September 2012 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

FW: Inpact of new gTLDS
by tony holmes Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

All Attached is an overdue draft of the ISPCP response on the impact of the new gTLD program. It aligns with the thoughts we discussed in Prague. Apologies for the delay in sending this, but we do need to get it to the Board Governance Committee ASAP. I'd very much appreciate your comments or concurrence ASAP, ideally by this time tomorrow if at all possible. Best Regards Tony

5 5

RV: [council] updated draft letter
by Novoa, Osvaldo Sept. 17, 2012

Sept. 17, 2012

Dear all, For your information. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Thomas Rickert Enviado el: Viernes, 14 de Septiembre de 2012 11:30 Para: GNSO Council List Asunto: [council] updated draft letter Dear all, as discussed during yesterday's call, please find below the draft letter regarding the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure including the changes proposed by Stéphane. Please provide your comments and suggestions as soon as you can as the plan is to finalize the draft by the end of next week. Kind regards and have a great weekend, Thomas Dear Bertrand, the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure. As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the upcoming challenges. As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their size can hardly be predicted. In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be re-configurations or alignments of existing groups. Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already publishing information on how to participate (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are available to be inclusive In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects. For sure, there will be - more attention by the general pubic and Governments; - more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the venues; - more groups that need administrative and technical support; - more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote participation; - more documents to be produced and read; - more decisions to be made and operationalized; - more contractors that need to be managed; - the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and - more compliance issues that need to be taken care of. These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue. The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known. In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of participants / stakeholders and their respective needs. Thank you, Stéphane van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council ________________________________ 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 2

WG: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 17, 2012

Sept. 17, 2012

All, following the council discussion I forward this to you in order to initiate filling-up the draft WhoIs-RT table re potential PDPs to be seen necessary from an ISPCP view. My draft is just an idea, and I'd welcome any input in order to be prepared for a) an upcoming CSG discussion and b) what we could contribute to the draft council letter to Steve Crocker. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Dear all: In follow up of our GNSO Council teleconference on September 13, 2012 we write to reconvene our small working group of Councilors examining the WHOIS RT Final Report. For those who were unable to attend the teleconference, our discussion resulted in essentially two options for the Council to move forward: 1. Draft a letter to the Board explaining that the Council was unable to reach consensus on the WHOIS RT Final Report and that the Board should weigh any and all individual comments submitted by the stakeholder groups and constituencies accordingly; or 2. Draft a more detailed letter to the Board summarizing, in table form, the divergent positions of each stakeholder group and constituency. We further note that the GNSO Council discussion considered enlisting the assistance of ICANN staff to draft the letter and table described in the second option. However, it was stressed that the GNSO Council should have final review and approval of the letter to the Board. We welcome any input on these two options and note that a timely decision is necessary as a courtesy to Stéphane, who agreed to provide the Board with an update on this issue shortly the Council teleconference. Accordingly, please provide any and all comments within the next few days. For our own personal comments, we wish submit that the second option appeared to receive the most support during the Council teleconference. Accordingly, we recommend-barring any objections-that staff begin to draft the letter and table described in the second option by compiling stakeholder and constituency input already submitted to the Board, in addition to our initial draft letter below. For your convenience, we have attached the RySG comments to the Board, which we believe implement a logical format for presentation of this subject matter in a chart-namely, three categories: a summary statement of the WHOIS RT Final Report recommendation; whether a policy development process is necessary (YES or NO); and any explanatory comments. We look forward to your input and working with everyone to provide the Board with the most useful feedback on this issue. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Winterfeldt, Brian [mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com]<mailto:[mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com]> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:55 AM To: Barry, Korey; Marano, Phillip; Murray, Emily Subject: FW: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report ------------------------------------------- From: Stéphane Van Gelder[SMTP:STEPHANE.VANGELDER@INDOM.COM]<mailto:[SMTP:STEPHANE.VANGELDER@INDOM.COM]> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:55:09 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Auto forwarded by a Rule Brian, I think it would be helpful to get a motion from you proposing that the Council approve the draft. That helps us get an action item on the agenda, and would not have any detrimental impact on the final draft as Councillors can always put forward friendly amendments to cover any update to the text itself. As a reminder, the deadline for motions for the Sept 13 meeting is Sept 5. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 29 août 2012 à 19:27, Winterfeldt, Brian a écrit : Dear Jeff: One solution may be to deliver a summary letter to the Board by August 31, 2012 briefly explaining that the GNSO Council was unable to reach an agreement on which recommendations require a Policy Development Process and that individual comments from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency have been requested. Based on the input we have received thus far, some believe that only a handful of the WHOIS RT recommendations require GNSO policy work, (which we understood to be the impetus for the decision to parse through recommendations per the Council's July 20, 2012 discussion). However, others believe that all sixteen recommendations require GNSO policy work. That is a fundamental difference, and as Stéphane phrased it, a "direct contradiction," which likely vitiates the possibility for general agreement on the matter. I am interested in everyone's thoughts and happy to take a stab at a first draft of a very short letter to the Board today if we decide to take this route. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe ------------------------------------------- From: Neuman, Jeff[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@NEUSTAR.US]<mailto:[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@NEUSTAR.US]> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:57:50 AM To: Mason Cole; Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Auto forwarded by a Rule All, It seems clear that we either need more time to work on this letter than August 31st or should just agree to not send a Council letter, but leave this to the stakeholder groups/constituencies. If we do decide to do the letter, we will need a few more weeks at least to approve on the September 13th call. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]> On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:10 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report Brian -- Thank you for your and the RT's continued work on Whois issues. On behalf of the RrSG, our feedback is provided below, in line. I am happy to assist with drafting from here if I can be of help. Mason On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: Dear all: I hereby forward to the full Council the latest draft letter to the ICANN Board regarding the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, wherein we attempt to flag potential ambiguous recommendations 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. Achieving full consensus of the Council may prove difficult given the divergence of viewpoints expressed in our small group, which we hope to have accurately encapsulated in our draft below. The proposed text below was supported by myself and Wolf-Ulrich, and we have also included comments from Jeff and Wendy in red font within brackets. I would like to thank Jeff, Wendy, Wolf-Ulrich and Thomas for their input and assistance in this matter, and I look forward to working with everyone toward finalizing a letter for submission to the ICANN Board by the August 31, 2012 deadline. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. _________________________________________________________ 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.[[The NCSG disagrees. Please cut this sentence. The Review Team can make recommendations but it can't expect implementation simply by dint of its hard work. The NCSG has previously stated that any implementation requires GNSO policy development. "The NCSG believes all recommendations require GNSO Policy Development."]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees. Our group is very appreciative of the work, but as has been pointed out before by council members, work output doesn't necessarily represent the expectation of action. 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. Recommendation Two - 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. [[The RySG agrees that if this recommendation means creation of a single policy document that just summarizes all current relevant WHOIS policies, then no PDP is required. However, if this recommendation requires the creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees with the RySG here. Recommendation Three - 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. [[Recommendation Six - Data Accuracy. The sixth recommendation of the Review Team instructs that ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups "Substantial Failure" and "Full Failure" (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and 50% again over the following 12 months. The RySG believes that the recommendation to undertake "appropriate measures" to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into these accuracy groups may require a PDP depending on what these measures are.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees again. Further "all appropriate measures" is undefined and is unfortunately subject to differing interpretation. The RrSG recommends the GNSO Council request that ICANN Compliance outline a plan to reach these goals, along with their expected timeframe and metrics. These should be published before implementation of any new compliance initiatives meant to address these metrics. Recommendation Ten - 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. [[The RySG strongly believes that ICANN can only initiate a process to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers through a PDP process. The RySG believes that the entirety of the Review Team's tenth recommendation does in fact require a PDP without any artificial time constraints imposed.]] RRSG: The RrSG agrees again with the RySG. The Whois RT report plainly says privacy / proxy accreditation should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders. While regulation of privacy / proxy may be a laudable outcome, nowhere does the RAA suggest the ICANN corporation has the authority to make such an imposition, and it's false to say it does. The RrSG has discussed privacy / proxy accreditation with ICANN staff in the course of RAA negotiations and our experience is that, unfortunately, like many community desires, it is complex, involves the interests of multiple stakeholders, and has cost an resource impacts on ICANN staff and the community. It is an appropriate issue for a PDP and not unilateral action. Recommendation Twelve - 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. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the work of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group "IRD WG" is already underway in regard to this recommendation. The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input. Stéphane Van Gelder Chair, GNSO Council

3 3

WG: [council] Fwd: Proposed change in seating dates for SO and ALAC appointees to the ICANN board
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 17, 2012

Sept. 17, 2012

FYI. The change may apply in 2014 for the board seat filled by the NCPH (at present: Bill Graham) Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ________________________________ Début du message réexpédié : De : Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com<mailto:Steve@shinkuro.com>> Objet : Proposed change in seating dates for SO and ALAC appointees to the ICANN board Date : 15 septembre 2012 02:01:24 HAEC À : Olivier Crepin-LeBlond <ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>, Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk>>, Louis Lee <louie(a)louie.net<mailto:louie@louie.net>> Cc : Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com<mailto:Steve@shinkuro.com>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>, Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org<mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org>>, Raymond Plzak <plzakr(a)gmail.com<mailto:plzakr@gmail.com>>, Michael Silber <mike.silber(a)icann.org<mailto:mike.silber@icann.org>>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, Kuo Wu <kuoweiwu(a)gmail.com<mailto:kuoweiwu@gmail.com>>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com<mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>> Olivier, Stéphane, Lesley and Louis, I want to bring to your attention a proposal to change the seating of SO and ALAC appointees to the ICANN board to be deferred until the Annual General Meeting. The purpose is make changes to the board just once a year instead of the present system which usually causes changes twice a year. The departures of SO and ALAC appointees in mid-year sometimes causes difficulty in key leadership positions within the board and adds complication to the membership and functioning of the board committees. As you're probably aware, the reason for the present scheme was to provide the Nomcomm with information about the SO -- and now ALAC -- appointees so the Nomcomm could properly implement the required geographic balance of at least one and no more than five from any region. Our proposed change asks that your organizations continue to select your appointees on the same schedule so the Nomcomm would continue to have that information, but the actual seating of the board members selected from your organizations would be at the same time as the Nomcomm selectees. This will result in five selections each year, two or three from the SOs and ALAC and three or two from the Nomcomm. A proposed change to the bylaws was developed by the Board Governance Committee and sent to the full board for action. Yesterday, the board passed a resolution to post this proposed change and begin the public comment process. The resolution is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-13sep12-en.htm#1… and the public comment should open by Monday at the latest. I am sending you this note to make sure you are informed directly and to open the door for direct communication. To see how this change affects the people currently appointed, please see the table below. NomCom Term Begin SO/AC Selection/Seating* AGM 2012 3 (George, Gonzalo, Olga) 2 (Ray, Mike) AGM 2013 3 (Erika, Cherine, Bertrand) 2 (Bruce, Kuo) AGM 2014 2 (Steve, Judith) 3 (Chris, Sébastien, Bill) * The SO/AC Seating identified currently occurs earlier in the same year of the AGM identified. For example, Ray and Mike were re-seated in June 2012. Under the proposed revision, their terms will end with the conclusion of the 2015 AGM instead of a few months earlier. This change is one of a series of improvements in the board's processes that I have been working to improve the board's efficiency and effectiveness. I hope you will find it acceptable. Please feel free to share this note with your constituencies, colleagues, etc., and, of course, please do raise any issues or make any suggestions that come to mind. Thanks, Steve

1 0

WHOIS survey is out -- consider filling it out
by Mike O'Connor Sept. 14, 2012

Sept. 14, 2012

hi all, there's a nifty survey out there that we should all consider filling out (and sending to our respective mailing lists and asking THEM to fill it out). here's the summary mikey The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) invites the Internet community to participate in a survey designed around an inventory of WHOIS technical components. The survey aims to measure the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the WHOIS Service Requirements Report, as requested of ICANN Staff by the GNSO Council. The survey consists of 15 sections around 11 technical requirements, and it will be made available until 31 October 2012. Afterwards, the WSWG will produce a final report and deliver it to the GNSO Council toward the end of 2012. The report will describe the results of the survey and any agreed upon recommendations by the WG for the GNSO Council's consideration concerning WHOIS. Survey attributes are as follows: Survey Availability Date: 13 September 2012 Survey Address: https://limesurvey.icann.org/index.php?sid=71483&lang=en Survey Close Date: 31 October 2012, 23:59 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.)

1 0

Meeting Request -- review the DNS SSR materials i presented on the call -- Wednesday or Friday?
by Mike O'Connor Sept. 12, 2012

Sept. 12, 2012

hi all, thanks for allowing me to introduce you to the materials i circulated earlier in the week. we agreed that a separate call would be a good thing, so that we have more time to get into a bit more detail and refine the documents a bit. so here is a link to a Doodle poll to see if we can find a mutually-agreeable time on either Wednesday or Friday of this week. http://doodle.com/rm79mtae6x43unca thanks, 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.)

4 6

the results of our security roles review call
by Mike O'Connor Sept. 12, 2012

Sept. 12, 2012

hi all, MANY thanks to Alain, Jenn and Osvaldo for their help today! here's a link to the revised version. much improved. https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/36208828/DSSA+-+G%26A+Tabl… 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.)

1 0

Next ISPCP call
by tony holmes Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

Dear members please note the next ISPCP call is scheduled for 14.00 UTC on Wednesday 3rd October. Call-in details will be circulated nearer to the meeting.

1 0

RV: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
by Novoa, Osvaldo Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

All, sorry for coming up with this issue after much discussion in the DT, but due to health problems I wasn't able to participate in the lasts meeting. I am participating right now. I would like your opinion on the proposal, myself I support J. Scott proposal to reserve IOC and Red Cross names at the second level till a PDP is ready, not allowing any exception. In the meantime a PDP would be develop that will consider not only the IOC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent but also other IGO and related names. Thank you and 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: Miércoles, 05 de Septiembre de 2012 14:16 Para: Thomas Rickert; Gomes, Chuck CC: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Thomas. I know Chuck may be away from his desk right now, but I can answer this as I was on the registries call. The registries felt like the operational issues with regard to the release can be worked out (as this has been done with other reserved names in the past). We believe that the PDP process will address exceptions (if there is a rule coming out of the PDP to make the reservations permanent). So, until the full pdp, the feeling was at this point no exceptions. [That is not a hard and fast rule, but just easier for now. Because once you start talking exceptions, you get into the underlying discussions...that defeats the point of keeping the names out of the registration pool in the first place pending the pdp] The registries position is that it is harder to take back names as a result of a PDP, then to release names that were once reserved prior to the PDP. On balance therefore, it was better to not allow the registration of those names until the outcome of the PDP. Note this does not mean that we as registries believe they necessarily should be protected, but rather a matter of practicality until a full pdp can resolve the issues. Stated yet another way, the default should not be that the names are released prior to the PDP being completed. I hope that makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Brian Peck; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Chuck, thank you for your input. I know we have not further discussed this during our last call, but would please clarify whether the Registries would be in favor of reserving the names so nobody can register them or should there be an exception mechanism? I understand that J. Scott wanted to release the names in case the outcome of the PDP does not grant any special protections and I would see a multitude of operational issues with such approach. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.09.2012 um 18:08 schrieb Gomes, Chuck: I apologize for not being able to make the IOC/RC discussion group meeting today. Unfortunately, I have a dental appointment that has already been rescheduled once. If it ends early, I will join the call late. The RySG discussed the IOC/RC issues on our list and in our call today. Here is our position. We support the J. Scott compromise: 1. Recommend that the GAC recommendation for reserving IOC/RC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs pending results of a PDP covering IGO names, IOC/RC names and any other related names. 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. 2. Communicate to the GAC: a. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other related names b. 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. (Note that the RySG will provide some recommendations in this regard and welcomes contributions from others.) c. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as possible on this position. d. 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. 3. In the meantime, the discussion group should quickly develop the rationale referenced in step 2.b above and communicate its recommendations to the GNSO Council. If more explanation is needed, hopefully the group will allow Jeff to take off his chair hat temporally and answer questions or add clarity. Chuck From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Peck Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:17 PM To: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options Drafting Team Members: The discussion during yesterday's DT meeting/call resulted in a proposal for all DT members to consider and consult with their respective constituencies with regard to narrowing down the current 6 options for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to provide special additional protections for the RCRC/IOC names at the second level, and revising those remaining options to take into account the proposed approach from the RySG and further discussions during yesterday's DT call. Attached is the summary document of the current 6 options for moving forward and accompanying comments. Please find below the proposed narrowing down of options to the following two: 1) Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: (Current Option #3 in attached doc) a) All RCRC and IOC names b) All RCRC names but no IOC names Pending the results of a broader PDP which would include consideration of special protections for IOC and RCRC names (Current Option #5 in attached doc) 2) RySG Suggested Approach: a. Communicate to the GAC that Discussion Group Option 5 (PDP) is the GNSO's starting position for second-level names of the RCRC and IOC in the first round of new gTLDs: "Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as part of a broader PDP initiative on the protection of names for international organizations" b. Provide a rationale for this position * Possible reasons could include but need not be limited to the following: i. Reserving names for the IOC or RC could set excessive precedents and motivate unlimited numbers of other organizations to see special protections even though the GAC did a commendable job of trying to narrowly qualify the organizations for which names would be reserved. ii. Lots of input has been received since the GAC request that makes it less clear that the list of organizations could be sufficiently narrow. iii. National laws vary regarding their implementation of international treaties including variances about what exceptions are made. iv. Existing rights protection mechanisms can be used by the IOC and RC just like other organizations who have rights to names. v. Reserving the finite list of names recommended by the GAC opens the door to expanding that list to include acronyms, similar strings, etc., and these become even more problematic from an operational and policy perspective. vi. There are organizations besides the IOC and RC that have legitimate rights to some of the GAC recommended strings. vii. The complexities of this issue warrant a thorough vetting in a GNSO multi-stakeholder, bottom-up PDP and, because of the complexities and competing interests, a PDP may not be able to be completed before new gTLDs are delegated. c. Give the GAC the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the rationale (i.e., 'fill in the holes'). Yesterday's meeting proposed removing from further consideration the following options: Option 1: Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry Agreement). Option 2: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for: a. All RCRC and IOC names b. All RCRC names but no IOC names c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names Option 3: Develop recommendations to respond to the GAC proposal by suggesting extending protection for the following provided there is an exception procedure for allowing names in to-be-defined circumstances: c. All IOC names but no RCRC names d. All RCRC names but only a subset of IOC names e. All IOC names but only a subset of RCRC names f. A subset of RCRC names and a subset of IOC names Option 4: Thomas Rickert withdrew this proposal Option 6: Ask ICANN General Counsel's office to conduct a legal analysis to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to protect IOC and RCRC names by law. The next DT meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, 29 August - all DT members are requested to consult with their respective constituencies with regard to removing certain options listed above from further consideration, and feedback on the proposed two alternatives as options for the DT to move forward in responding to the GAC proposal. Thanks. Best Regards, Brian Brian Peck Policy Director ICANN ________________________________ 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.

6 7

a couple of "role of ISPs in DNS SSR" documents for people to review and comment on
by Mike O'Connor Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

hi all, i've been working away on the DSSA (DNS Security and Stability Analysis) working group and have come up with a couple documents that i'd like your reaction to. the first is an evolving diagram of what the functions and roles are in DNS SSR (aimed at "The DNS" rather than SSR as a whole -- which means root servers, TLD severs and a gaggle of support files). take a look at the *first* slide in this (very short) slide deck, as that's the latest version. https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/36208828/Slides+relevant+t… then take a look at this Excel spreadsheet -- *this* is what i especially need your reaction to. on this page i've taken a VERY first try at describing the role that ISPs play on that chart. i'm thinking that we may want to take this back to our respective organizations and get their thoughts on all these roles that we play, hammer on it a bit as a constituency, and push it back to the DSSA. i'm also looking for a reality check -- i may be completely off the track here. all thoughts/reactions much appreciated. here's a link to the spreadsheet https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/36208828/DSSA+-+G%26A+Tabl… thanks in advance, 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.)

2 2