August 2012 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Meting Invitation/ ISPCP Call / 10 September 2012 at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber Aug. 11, 2013

Aug. 11, 2013

Dear All, Please note that the next ISPCP call is scheduled on Monday 10 September 2012 at 1400 UTC. To check your local time: http://tinyurl.com/8b9yr7a Please find the dial-in details below: Participant Passcode: Participant: 3429 # Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella ----------------- Gisella Gruber GNSO Secretariat Staff Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org<mailto:gisella.gruber@icann.org> Tel: +44 7545 334 360 Skype ID: gisella.gw

7 24

Re: [ispcp] RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach
by MAEMURA Akinori Aug. 29, 2012

Aug. 29, 2012

Thank you Alain! I will develop slides aligning with my thought and will share with you all for further development. Akinori In message <4992_1344410910_5022151E_4992_86_1_7358953E06B3044F81495D7AE8F6F6B76EB588B1F0(a)PMEXCB1A.intranet-paris.francetelecom.fr> "RE: [ispcp] RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach" "<alain.bidron(a)orange.com>" wrote: | I am volunteering to help you Akinori. | Regards | | | | | | | Alain Bidron | FT/OLNC/NAD/EAS/NAN | | Head of Naming Addressing Numbering Unit | | tel. + 33 1 57 36 17 24 | | mob. + 33 6 87 65 90 94 | alain.bidron(a)orange.com | | | -----Message d'origine----- | De : owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] De la part de MAEMURA Akinori | Envoy$B!&(B: mercredi 8 ao$B{9(B 2012 03:26 | $B%?(B : mike(a)haven2.com; ispcp(a)icann.org | Objet : Re: [ispcp] RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | | Oups, votre interlocuteur continue de vous ecrire a votre ancienne adresse email : @orange-ftgroup.com. Veuillez lui demander de mettre a jour son carnet d'adresses. Vous pouvez le faire en utilisant ce <a href="http://pratique.itn.ftgroup/FR/produitsetservices/messagerie/boitesperso/Do…">modele</a> d'email. Merci | | | Oops, your contact is still using your old email address @orange-ftgroup.com. Please could you tell them to update their address book details for you? | You can use this email <a href="http://pratique.itn.ftgroup/FR/produitsetservices/messagerie/boitesperso/Do…">template</a> if you like. Thanks | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | | | | Thank you very much everyone for your support on this idea. | | I have the reach to the CEO and/or Comms Director of every RIR, then I think can do the "air cover", or even all coordination to have a timeslot in every RIR. | | Let me start with APNIC and then apply it to the other RIRs. | | Then we need to develop a slide. I have my own idea for the content which the RIR community people should want, but definitely need someone else with a firm ISPCP position to complete it. | | | Best, | Akinori | | | | | | | | | In message <AAF87A91-238E-4F74-A25B-0FDD8DC755E7(a)haven2.com> | "Re: [ispcp] RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach" | ""Mike O'Connor" <mike(a)haven2.com>" wrote: | | | | | i agree. | | | | any ideas on how to get on their agenda? i know people at ARIN, but it would be helpful to have some official air cover before i approached them. | | | | mikey | | | | | | On Aug 7, 2012, at 10:39 AM, "Anthony Harris" <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> wrote: | | | | > | | > This is a truly excellent idea! | | > | | > I can do the LACNIC meeting. | | > | | > We could ask South Africa ISPA to | | > help with Khartoum, perhaps. | | > | | > Best | | > | | > Tony Harris | | > | | > ----- Original Message ----- From: "MAEMURA Akinori" | | > <maem(a)nic.ad.jp> | | > To: <ispcp(a)icann.org> | | > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:42 AM | | > Subject: [ispcp] RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach | | > | | > | | >> | | >> Dear Colleagues, | | >> | | >> I will write the idea I mentioned yesterday's call for the clarity. | | >> | | >> I suggested to use RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach. | | >> | | >> In terms of targeting, they have the perfect match. | | >> RIRs' members are ISPs or carriers who obtain IP numbers from RIRs. | | >> | | >> In terms of logistics, a timeslot for the presentation is easy to obtain. | | >> RIR meetings usually have a session containing the reports from other RIRs, NRO and IANA. I don't find any big difficulty to have a 10 minutes slot for us to introducing ISPCP, while it is subject to the RIR's desicion. | | >> | | >> I had a brief chat with APNIC people and had a positive response. If we agree, I will try APNIC to let us have it in the forthcoming meeting APNIC34 at Phnom Penh, in the last week of August. | | >> | | >> fyi, the forthcoming RIR meetings are: | | >> | | >> Aug 27-31: APNIC34 @ Phnom Penh | | >> Sept 24-28: RIPE65 @ Amsterdam | | >> Oct 24-26: ARIN30 @ Dallas | | >> Oct 29 - Nov 2: LACNIC18 @ Montevideo Nov 26-30: AfriNIC17 @ | | >> Khartoum, North Sudan | | >> | | >> | | >> I have been long involved in the RIR arena for more than a decade and I suppose there are not many people who will get interested in gTLD policies and will have problems to understand GNSO process and what happens in ICANN arena. | | >> However RIR community apparently meet the criteria to participate in ISPCP, thus the very place for ISPCP to do some outreach activities. | | >> | | >> If ICANN needs to have more people with the ISPs' stake, it will be good way to go. | | >> | | >> | | >> With those said, I might have missed some points which might have already been dicussed here before. Let me know if you find any. | | >> | | >> | | >> Thank you, | | >> Akinori | | >> | | >> ----- | | >> MAEMURA Akinori General Manager, Internet Development Dept. | | >> maem(a)nic.ad.jp JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center | | > | | | | - - - - - - - - - | | phone 651-647-6109 | | fax 866-280-2356 | | web http://www.haven2.com | | handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) | | | | | | | | _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc | pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler | a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, | France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. | | This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; | they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. | If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. | As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. | Thank you. |

3 5

WG: DOODLE / First meeting of the Thick WHOIS PDP Working Group
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Aug. 24, 2012

Aug. 24, 2012

WHOIS on this WG from the ISPCP? (Thin) Mikey? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gisella Gruber Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. August 2012 16:19 An: Gnso-thickwhois-dt(a)icann.org Betreff: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] DOODLE / First meeting of the Thick WHOIS PDP Working Group Dear All, Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule a call for the first meeting of the Thick WHOIS PDP Working Group. http://doodle.com/fp3fadqkbvyimuqt This Doodle poll will close on Friday 24 August 2012 at 1500 UTC. The date and time will be announced shortly thereafter. Thank you! Kind regards, Gisella ----------------- Gisella Gruber GNSO Secretariat Staff Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org Tel: +44 7545 334 360 Skype ID: gisella.gw

2 1

WG: Whois Review Team Final Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

All, I'd like to share some discussion going on within the council. I was supporting the IPC draft letter to the board, in particular re Rec #10. It would be great to get some feedback from your side in order to get stuffed for the next council call where we may discuss the draft letter. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. August 2012 18:32 An: Stéphane Van Gelder; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com; wendy(a)seltzer.com; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; glen(a)icann.org Betreff: RE: Whois Review Team Final Report All, Brian - Thanks for getting this first draft done. Please find enclosed some comments to the current draft which reflect the views of the registries (and not necessarily a personal view). a. Recommendation #2: With respect to Recommendation #2 (a single policy doc), the registries believe that if this is just creating a document that summarizes all relevant WHOIS policies, we agree no PDP is required. If this means the creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required. b. Recommendation #4: Questioning the recommendation of having the head of compliance report to a Board Committee. That is moving the Board into a management functions, which is not only very odd, but completely inefficient. If the WHOIS RT does not trust management to be able to do their job, then that should be in their recommendations (i.e., get better management). But having a board committee oversee employees is unprecedented (given it is a volunteer board) and would cause incredible delays. c. Recommendation #6: We believe the recommendation for ICANN taking "appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure) may require a PDP depending on what these measures are. d. Recommendation #10 The Registries strongly believe that it is ONLY through the PDP process that ICANN can initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy serve providers. This is opposite to Brian's draft #10. So, we believe all of Recommendation 10 does in fact need a PDP without any time constraints as Brian's draft indicates. e. With respect to Recommendation 12, that work is already underway, so rather than wording it the way it is below, we can state our agreement and that work is already underway to achieve this. So it seems like the biggest issue with be with Recommendation 10, which is where I believe the Commercial Stake Holder Group and the Contracted Parties differ significantly. If that is the case, it may not be possible to comment on that recommendation as a Council or to just put in the view points from the different parties. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:29 AM To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de Cc: bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com; wendy(a)seltzer.com; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; Neuman, Jeff; Glen(a)icann.org Subject: Re: Whois Review Team Final Report Thanks to Brian and all who have worked on this. Brian, can you please forward the latest version of the draft to the full Council list so that we can then be in a position to approve by the August 31st deadline? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 21 août 2012 à 21:19, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> a écrit : >From my side: support. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marano, Phillip [mailto:Pmarano@steptoe.com] Im Auftrag von Winterfeldt, Brian Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2012 21:15 An: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: wendy(a)seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>; rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Betreff: RE: Whois Review Team Final Report Dear all: As promised, here is an initial suggested written response providing input to the ICANN Board on the WHOIS RT Final Report. Apologies for the delay. We attempted to pinpoint, and also provide clarity on, those recommendations involving a level of ambiguity with regard to whether a GNSO policy development process is necessary. We look forward to your input, and any suggested amendments toward achieving consensus on the style or substance of this letter. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe TO: ICANN Board FROM: Chair of the GNSO Council VIA: GNSO Liaison to the ICANN Board I hereby forward to you the written public input of the GNSO Council on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report pursuant to your resolution (2012.06.23.26) from the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, requesting that the GNSO provide such input by 31 August 2012. As you are aware, the WHOIS Review Team's scope, guided by the Affirmation of Commitments, was to review the extent to which ICANN's WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective, meet legitimate needs of law enforcement and promote consumer trust. To this end, the Final Report, which issued on 11 May 2012, contained sixteen recommendations. During its meeting on 20 July 2012, the GNSO Council considered the substance of the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, as well as how to respond to the Board's request. The GNSO Council recognizes, given the hard work and public input already incorporated into the Final Report, that there is a reasonable expectation by the Review Team for its recommendations be implemented as soon as practicable. However, the GNSO Council also recognizes that a small number of the Review Team's recommendations may require future GNSO policy development. Accordingly, the written input this letter is intended to clarify potential ambiguity and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties. 2. Single WHOIS Policy. The Review Team's second recommendation calls for the Board to oversee creation of a single WHOIS policy document, and reference it in agreements with Contracted Parties, as well as clearly document the current gTLD WHOIS policy as set out in the gTLD Registry & Registrar contracts & Consensus Policies and Procedure. The GNSO Council notes that this recommendation carefully avoids the phrase "policy development." It asks for documentation of the existing policy set forth in the contracts and consensus policies. It does not ask for the GNSO council to review or develop any policies. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation for further GNSO policy development. 3. Outreach. The Review Team's third recommendation calls for ICANN to ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. The GNSO Council views this recommendation as a modifier, or supplement, to a number of other recommendations in the Final Report. Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation necessitating GNSO policy development. 10. Data Access - Privacy and Proxy Services. The Review Team's tenth recommendation essentially calls for ICANN to initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers; processes should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders and note relevant GNSO studies; a possible approach to achieving this would be to establish an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers, and consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction between privacy and proxy services; goal is to provide clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests-including privacy, data protection, law enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights community. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this recommendation can be read to describe a GNSO policy development process. However, in recognition of the contemporaneous negotiation of the RAA, the GNSO Council recommends that-notwithstanding any GNSO policy development process on this recommendation-ICANN retain its authority to unilaterally impose regulation of privacy and proxy services pursuant to the RAA in the event that no consensus policy has been reached in a reasonably time frame, such as twelve months from 31 August 2012. 12. Internationalized Domain Names. The Review Team's twelfth recommendation calls for ICANN to task a working group within six months of publication of their report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions; at a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD space; the working group should report within a year. To dispel any potential confusion, the GNSO Council wishes to clarify that this recommendation does not establish a GNSO policy development process. It establishes a technical development process that is already underway. The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input. Stéphane Van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council From: Marano, Phillip On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:54 AM To: stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: wendy(a)seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>; rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>; KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>;Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: Whois Review Team Final Report Dear Stéphane: Thank you for the reminder. I hope to have an initial draft to Wendy, Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and Jeff by the end of the week for comments and input before circulation to the entire Council. I hope that time frame is acceptable. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Date: August 7, 2012 3:53:14 PM EDT To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Whois Review Team Final Report Brian, This email is just a reminder of the following action item we have from our previous meeting and which must be concluded by August 31: The GNSO Council should provide a written response to the ICANN Board by 31 August 2012. An initial draft of the letter should be sent to the Council mailing list for further discussion before the letter is approved and sent to the Board. Brian Winterfeldt, as the lead assisted by Wendy Seltzer and Thomas Rickert, volunteered to draft the initial response which will be sent to the Council mailing list for comments. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

WG: Topics for Toronto Session
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

FYI. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Metalitz, Steven Gesendet: Freitag, 17. August 2012 20:34 An: 'David Olive'; soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: 'Margie Milam'; Nick Tomasso; sebastien.bachollet(a)icann.org; Kurt Pritz (kurt.pritz(a)icann.org) Tanzanica S. King Betreff: Re: [Soac-infoalert] Topics for Toronto Session David, Thank you for circulating this document, which I have passed along to members of my constituency. I have two comments to offer on it. First, I was surprised not to see revision of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement on this list. Does this mean that ICANN is not planning to have a "cross-community session" on this topic in Toronto? Second, I note that the target date listed for many of the "facilitative documents" is September 24. I certainly encourage ICANN to comply with its own Document Publication Operational Policy by making all substantive documents for discussion in Toronto available by that date. However, I also encourage ICANN to strive to disseminate at least some of these documents substantially earlier than September 24. As I recall, a very large number of lengthy ICANN documents were released almost simultaneously three weeks prior to the Prague meeting. This was not optimal for encouraging widespread participation by members of my constituency. Just to be clear, release on September 24 is much better than release later; but a more gradual release culminating on September 24 would be best of all. Steve Metalitz, IPC president From: soac-infoalert-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:05 AM To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Cc: Nick Tomasso; Tanzanica S. King Subject: [Soac-infoalert] FW: Topics for Toronto Session MESSAGE FROM TANZANICA KING From: "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:08 PM To: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Cc: Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org<mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org>> Subject: Topics for Toronto Session Dear David, Please find attached a preliminary list of topics for cross-community session blocks in Toronto. This list has already been posted on the Toronto meeting website (Draft 45th ICANN Meeting (Toronto) Topic Sessions & Facilitative Documents Schedule<http://toronto45.icann.org/sched-overview#docsched>) and shared with the Board's Public Participation Committee (PPC) and ICANN staff last week. Would you please share this information with the SO/AC Chairs for their comments/feedback? Thanks, Tanzanica S. King Information and Design Manager, Meetings ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 +1 310 301 5800 (office) +1 310 995 3038 (mobile) http://meetings.icann.org

1 0

ISPCP -- Comments supporting the preliminary issue report on Uniformity of Contracts
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

thanks Tony and Wolf… with that, i've gone ahead and submitted the comment. again, sorry about the last minute nature of all this. i'm still wondering how i missed this one… mikey PS -- here's the final version, submitted just now (note the cool use of capital letters and punctuation). To whom it may concern, The ISPCP supports the findings in this issue report and encourages the GNSO Council to proceed with a PDP to better understand the value of uniform provisions to address registration abuse -- and the drawbacks that may result as well. The ISPCP especially supports the idea of developing: - a framework of metrics to measure the extent and trends of registration abuse activity - a benchmark study that can be used to understand the current state of the problem and which can also be used as the basis to evaluate the effectiveness of various registration abuse provisions and policies - an ongoing reporting mechanism that can be used to track changes in the level and nature of registration abuse activity as well as continuously evaluate the effectiveness of changes in policy and practice - an evaluation of the benefit that may be gained by establishing a consistent minimum framework of registration abuse prevention activities and provisions that is applicable across gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars The ISPCP wishes to thank the staff for their efforts, and encourage the GNSO Council to move forward with appropriate policy actions to address the recommendations made in this report. Sincerely, Mikey O'Connor (ISPCP rapporteur) - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

Registration Abuse -- uniformity of contracts -- public comment -- due TOMORROW (argh)
by Mike O'Connor Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

hi all, sorry, this one snuck by me. it is also one i would like us to support -- i was on the RAP working group that triggered this issue report. it's comment period is closing TOMORROW (argh). http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/uoc-prelim-issue-report-25jul12… would anybody object if i wrote a very short email that simply says that the ISPCP supports the findings of this Issue Report and encourages the Council to proceed with initiating a PDP? here's my preliminary draft To whom it may concern, The ISPCP supports the findings in this issue report and encourages the GNSO Council to proceed with a PDP to better understand the value of uniform provisions to address registration abuse -- and the drawbacks that may result as well. The ISPCP supports the idea of developing: - a framework of metrics to measure the extent and trends of registration abuse activity - a benchmark study that can be used to understand the current state of the problem and which can also be used as the basis to evaluate the effectiveness of various registration abuse provisions and policies - an ongoing reporting mechanism that can be used to track changes in the level and nature of registration abuse activity as well as continuously evaluate the effectiveness of changes in policy and practice - an evaluation of the benefit that may be gained by establishing a consistent minimum framework of registration abuse prevention activities and provisions that is applicable across gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars The ISPCP wishes to thank the staff for their efforts, and encourage the GNSO Council to move forward with chartering a PDP to address the recommendations made in this report. Sincerely, Mikey O'Connor (ISPCP rapporteur) again, sorry for the late/sketchy work here. mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

3 3

FW: Re: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65?
by MAEMURA Akinori Aug. 14, 2012

Aug. 14, 2012

Colleagues, As per the discussion in the teleconf of outreach, I requested A timslot at RIPE65, not in the Global Report on Friday but in Plenary. Having Filiz' advise, just normally submit through the official process. Akinori ------- Forwarded Message From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> To: MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp> Cc: Subject: Re: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:56:15 -0700 Akinori, No problems. As I mentioned pls submit the talk officially to the RIPE PC at https://meetings.ripe.net/pc/login.php We have not concluded selecting of talks for RIPE 65. But pls submit is asap, so we can still consider it. If not anything, we could probably give you that 10 mins as a "Lightning Talk". You can also already submit it as a lightning talk if you like too. Kind regards --- Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp>> Date: Tuesday, 14 August 2012 16:20 To: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org<mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>> Cc: "maem(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp>" <maem(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp>> Subject: Re: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65? Filiz, I've just discussed with ISPCP colleagues and we found that even the same 10 minutes, that in any Plenary session would be much better than Global Reports. Is it still possible for me to ask you? Please let me know if I need any further information. Hope it not confusing you. Thank you! Akinori In message <201208101922.FFC69291.FNNB(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:201208101922.FFC69291.FNNB@nic.ad.jp>> "Re: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65?" "MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp>>" wrote: | Filiz, | | Thanks! It's great for me. | | Akinori | | In message <6D02ABCA-4427-4FE7-8C00-BCF22F458F5A(a)icann.org<mailto:6D02ABCA-4427-4FE7-8C00-BCF22F458F5A@icann.org>> | "Re: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65?" | "Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org<mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>>" wrote: | | | Akinori, | | | | It really is upto you if you want to present this in plenary or not. From your mail I feel you think nro session is better. So i will forward your mail to NCC. After your talks with them, if you change your mind, you can submit it for the regular plenary sessions through the link I provided. | | | | Ok? | | | | Filiz | | | | Apologies for the brevity of this mail, it was sent from my iphone | | | | On 10 Aug 2012, at 11:41, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp>> wrote: | | | | > In message <CC4A9721.ED8E%filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org<mailto:CC4A9721.ED8E%filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>> | | > "Re: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65?" | | > "Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org<mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>>" wrote: | | > | | > | | | > | Hi Akinori, | | > | | | > | Really nice hearing from you! | | > | | | > :-) | | > | | > | I am not entirely sure what the content of your talk is and without that information here is my initial feedback: | | > | | | > I can share my initial draft. Please find the attachment. | | > | | > | | > | If you want this presentation to be presented at the NRO/RIR Reports session then it should go to NCC folks. | | > | RIPE PC is responsible of the content for the Plenary sessions and NRO/RIR Reports session is not taken care by us. | | > | But let me know if you want me to forward your mail to Serge or Nick. I just wanted to check with you first. | | > | | | > | Otherwise, if you want to present during the other Plenary's then could you please use the submission system to suggest your talk to the RIPE PC (https://meetings.ripe.net/pc/login.php)? | | > | So that it can get into the records of the PC as a candidate and we can then vote on it as a group. | | > | | | > | Does this help? If not, let me know pls :). | | > | | > If we follow the APNIC34 case, NRO/RIR report session will suit best. | | > | | > I am not very sure, but if you had in your mind any better session to fit this stuff, please let me know. | | > | | > If not, I'll ask you to forward it to Serge and/or Nick. | | > | | > | | > Thank you! | | > | | > Akinori | | > | | > | | > | | | > | Cheers | | > | | | > | --- | | > | Filiz Yilmaz | | > | Sr Dir Participation and Engagement | | > | ICANN | | > | | | > | | | > | From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp<mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp><mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp>> | | > | Date: Thursday, 9 August 2012 21:25 | | > | To: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org<mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org><mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>> | | > | Subject: for ISPCP to have a presentation timeslot at RIPE65? | | > | | | > | Dear Filiz, | | > | | | > | Axel referred the RIPE Programme Committee and I found you are the very best contact for me for this case. | | > | | | > | As you might know, I joined ICANN GNSO ISPCP three years ago for JPNIC's mission. | | > | | | > | ISPCP now thinks about its outreach, and I found every RIR meeting is the best place to do it. I've already got a timeslot at APNIC34, as you can see now at http://conference.apnic.net/34/program/reports | | > | | | > | I would like to ask RIPE for a presentation timeslot at RIPE65. As in APNIC, I suppose NRO/RIR Reports session is a good place, but I'd like to have your idea. | | > | | | > | | | > | Thanks you! | | > | Akinori | | > | | | > | | | > | | | > <ISPCPinvitation(a)APNIC34.ppt<mailto:ISPCPinvitation@APNIC34.ppt>> | ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach
by MAEMURA Akinori Aug. 10, 2012

Aug. 10, 2012

Dear Colleagues, I will write the idea I mentioned yesterday's call for the clarity. I suggested to use RIR meetings for ISPCP Outreach. In terms of targeting, they have the perfect match. RIRs' members are ISPs or carriers who obtain IP numbers from RIRs. In terms of logistics, a timeslot for the presentation is easy to obtain. RIR meetings usually have a session containing the reports from other RIRs, NRO and IANA. I don't find any big difficulty to have a 10 minutes slot for us to introducing ISPCP, while it is subject to the RIR's desicion. I had a brief chat with APNIC people and had a positive response. If we agree, I will try APNIC to let us have it in the forthcoming meeting APNIC34 at Phnom Penh, in the last week of August. fyi, the forthcoming RIR meetings are: Aug 27-31: APNIC34 @ Phnom Penh Sept 24-28: RIPE65 @ Amsterdam Oct 24-26: ARIN30 @ Dallas Oct 29 - Nov 2: LACNIC18 @ Montevideo Nov 26-30: AfriNIC17 @ Khartoum, North Sudan I have been long involved in the RIR arena for more than a decade and I suppose there are not many people who will get interested in gTLD policies and will have problems to understand GNSO process and what happens in ICANN arena. However RIR community apparently meet the criteria to participate in ISPCP, thus the very place for ISPCP to do some outreach activities. If ICANN needs to have more people with the ISPs' stake, it will be good way to go. With those said, I might have missed some points which might have already been dicussed here before. Let me know if you find any. Thank you, Akinori ----- MAEMURA Akinori General Manager, Internet Development Dept. maem(a)nic.ad.jp JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center

3 8

Main points from ISPCP conference call 6 August 2012
by tony holmes Aug. 8, 2012

Aug. 8, 2012

The main points from yesterdays call are listed below. . Inpact of new gTLDs on ICANNs structure. A request from Bertrand de La Chapelle on behalf of the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), sent to ICANN Constituencies and SO's was discussed. This makes a call for initial input by September 10th prior to a Board Workshop in mid-September. Tony Holmes will circulate a draft paper for constituency comment within the next two weeks. . Travel support for Toronto meeting. Available to the ISPCP are the two fully funded slots for ISPCP Councillors and following a decision announced within the approved FY-13 budget, 3 slots for Constituency executive officers or their designates. That decision to increase the number of slots available, from 2 to 3, was based on ICANN only meeting twice within FY-13. It was confirmed that Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Tony Holmes and Tony Harris will receive travel support. Mikey O'Connor was also supported as a designate along with Jaime Wagner if he can rearrange his schedule to attend. The secretariat was requested to enquire whether one supported travel slot could be carried over to the next meeting in Beijing. . ISPCP outreach committee It was confirmed the ISPCP Outreach Committee will hold a conference call on Tuesday 14th August commencing at 14.00 UTC. . GNSO council Wolf-Ulrich Knoben reported that no motions were placed before Council for approval at the last meeting. There will no GNSO Council meeting during August as many members would be on vacation. Council are also due to consider the request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on their activities, as requested by the Board Governance Committee. It was reported that little progress has been made on the IoC discussions to date but the pressure remains on ICANN to resolve those issues. . Date for next ISPCP call; Monday 10th September commencing at 14.00 UTC.

2 1