September 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

notes from the calls today
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 28, 2012

Nov. 28, 2012

ISPCP - 10-Sept, 2012 ISPCP call Agenda Input on the GTLD program initial draft from controversy on what to be sent council? or just constituency discussions under way at the council level summary of the letter = no changes required -- our view is somewhat different Notes on Thomas R.'s proposed Council letter Thomas Rickert drafted -- consolidation of comments on the Council list. This isn't our view perhaps. Start with stakeholder groups and constituencies? hard to discuss the overall impact without understanding the impact on the SG/constituencies. WE think some changes may be required to the structure of the GNSO Question -- is there likely to be agreement in the Council? Registries have strong views, it's up to us to get in with our views. likely to be a difficult discussion at the Council. perhaps a general response from the Council, more detailed responses from the SG and counstituencies. DSSA - roles and responsibilities of ISPs in SSR of "the DNS" Update on Toronto meeting Schedule in Toronto Council issues Additional travel slot Actions get a copy of Tony's letter -- draft on our constituency view update the list on the Toronto agenda Topics Chair and Vice-Chair candidates set up a call for the DSSA stuff - Mikey reach out to ISPA-Europe - Malcolm is first choice but tony harris can offer additional suggestions next call - 3-October - same time Outreach call Inputs Role of ISPCP Why it's important Getting material knocked into some kind of shape Chris Chaplow lead Akinori reported on introduction session Some response/interest Some interest on the part of [garbled] to work together[super garbled] RIPE 65 plenary session proposed, maybe longer than 10 minutes ARIN 30 - interest to have an agenda item Explore remote participation? LACNIC - some conversation, need to continue AFRINIC -- no contact so far need to find somebody to present the idea may be a way to do this through ICANN Actions Shoot for Toronto or defer? Release some material for Toronto - maybe more in Beijing go back to liaison to find out deadlines for submitting material - Toronto - Tony Lead for carrying forward -- Tony Harris and Alain Complete our inputs as soon as possible -- by the end of the week? Complete a review of the inputs -- by the end of next week? Schedule another call, based on progress and deadlines Decide whether to go for Toronto or defer Web page stuff Web hosting renewal Domain name credentials Shoot for next Monday - 1600 UTC - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

4 10

Fwd: [dssa] Requesting Public Comments
by Mike O'Connor Sept. 28, 2012

Sept. 28, 2012

hi all, now that i've to ally confused everybody with my apology for missing a call that doesn't exist, let me add further to your workload. we, the DSSA (DNS Security and Stability Advisory working group) would really benefit from some public comments on our report. since i'm a co-chair of the working group, and pretty much wrote the whole report, i'm reluctant to be the rapporteur for us on on this one. but it turns out that lots of people in the working group must have felt the same way and the result is that we got ZERO public comments. zip. nada. nothing. so we're fanning out to our respective constituencies and asking that they try to get something submitted during the "reply" comments period, which ends just after Toronto. here's a little note that i sent out to the WG. could i impose on some of you to craft something? sorry to bother you twice in one day, but this one is actually fairly important. one important aspect of this is to get a feeling for whether this cross-constituency group is actually working well, because it might be a good model for others. but it's hard to hold it up as a model if there aren't any reactions to the work that it did. :-) thanks, mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike(a)haven2.com> > Subject: [dssa] Requesting Public Comments > Date: September 27, 2012 10:20:43 AM CDT > To: DSSA WG <dssa(a)icann.org> > > > Hi all, > > Just a note to highlight that it would be extremely helpful if your respective constituencies and supporting organizations could contribute public comments regarding the work of the DSSA so far. The initial public comment period is closed and the reply-period is going to close just after the Toronto meeting, so time is drawing short. Especially given that we'd like to review those comments *during* the Toronto meeting. > > Here are a few points to consider when you lobby your respective organizations: > > -- The comments don't necessarily need to be long. A simple "the DSSA is doing fine" would suffice in a pinch, although some words explaining why would be helpful. Since the DSSA is one of those cross-community working groups, we could use some guidance as to whether we're doing that work in a way that is satisfactory. > > -- The DSSA made some fairly interesting observations in its Phase 1 Report and it would be good to get a sense from your respective organizations as to whether we're on the right track. I've included the picture-book Executive Summary in this post to remind you of the high spots. Again, "you're doing fine" is an acceptable response although again a few words of support would be welcome. > > And of course the most important comments are those that take issue with something we've done -- we will listen to those and try to set ourselves on the right track. > > Here's a link to the Public Comment Forum for our work. Please encourage your membership to contribute. > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/dssa-phase-1-report-14aug12-en.… > > Thanks, > > Mikey > > 1. Executive Summary > > This is the first of two reports from the DNS Security and Stability Analysis working group. The goal of this document is to bring forward the substantial work that has been completed to date and describe the work that remains. > > This has been in many respects a “pioneering” cross-constituency security-assessment effort that has developed knowledge and processes that others will hopefully find helpful and can be reused in the future. > > The DSSA has: > Established a cross-constituency working group and put the organizational framework to manage that group in place > Clarified the system, organizational and functional scope of the effort > Developed an approach to handling confidential information, should such information be required for certain assessments > Selected and tailored a risk-assessment methodology to structure the work > Developed and tested mechanisms to rapidly collect and consolidate risk-assessment scenarios across a broad and diverse group of interested participants > Used an “alpha-test” of those systems to develop the high-level risk-scenarios in this report. Those scenarios will serve as the starting point for the remainder of the effort > > Work that remains: > Perform a proof of concept to refine and streamline the methodology on one broad risk-scenario topic with the goal of reducing cycle time and making it more accessible to a broader community > Roll the methodology out to progressively broader groups of participants to introduce the methodology to the community and further improve the process and tools on the way to completing the assessment > > 1.1. Key findings > > The DSSA has a number of observations to share with the community after completing the first phase of its work. Those observations are summarized here, presented in more detail in the body of this report and in some cases presented in even more detail in the Appendix. The working group has also developed a series of tools that can be used by any DNS provider to conduct risk assessments. Those tools, and extremely detailed documentation of the assessment, are available on the working group wiki. > > 1.1.1. Risk Scenarios > > The DSSA has analyzed five broad risk scenarios. These will be explored in more depth during the next phase of the effort. Those scenarios are: > Gaps in policy, management, or leadership lead to splitting the root > “Reductive” forces (security, risk-mitigation, control through rules, etc.) lead to splitting the root > Widespread natural disaster brings down the root or a major TLD > Attacks exploiting technical vulnerabilities of the DNS bring down the root or a major TLD > Inadvertent technical mishap brings down the root or a major TLD > > 1.1.2. Scope > > The DSSA analyzed several scope issues that needed to be resolved in order to complete the work. > Scope of “the DNS” used by the working group > The functional context of the DSSA within a broader risk management framework > The organizational context of the DSSA vis a vis the SSR-RT and DNRMF efforts > > 1.1.3. Approach > > The DSSA also embarked on developing methodologies that were required in order for the working group to complete its assignments. These methods may be useful in other contexts, both inside and outside of ICANN. These include: > A protocol for handling confidential information > A tailored “compound sentence” risk-assessment methodology based on the NIST 800-30 and 800-53 standards > An approach to risk assessment that accommodates the unique security assessment requirements of the multi-stakeholder DNS ecosystem > > 1.1.4. Remaining work > The DSSA realized that a detailed assessment of the risk scenarios it has identified is likely to take a substantial amount of time. The DSSA, after consultation with its chartering ACs and SOs, broke its work into two phases. This report summarizes the work to date, while the next phase will: > Take that work to a more detailed level, > Refine the approach and methods developed so far, and > Explore whether it is feasible to transition this one-time effort into an ongoing function to maintain an up to date assessment of DNS risk. > > > > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > - - - - - - - - - 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 2

extreme apology
by Mike O'Connor Sept. 27, 2012

Sept. 27, 2012

argh! i just turned on my calendar and realized that i just missed our call. sorry about that. 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 2

RV: ] Proposed alternative TMCH implementation model
by Novoa, Osvaldo Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

Dear All, For your information and comment. Best regards, Osvaldo -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 26 de Septiembre de 2012 10:11 Para: 'GNSO Council' Asunto: [council] FW:] Proposed alternative TMCH implementation model All, I wanted to forward this to the Council. Unfortunately the documents posted by ICANN on the clearinghouse did NOT include any of the materials and information discussed with the tech group for the past several months. It is an omission the group has asked ICANN to correct. In the meantime, these documents are now out for public comment. We have asked ICANN to open an official ICANN public comment on it as well. We, the registries that have worked on this, believe that these alternate models better reflect the principals in the Applicant Guidebook, while at the same time presents a solution that is more easily implement able by the registries to keep the costs down for trademark owners sand applicants. This was truly developed in a bottom up approach and represents comments received by the tech group. Please forward on to your respective constituencies, advisory committees and stakeholder groups. I am happy to discuss in Toronto and to answer any questions, Thanks, Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Chris Wright [mailto:chris@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 04:26 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Chris Wright Subject: [REGYCON] Proposed alternative TMCH implementation model All As you may be aware, ARI Registry Services in conjunction with Neustar, Verisign and Demand Media have spent the past three months producing an alternative solution for the operation of ICANN�s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) for the new Top-Level Domain (TLD) program. Today we are publishing the results of this work in the form of three white papers which outline concerns with ICANN�s current TMCH proposal and provide an alternative model that addresses those concerns whilst meeting all the requirements outlined in the Applicant Guidebook and those further stipulated by ICANN. Please see the attached documents (or view my blog about the subject here: http://www.ariservices.com/blog/community-support-required-for-alternative-…) We are now seeking public feedback, comment and support for this alternative proposal to demonstrate to ICANN that there is a consensus for change. I encourage everyone involved or interested in the new TLD program to review the alternative approach and voice your opinion on the matter to ICANN. Please help spread the word, I will communicate the official ICANN link as soon as the documents are posted. The TMCH is a crucial element of the new TLD program that affects us all and we cannot afford to get this wrong. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions Thanks Chris Wright Chief Technology Officer ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Level 8, 10 Queens Road. Melbourne. Victoria. Australia. 3004. P� +61 3 9866 3710� F� +61 3 9866 1970� M� +61 401 873 798 E� chris.wright(a)ariservices.com <mailto:chris.wright@ariservices.com> ariservices.com <http://ariservices.com/> ARI Registry Services is an evolution of AusRegistry International. Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/ausregistryint> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -- 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

RE: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections
by tony holmes Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Wolf-Ulrich Youre correct pointing out the previous approach where a nominee was put forward from each house, but that situation was a little different. There wasnt total support for Stephane, and for some Olga was a stronger candidate, particularly from the NCPH perspective. This time its a little different as few would argue that Jonathan wouldnt fill the role of a strong but neutral chair. You are of course entitled to make the proposal, but as you pointed out previously, early indications are that both the BC and the IPC will back Jonathon in the vote. That could place Thomas in a situation where he effectively gets zero, or very few votes, which wouldnt reflect particularly well, particularly as most of us would agree he is a strong candidate. Tony From: ispcp-private-bounces(a)server.haven2.com [mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: 25 September 2012 07:20 To: mike(a)haven2.com; ispcp-private(a)server.haven2.com Subject: Re: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections All, I also agree with Tony's analysis with one exception. First I think there's a misprint: support for Jonathan within the CSG may come from the BC and IPC (not NCUC). We're still discussing the nomination of chair candidates - not yet the election itself nor the (potential) result of it. However I admit that in this context we have to take the candidates' electibility into consideration, too. If the NCPH couldn't get to a consensus with respect to Jonathan or Thomas there's nothing preventing the house to nominate a candidate because the members are convinced she/he could run the council best - and to split the votes during elections. Nominating a candidate different from the CPH in my eyes is merely a democratic approach. What then happens in the election is just a procedural question which is described in the rules. The houses did exactly the same 2 years ago: Stéphane was the CPH candidate, Olga Cavalli the NCPH one - and the NCPH didn't vote unanimously for Olga. According to the rules a second voting round followod with just Stéphane as candidate and the "none of the above" option. Olga was out of this round because she collected less votes in the 1st round than Stéphane. I'm in favour to this approach and would also like to bring it to the CSG table before the NCPH later today. If that is accepted we have to be very open to Thomas. He could then decide whether to accept the nomination. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: ispcp-private-bounces(a)server.haven2.com [mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com] Im Auftrag von Mike O'Connor Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2012 21:32 An: ispcp-private(a)server.haven2.com Betreff: Re: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections i've worked with Jeff on a lot of working groups and would agree. Jeff's a great guy, but when he goes down a track he finds it really difficult to back himself out. that makes him a really effective advocate, but i haven't seen him as a coalition-builder. so i would love an outcome that led to either of the other two candidates. mikey On Sep 24, 2012, at 2:09 PM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa(a)antel.com.uy> wrote: Dear Tony, I agree with your analysis. I think both Jonathan and Thomas are good candidates but from my, not overly extensive, relation with them I would prefer Jonathan, I think he can be a better Chairman. But from the different conversations it seems clear that Jonathan wont accept the nomination unless Jeff Neuman withdrews his, which doesnt seem to be the case for now. My impression of Jeff, mainly though my participation in the IOC/RC DT, is that he tends to try to impose his personal opinion and to be too accommodating to the Councils decisions or instructions. I as said, my interaction with the other GNSO Council members hasnt been very extensive so I might be mistaken with my judgment. Best regards, Osvaldo _____ De: <mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com> ispcp-private-bounces(a)server.haven2.com [mailto:ispcp- <mailto:private-bounces@server.haven2.com> private-bounces(a)server.haven2.com] En nombre de tony holmes Enviado el: Lunes, 24 de Septiembre de 2012 15:41 Para: <mailto:ispcp-private@server.haven2.com> ispcp-private(a)server.haven2.com Asunto: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections All We are very close to the closing date for nominations for the positions of chair and vice-chair for the GNSO Council (26th September). That doesnt leave us much time to act, yet we still dont have a final view of the candidates. It appears that the contracted parties house will nominate either Jeff Neuman or Jonathan Robinson for Chair. Thomas Rickert a nom-com appointee to the council but also a member of the ISPCP is also likely to stand. We need to make a choice of who to support. Taking account of the need for the chair to be neutral on all issues, I would like to propose if the choice is between Jeff and Thomas the ISPs offer support for Thomas. If the choice is between Jonathan and Thomas it is a tougher call as both have shown they have the required qualities to be neutral and do a good job. My personal view is to offer support for the candidate that appears most electable in that case. Assuming the contracted parties house back their nominee (Jonathan) and any other Constituency within the CSG backs him (it currently appears both the NCUC and the BC may), Thomas cannot win. If that situation occurs there appears little point in offering support for a candidate who cannot win. Particularly as both appear to be good candidates. For the vice chair position currently there is only one candidate, Joy Heddicoat, which makes that an easy decision. I would welcome your views and advice as discussion of this issue is being channelled through the CSG. It would be particularly helpful if our council representatives, Wolf and Osvaldo could also express their opinions as theyve worked alongside all potential candidates. Please respond with your advice and thoughts to this list. Time is very tight. Regards 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. _______________________________________________ Ispcp-private mailing list <mailto:Ispcp-private@server.haven2.com> Ispcp-private(a)server.haven2.com <http://server.haven2.com/mailman/listinfo/ispcp-private> http://server.haven2.com/mailman/listinfo/ispcp-private - - - - - - - - - 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

Impact of new gTLD program
by tony holmes Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

All Many thanks for your quick response on the draft. The attached version should contain all proposed changes. Please let me know promptly if I've missed anything, I intend to send the final version to ICANN today. Akinori - in answer to the issue you raised; if the proposed Stakeholder Advisory Platform remained within the GNSO it wouldn't solve the problem as each group would still discuss common issues within their own domain before broader discussion occurred. Neither would that reduce the load on the existing policy development groups. I hope that answers your question. Regards Tony

3 2

FW: Invitation to Join the ICANN Board for Cocktails in Toronto
by tony holmes Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

For Members who will attend the Toronto meeting - Please note. From: Diane Schroeder [mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org] Sent: 21 September 2012 00:37 To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; met(a)msk.com; robin(a)ipjustice.org; alain.berranger(a)gmail.com; dave(a)difference.com.au Cc: David Olive Subject: Invitation to Join the ICANN Board for Cocktails in Toronto Dear SG/C Leaders: On behalf of the ICANN Board, I am writing to invite you and your constituency members to join the Board for cocktails in Toronto to raise and discuss issues of mutual interest in a more relaxed and informal way. I hope you and your colleagues will be able to attend. As you all know, the schedules at ICANN meetings are becoming more challenging. The Board wishes to continue to meet with you and your members at a social gathering in addition to the regular time together during Tuesday's community day consultations. With this in mind, this cocktail has been scheduled on Tuesday from 7pm to 8pm in the Marine Room of the Westin Hotel to focus attention on the GNSO commercial and non-commercial members. Please extend this invitation to all your constituency members. Regards, Diane Schroeder Director of Board Support

1 0

outreach
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

Hi Akinori, Could this contact help? Would you like to contact them? Maybe one of these guys will be in Toronto where we could directly talk to them. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Lanre Ajayi [mailto:lanre@pinet.com.ng] Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. September 2012 12:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [ispcp] notes from the calls today Hi Wolf, Thanks for your mail. I trust you are fine. You may contact the CEO of AfriNIC, Adiel A. Akplogan [adiel(a)akplogan.com] or Nii Quaynor, [quaynor(a)ghana.com] who is a veteran in the AfriNIC and African ISP space. Looking forward to seeing you in Toronto. Best regards, Lanre Ajayi -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:57 AM To: lanre(a)pinet.com.ng Subject: WG: [ispcp] notes from the calls today Hi Lanre, I hope you feel good. I have a question whether you could help in the following The ISP constituency is starting an outrech programme in order to make existing and potential ISPs more aware of ICANN and the specifics related to the ISPCP. One target group could be the regional "NICs". We've started already with the APNIC. Do you know somebody having a glue to ISPs and taking part in AfriNIC meetings? We may contact this person in order to provide material which could be presented at the AfrNIC meeting in Khartoum in November this year. I would very much appreciate any hint you may have And looking forward to see you in Toronto again. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Service Headquarters Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Godesberger Allee 99, 53175 Bonn, Germany +49 2244 873999 (Phone) +49 2244 873955 (Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile) E-Mail: knobenw(a)telekom.de www.telekom.com Life is for sharing. Deutsche Telekom AG Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman) Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Registered office: Bonn WEEE reg. no. DE50478376 Big changes start small - conserve resources by not printing every e-mail. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von MAEMURA Akinori Gesendet: Freitag, 14. September 2012 16:58 An: mje(a)posix.co.za Cc: ispcp(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: [ispcp] notes from the calls today Dear Wolf and Mark, Please find the attached slides. Mark, we are doing 10 minutes presentation in RIR meeting, started with APNIC34. It would be great if you kindly coordinate with AfriNIC staffs to get 10 minute slot for this, and make a presentation for ISPCP in Khartoum . Wolf, any problem with it? Akinori, I am on the APNIC Board, btw. In message <1347528907.7263.13.camel(a)mjelap.posix.co.za> "Re: [ispcp] notes from the calls today" "Mark Elkins <mje(a)posix.co.za>" wrote: | | | | On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:19 -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote: | > ISPCP - 10-Sept, 2012 | > | > | > ISPCP call | | > AFRINIC -- no contact so far | > need to find somebody to present the idea | > may be a way to do this through ICANN | | Can I help? I'm on the AfriNIC Board? | | | | -- | . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - (South) Africa | /| /| / /__ mje(a)posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE | / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 | | | |

2 2

IOC/Red Cross protection in the new gTLD
by Novoa, Osvaldo Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

Dear All, Continuing with this issue. The DT had a conference last week and there was no consensus on the proposal I sent before, there wasn't even consensus whether there was need for a PDP regarding this matter. In the meanwhile the New GTLD Program Committee published this Resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12… , that will force a protection at the second level for the new gTLDs if the GNSO doesn't reach a decision by January 31st. Personally I think a PDP is necessary just due to the GACs insistency on this issue, if the GNSO doesn´t do it, the Board will do it by itself, as proved by this new resolution. So I think the ISPCP should maintain its endorsement of J. Scott's proposal. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Martes, 18 de Septiembre de 2012 10:11 Para: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th All, As discussed on the last call, we now have the following two questions out for a consensus call so that we put these options out for public comment. I know the Board's resolution from last week was sent to the group yesterday and although I encourage everyone to read that resolution and we will discuss it, I do not believe that that resolution should sway our path. Please speak up if you disagree. If anything, the Board's resolution may be in line with one of the recommendations that we, as a group are considering. 1. The first question is whether we all truly believe that a full PDP is necessary on the IOC/Red Cross marks. Most of the group, save Greg S on behalf of the IPC, did believe that a full pdp on this was necessary. In a full pdp, the legal ramifications of protecting these marks at the second level can be more flushed out and exception processes can be developed (if it is determined that these marks should indeed be protected). In addition, many in the group discussed wanting more research done on whether the marks of these organizations merited differential treatment from other international organizations (which is the subject of a soon-to-be released final Issue Report. 2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal put forth by J. Scott and endorsed by the RySG which recommends the following (with some wording tweaks discussed during the last call): a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC recommendation of September __, 2011 (need to put in exact date) at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. [Note from the Chair: This also would be in line with conservative approach contained in the ICANN Board resolution dated September 14, 2012.] b. Communicate to the GAC: i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international organizations. ii. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note that the work that has already been done on this issue should facilitate the process. Please make sure that you are able to solicit the feedback necessary to respond to the Consensus Call by September 26th. On the GNSO Council call last week we confirmed that we do have the ability to put this proposal out for public comment. In the meantime, I would also like to collect some more of the rationale for recommendation 1 (recommending the PDP) and also for the moratorium in recommendation 2. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.

2 1