June 2010 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

ENC: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 10 June 2010
by Jaime Plug In June 12, 2010

June 12, 2010

Tony and all, We approved the motion to send the letter provided a 21 day public comment period is observed. During the meeting I asked Kurt two questions: 1) Would an extra fee be necessary for an extended evaluation period? Answer: the US$85000 fee would cover it. Indeed in this case there would be two fees involved. 2) The current evaluation process of visual confusion being to some extent subjective would not already consider detrimental confusion? Answer: the process is subjective but he could not ascertain that independent evaluators would consider detrimental confusion. Regards Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br Cel (51) 8126-0916 Fax (51) 3123-1708 De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Glen de Saint Géry Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de junho de 2010 03:15 Para: Council GNSO Assunto: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 10 June 2010 Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was passed during the Council meeting on Thursday, 10 June 2010. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2 & 10 June) Made by: Edmon Chung Seconded by: Rafik Dammak Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html) WHEREAS: · The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; · The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; · The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; · The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; RESOLVED: · A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". · ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. · The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters. PROPOSED LETTER: To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on ³String Similarity - Extended Review² that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be appropriate for applicants to request Extended Review for a string which has been denied further processing based on a finding of confusing similarity in the Initial Evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application that may result in a finding of no detrimental confusion notwithstanding the Initial Evaluation. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: · The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that, although similar to an existing or applied for string, is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation, but not result in the detrimental user confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. · A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation even though the delegation of both would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. The motion passed with a majority of the Contracted Parties House and unanimously in the Non Contracted Parties House by roll call vote. Contracted Parties House : 5 votes in favour 2 Councillors absent, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Parties House: 13 votes in favour Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

call
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Colleagues, Just an update of today's GNSO council agenda (major items). I hope we can get through during our call the next hour. My deadline is 16:30 UTC due to another appointment. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work Item 3: GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process <<gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf>> MOTION TO APPROVE AOC ENDORSMENT PROCESS: Made by: Bill Drake Seconded by: Caroline Greer Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on the each of the AOC review teams; Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-proce ss-01jun10-en.pdf; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the "WHOIS Policy" and the "Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS" Review Teams; and RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the "WHOIS Policy" and "Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS" review teams. Discussion of AoC Selectors proposed composition of the SSR & Whois Review Teams SSR WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent Expert 1 - 2 2 (law enforcement / privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13 - 14 10 Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names) Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2) Made by: Edmon Chung Seconded by: Rafik Dammak Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html) WHEREAS: * The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; * The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; * The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; * The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; RESOLVED: * A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". * ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. * The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. PROPOSED LETTER: To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on "String Similarity - Extended Review" that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: * The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. * A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. Item 5: AGP Policy questions * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly? For example: * Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? * If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? Item 6: Whois Studies <<Whois studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf>> <<whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf>> Item 7: GNSO Improvements OSC Recommendations from the CCT COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Olga Cavalli WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations; WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html has been prepared; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pd f of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on implementation. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT's specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/ and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the implementation phase; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby discharges the CCT and expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the team's dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. Item 8: Other Business 8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings 8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO * Refer to email message from Chris Disspain forwarded by Chuck on 9 June: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html * Any objections to asking for volunteers to draft a possible charter? * Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors)

2 1

WG: [council] FW: Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report -- additional redline version attached to highlight changes from initial report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 8, 2010

June 8, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2010 21:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] FW: Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report -- additional redline version attached to highlight changes from initial report All, Attached please find a redline version of the draft final WHOIS Service Requirements Report which highlights the changes made from the Initial Report of 26 March. As described further in the text, the changes were primarily made as a result of input we received from members of the SO/AC community. Again, this is a "draft final" report which we will be discussing in Brussels. Please let Steve Sheng or me know if you think further changes should be made. Thanks to Chuck for suggesting that a redline would be useful. I wish I'd thought of it! J Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:43 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review All, Attached please find a "draft" Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report for your review and discussion. This report includes input we received while soliciting the views of the SOs and ACs. We decided to leave the report as a draft to provide the opportunity for further input in Brussels. Dave Piscitello (and Steve Sheng remotely) will be facilitating a public consultation on the report, tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning at 9:30 Brussels local time. We will finalize the report shortly thereafter. Best regards, Liz

1 0

WG: [council] REMINDER:Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2010 12:43 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] REMINDER:Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing REMINDER: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27may10-en.htm Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing Meeting Details and How to Participate 27 May 2010 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming Brussels meeting remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday at 9 June at 13.00 and 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: .GNSO Vertical Integration Policy Development Process .GNSO Improvements .GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process .GNSO WHOIS Studies .ccNSO IDN PDP .ccNSO Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group .ASO Global policy for handling IPv4 address space The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 13.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 5, 2010

June 5, 2010

All, see attached the "selectors'" proposal on the next AoC RT size. My opinion is that we should oppose and keep the present GNSO position (4 seats). Budget limitation is really not an argument on such high level. On the other hand I would appreciate Olivier commenting on his experience regarding the size of the Accountability RT and its managing. Does this look inefficient? Tony Holmes, do you have a chance to share views with the ExComm? In addition I would welcome any comment on the RT evaluation process I've provided to you last week in order to brief Jaime and myself for the coming council meeting June 10. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 20:45 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs. Please provide any comments you have on this list. Time permitting, we will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June. Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Dear colleagues On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and composition of the two next review teams would be as follows: Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 10 I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process, budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors' view is not credible option. I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I would appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public. Best regards JK

1 0

RE: ISPCP letter to Rod Beckstrom on Security & Stability
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Now with attachment From: Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: 04 June 2010 10:13 To: ispcp(a)icann.org; 'MAEMURA Akinori' Subject: ISPCP letter to Rod Beckstrom on Security & Stability All Attached is the letter that was sent to Rod Beckstrom in response to his request for input on security & stability. Regards Tony

2 1

ISPCP letter to Rod Beckstrom on Security & Stability
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

All Attached is the letter that was sent to Rod Beckstrom in response to his request for input on security & stability. Regards Tony

1 0

WG: [council] AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Craig Schwartz Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. Juni 2010 16:29 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report Dear Councilors, Please find attached the third AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report. This report provides a status update on the implementation of the Policy since it was announced to the community on 17 December 2008. ICANN looks forward to providing an update to the Council at its meeting on 10 June 2010, and answering any questions councilors may have about this information. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

1 0

WG: [council] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Initial Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings Gesendet: Montag, 31. Mai 2010 10:02 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Initial Report Dear All, For your information, please find attached the Post-Expiration Domain name Recovery PDP Initial Report. In addition to an update to the GNSO Council on Saturday 19 June, the PEDNR WG will be organizing an information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels (details to be confirmed). A public comment forum will be opened following the meeting in Brussels. With best regards, Marika

1 0

WG: [council] Registration Abuse Policies Final Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Mai 2010 13:57 An: Council GNSO Cc: Greg Aaron Betreff: [council] Registration Abuse Policies Final Report Dear All, On behalf of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, I hereby submit its Final Report for your consideration. With best regards, Marika

1 0