Thanks Marika. The Council should make it a priority to ensure that its recommendations are timely implemented. Yet this report, with fairly noncontroversial recommendations to assist with the massive amount of cybercrime that is constantly growing, seems to have sat around for an entire year with no action. It deserves to be a priority now, so lets take volunteers for a drafting team, and get to work?! Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:27 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Agenda 8 September 2010 at 15:00 UTC Mike, the Council adopted the motion below in September of last year which called for the formation of a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010. At the time Chuck suggested to wait for sending out the call for volunteers to await the outcome of the prioritization exercise in light of the workload. And thats where we still are, awaiting Council action. Marika Fast Flux Hosting Motion Proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tim Ruiz Whereas: On 30 May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and chartered a Working Group, comprised of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, in collaboration with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use fast flux hosting; Whereas the Working Group was asked to consider ten questions, specifically: * Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? * Who would benefit from the cessation of the practice, and who would be harmed? * Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? * Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? * How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? * How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? * What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry / registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux? * What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation? * What are some of the best practices with regard to protection from fast flux? * Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making; Whereas the Working Group has faithfully executed the PDP, as stated in the By-laws, resulting in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 13 Aug 2009; Whereas the Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy; Whereas the Working Group has developed and broadly supports several recommendations, and outlined possible next steps; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations and the Final Report; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: * To extend our sincere thanks to the Working Group members, to the Chair James Bladel, to the Council Liaison Mike Rodenbaugh, and to two members of the ICANN Policy Staff, Marika Konings and Glen de Saint Géry, for their efforts in bringing this Working Group to a successful conclusion; * To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux; and * The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux; and * To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions; and * To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a best practices facilitator" within the community; and * To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts; and * To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report. * To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010. On 08/09/10 18:53, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> wrote: Thanks for the new Pending Project List, it is very useful. I have a question about the Fast Flux item. As the document notes, the PDP is done and a Final Report was issued and approved by Council. So why does it seem to be back for Council to form a team to consider the recommendations? Shouldnt the Staff form a team to implement the recommendations? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:23 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council Agenda 8 September 2010 at 15:00 UTC Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, 8 September, at 15:00 UTC please find the updated agenda. The motions before Council are on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_september_motions Please note there will be no audio cast due to technical difficulties. Two Items have been added under Any Other Business Item 9: Other Business (5 Minutes) 9.1 Thanks to Staff for the revised format of the Pending GNSO Projects List; see the link at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 9.2 Charter Correction for JAS WG (SO/AC gTLD Applicant Support) Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 8 September 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-08sep10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_8_september_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EST; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow, 20:00 Karachi, 23:00 Hong Kong, 00:00 Thursday, 9 September 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Partys judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the proecedures: Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue. The main issues for this meeting are: o GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs o Whois studies o Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: 26 August 2010 meeting Scheduled for Approval on 16 September 2010. Item 2: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) 2.1 Refer to: GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 2.2 SG primary & alternate endorsements: CSG NCSG RrSG RySG SSR Primary Jeff Brueggeman David Cake (Australia) Rick Wilhelm Ken Silva SSR Alternate(s) George Asare Sakyi Whois Primary Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman Whois Alternate(s) 2.3 Summary of Geographic & Gender Diversity for SG Primary Endorsements: SSR RT Whois RT # from Africa 0 0 # from Asia/Pacific 1 0 # from Europe 0 1 # from Latin America & Caribbean 0 0 # from North America 3 3 # Male 4 2 # Female 0 2 2.4 Possible Candidates to Improve Diversity: SSR RT Whois RT Africa George Asare Sakyi None Asia/Pacific N/A None Europe None N/A Latin America & Caribbean None None North America N/A N/A Number Male N/A N/A Number Female None N/A Note the ccNSO endorsements: SSR RT: Ondrej Filip from Europe, Rodney Joffe from North America and Simon McCalla from Europe (for two seats) Whois RT: Emily Taylor from Europe (for one seat) 2.5 Should the GNSO add one or two candidates to improve diversity of either RT slate? Motion to approve the GNSO SSR RT slate including adding George Asare Sakyi https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions Discussion Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) Note: GNSO endorsement slate is due to Selectors not later than 12 September 2010. Item 3: Whois Studies (15 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 July: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report- 23jun10-en.pdf 3.2 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions Discussion Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) Item 4: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (15 Minutes) 4.1 Refer to Revised Initial Report from the WG http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-report- 18aug10-en.pdf 4.2 Deadline for submission of report to the Board for their retreat: 13 September 2010. 4.3 Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions Discussion Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) Item 5: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings (15 minutes) 5.1 Proposed recommendations (Wendy Seltzer) 5.2 Discussion Note: Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September 5.3 Next steps? Item 6: Suggestions for GNSO Council Interaction with the Board (15 Minutes) 6.1 Proposed recommendations (Stéphane Van Gelder) The Sunday dinner is a good socializing event. Another session with the Board should be held during the ICANN meeting week. - This should be scheduled before the Sunday dinner, perhaps as a 1-hour session on Sunday at 4pm. - The dinner should happen off-site, but somewhere close to the venue, at 6pm, on the first Sunday of the ICANN meeting week. - A structured agenda is required to make the 4 pm session work, and to ensure broad attendance. This should be worked on by the GNSO Council through advance planning and liaising with the relevant entities. Unless anyone objects, this group should be disbanded after our Sept 8 meeting and Glen may close the group's email list. 6.2 Discussion Note: Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September 6.3 Next steps? Item 7: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG (20 minutes) 7.1 Refer to motion to approve Rec6 CWG ToR: (insert link) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8 September Motions Discussion Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) 7.2 Brief progress report including possible recommendations (Margie Milam) 7.3 Discussion of possible recommendations 7.4 Preliminary GNSO Council comments? Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) 8.1 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan (Marika Konings) 8.2 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 8.3 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) * Volunteers to date:Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG) * Should we involve the OSC and PPSC chairs? * Next steps? Charter? 8.4 Prioritization of GNSO Projects (Chuck Gomes) Item 9: Other Business (5 Minutes) 9.1 Thanks to Staff for the revised format of the Pending GNSO Projects List; see the link at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf on page http://gnso.icann.org/ 9.2 Charter Correction for JAS WG (SO/AC gTLD Applicant Support) The GNSO Council voted for the motion "20100520-3" which includes links redirected to the version of the Working Group Charter containing only 4 objectives (in GNSO page http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm) while the correct version of the charter contains 5 objectives (see Wiki: https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi?so_ac_new_gtld_applicant_su pport_working_group) and the GNSO website link: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/draft-jas-charter-24may10-en.pdf The missing objective, number 5 which is on the Wiki page and on the website: Objective 5: To identify conditions and mechanisms required to minimize the risk of inappropriate access to support. is not in the Council Resolutions link http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201005 Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (GNSO Supermajority); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that a two-thirds vote of the council demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org