April 2012 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: Council resolutions 12 April 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. April 2012 18:04 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Council resolutions 12 April 2012 Dear All, The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting today, 12 April 2012. A recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1) Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on 'thick' Whois is still required. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012. Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1) Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are available to deal with this. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012. Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific applicants; Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level, if any; Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program; And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. Now therefore be it resolved, The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level. 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: ISPCP Conference call
by tony holmes April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

Please note; There will be no call today. The next call is now confirmed for Tuesday 24th April at 14.00 UTC. Dial in details will be circulated shortly. Tony From: tony holmes [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: 11 April 2012 11:06 To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: ISPCP Conference call Dear ISPCP members I would like to propose the ISPCP conference call scheduled for tomorrow is rescheduled for Tuesday 24th April at 14.00 UTC. Please let me know ASAP if this is not acceptable. Thank You Tony

1 0

ISPCP Conference call
by tony holmes April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Dear ISPCP members I would like to propose the ISPCP conference call scheduled for tomorrow is rescheduled for Tuesday 24th April at 14.00 UTC. Please let me know ASAP if this is not acceptable. Thank You Tony

2 1

Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Conference call
by Novoa, Osvaldo April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Tony, I received an error message in my previous answer to this message. I agree with the date change proposal. Best regards, Osvaldo Osvaldo Novoa SubGerente General Comercial ANTEL ________________________________ De: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org> Para: ispcp(a)icann.org <ispcp(a)icann.org> Enviado: Wed Apr 11 07:05:51 2012 Asunto: [ispcp] ISPCP Conference call Dear ISPCP members I would like to propose the ISPCP conference call scheduled for tomorrow is rescheduled for Tuesday 24th April at 14.00 UTC. Please let me know ASAP if this is not acceptable. Thank You Tony ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

WG: Globalization Survey Reminder
by KnobenW＠telekom.de April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

In case you didn't yet find time to participate in the survey - here's another chance Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Kurt Pritz Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. April 2012 20:56 An: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: David Olive; Robert Hoggarth; Jamie Hedlund Betreff: [soac-discussion] Globalization Survey Reminder Dear ICANN Leader: Thank you for communicating the availability of the ICANN Globalization Survey to your community earlier this month. We are getting a fairly good general response from community members. In our experience, reminder notes can improve survey responses; so will you please send out a reminder and encourage all members of your community to review and complete the survey document? Responses will be carefully considered and will impact ICANN's planning efforts going forward. Now is an excellent time to play a role in that planning process. Thus far, nearly 500 community members have viewed or started the survey, and approximately 100 (representing all six UN languages and all five ICANN regions) have completed the document. Some respondents have advised us thatthey'd like to see the full survey before going to the link so that they can prepare their answers ahead of time. I am attaching a Word Format document of the survey in English that you can forward. The on-line survey is available in all six UN languages. The survey link at http://questionpro.com/t/AHB7OZM7Lx will remain open through 22 April 2012. Any personal encouragement you can offer to increase survey completion would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for helping promote this effort. We hope that many more members of your community will participate. Call me if I can help. Best regards, Kurt Pritz

1 0

Council meeting
by KnobenW＠telekom.de April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

All: Attached are the agenda and the motions for tomorrow's council meeting. Please feel free to comment. BTW, I've still a placeholder on my calendar for an ISPCP call tomorrow. Is that still valid? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0