the root server system could handle with the then in-use software codebase 100,000 TLDs without performance impacts. Even at that point, one of the DNS software codebases in use by root servers could go up to a million TLDs. Since then, DNS software has greatly improved, memory sizes are now much bigger, computers are much faster; there are TLD zone architectures that current handle 4 million entries and could easily scale up to 10 million without any significant architectural change, so the same evaluation done today would likely give 1 million with not that optimised software or 10+ million, all with open-source, readily-available solutions. I've recently sent to one the Subsequent Procedures work tracks an e-mail describing some "archeology" on this theme, please see below. Rubens > > From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Root Zone Scaling Myths > Date: June 18, 2017 at 4:40:49 AM GMT+2 > To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org > > > While most current root zone scaling information is available in the CDAR report (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cdar-root-stability-final-08mar… <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cdar-root-stability-final-08mar…>), I did some research regarding root zone scaling, and found that the most comprehensive source to understand is this ICANN report of 2012: > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/root-scaling-27… <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/root-scaling-27…> > > Besides all its interesting content, they compiled a list of previous root zone scaling studies that I reproduce here, changing only the link style and updating the links to their current publishing points: > > > > > "Appendix A — Previous Studies and Analyses > > A number of studies and analyses have been compiled on the topic of scaling of the DNS Root Zone in the last three years: > > • Root Zone Augmentation and Impact Analysis(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/root-zone-augementatio… — This study, also known as the “L-Root Study,” examined the impacts of multifaceted growth of the size of the Root Zone on the performance of “l.root-servers.net,” the root server that is managed by ICANN. This analysis considered the implications of IPv6 addresses, DNSSEC, as well as new TLDs in a laboratory simulation. The work was conducted by the independent DNS Operations and Research Center (DNS-OARC). This study was published in September 2009, and its conclusions include that root zone servers’ requirements for memory grow linearly with the number of top-level domains, that the then-deployed software was capable of handling at least 100,000 top-level domains before there was potential degradation in response times. Other software in use had higher thresholds (i.e. over a million TLDs) before the size of the root zone became a factor. > > • Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System of Increasing the Size and Volatility of the Root Zone(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/root-scaling-study-report-… — This report was developed by a specially convened “Root Server Scaling Team” (RSST), comprised of experts from the RSSAC, SSAC as well as experts from outside the ICANN community. > > • Summary of the Impact of Root Zone Scaling(https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-of-impact-roo… — An analysis of issues relating to the impact of Root Zone Scaling was prepared by ICANN and published the document in October 2010. This document considers the findings of the DNS-OARC and RSST reports, and the various root scaling events to date. It identifies the impacts from IPv6 deployment, TLD growth, DNSSEC deployment and other factors, and concludes the maximum growth to the Root Zone caused by the New gTLD Program is unlikely to cause any disruption. > > • Report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on Root Scaling(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-046-en.pdf) — ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee reviewed the original research questions relating to Root Zone Scaling, and provided recommendations relating to processes to handle the increase in the number of top-level domains. > > • Explanatory memorandum on Root Zone Scaling(https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/root-zone-scaling-15a… — As part of a number of briefing papers associated with the New gTLD Program following dialogue between the ICANN Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN published a memorandum concerning Root Scaling in April 2011. > > • Board response to the GAC on Root Zone Scaling(https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/root-scaling-30may11-… — ICANN published an additional response to the issues raised on dialogue between the ICANN Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee, by providing further detail on how ICANN undertakes to address the ICANN community’s and the GAC’s concerns regarding root scaling. This response was published in May 2011." > > > > Besides those documents, the other interesting documents on this are: > Anticipated delegation rate model: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/anticipated-delegation-rate-model-… > 2010 RSSAC e-mail to Board regarding scaling: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/murai-to-board-25nov10-en.pdf > SAC 042 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-042-en.pdf) (later superseded by SAC 046) > > In short, the anticipated delegation rate model estimated the maximum *evaluation* throughput to be near a 1000 per year, and other ACs responded that it wouldn't be a problem to be delegated. They have not said that the system had a 1000/year limit, a myth that started only when the number of applications (near 2000) exceeded the high estimate of applications (a thousand), that discussion went stray and landed at that being a limit. > > Since those studies, processing power, memory sizes, DNS software design and available bandwidth all greatly increased, so even figures that were determined at that point (like the 100,000 TLDs root zone size) are outdated, although still limited by latency of the global Internet (which is mainly determined by the speed of light in optical fiber). The root zone now features DNSSEC and IPv6 to most TLDs, so something that was an unknown at that time is now a baseline, the root zone management system has been completely rewritten, and root server monitoring instrumentation greatly improved (see RSSAC 002, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-002-measurements-root-06j…) > > But, we didn't get an RSSAC response to our CC2 question on the CDAR report, nor they mentioned this in their comments to the CDAR report which were mostly clarifying questions. I believe we could ask them to clarify that and clear the fog in this topic. > > > Rubens > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

2 2

FW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Responses to questions raised at the 2017 GDD Summit
by Steve Chan June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Councilors, FYI, Jeff Neuman mentioned an email sent by Trang Nguyen that offered response to questions received at the GDD Summit related to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Please see below. Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Responses to questions raised at the 2017 GDD Summit All, At the recent 2017 GDD Summit in Madrid, Spain, the following questions relating to subsequent procedures for new gTLDs were raised: Jeff Neuman (Valideus, co-chair of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG): There are areas we can start working without going through the PDP. On more controversial issues, working toward making proposals. Starting with the geographic names issue, which is a big issue for governments. This will be a discussion item at ICANN 59. Akram, what are your top 10 issues that need to be resolved before we can take the next step? Are there gating items you can list? Donna Austin (Neustar): If we can have some more communication from ICANN Org on how much lead time you need to prepare, and the order of things you need would be helpful. CCT Review team is almost finished. What is the next step in the process? The CDAR report – what happens with that now? Does the Board have to consider it? Does it go to a PDP? Some of these steps are unclear. We thank you for these questions and provide the following responses for your review and to help inform the ongoing work of the WG. As expressed on one of the previous WG’s calls, one of the biggest items that impact ICANN organization’s ability to begin implementation preparation and operational readiness is whether new gTLD applications would be received and processed in rounds, or on a first-come-first-serve basis. Another item currently under discussion in the WG that ICANN organization is not planning to begin implementation preparation and operational readiness on until the WG decides on a path forward is whether there would be some kind of pre-qualification for RSPs or grandfathering of current RSPs. Regarding lead time to prepare, there is preparation work that ICANN organization can begin doing while PDP discussions are taking place. The extent of such preparation work is largely dependent on the two items discussed above. We would welcome further discussions with the WG on this. For example, there were suggestions at ICANN58 that ICANN organization begin drafting the AGB. Further discussion as to what point in the WG’s discussion would it be appropriate for ICANN organization to begin drafting, and how ICANN organization is expected to interact with the WG while drafting the AGB would be helpful. Regarding the CCT reviews, the final recommendations of the review team will be considered by the Board and implemented by ICANN organization if approved. The CCT review team’s project plan anticipates publication of its final recommendations prior to ICANN60. Regarding the CDAR report that was published in March 2017, the next step for the report will be Board consideration. We hope this answer the questions raised and welcome further discussions with the WG on these topics. Regards, Trang

1 0

AC room for the GNSO Working Session today
by Nathalie Peregrine June 26, 2017

June 26, 2017

Dear all, This is the AC room for today’ session: https://participate.icann.org/jnb59-committeeroom4 Kind regards Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Fwd: [Ext] Re: CCWG-UCTN Final Paper - Communication to ccNSO and GNSO Council Chairs
by Heather Forrest June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Dear James, Council colleagues, In advance of our discussions this week, please find attached a letter from the co-chairs of the CWG-UCTN (CWG Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs) updating the GNSO and ccNSO Councils (as Chartering Orgs of the CWG) as to progress and the recommendations of the group's final report. Carlos and I will be very happy to answer any questions at this agenda item in our meeting on Wednesday. Best wishes, Heather

1 0

Registration for the meeting
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

All I suspect quite a few of us didn’t see this announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-19-en Short version: Login to https://registration.icann.org/ and you’ll be asked to validate your email address. It takes less than 30 seconds Once you’ve done that you won’t need to do anything else and you’ll be able to pick up your badge without any issues Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845

3 2