March 2014 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Fw: Near-Final CSG Agendas for Singapore
by WUKnoben March 13, 2014

March 13, 2014

FYI From: Elisa Cooper Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:41 PM To: mailto:krosette@cov.com ; mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com ; mailto:tony.holmes@synetergy.com ; mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; mailto:met@msk.com ; mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com ; mailto:cdigangi@inta.org Subject: Near-Final CSG Agendas for Singapore CSG Leaders, Please find below near-final agendas for the meetings in Singapore. The asterisks below indicate BC member interest – if you’d like to highlight the topics of greatest interest to your members, that would be extremely helpful so that I can ensure we allocate enough time for discussion of those topics. In addition – I think we need to propose to the NCPH a way forward for the Board seat election – any thoughts here? Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Senior Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor, Part of Thomson Reuters Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discussion with ICANN Board Members, Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham Sunday, March 23rd , 7:30am – 9:00am Topics for Discussion: § Name Collisions*** § ICANN Globalization** § Outstanding New gTLD Issues** § Impact to ICANN from Internet Governance activities (budget, resources, etc.)** § CEO and Board Accountability** § FY15 Budget* § Strategy Panel Recommendations (Top Down and Crowdsourcing) Closed CSG Meeting to Prepare for Board Discussions Sunday, March 23rd, 4:30pm – 6:30pm Topics for Discussion: § IG update*** § Name Collisions*** § Outstanding New gTLD Issues** § ICANN Globalization** § CEO and Board Accountability** § Board Feedback Mechanisms* § Impact to ICANN from Internet Governance activities (budget, resources, etc.) § Budget § ATRT § Strategy Panel Recommendations (Top Down and Crowdsourcing) Breakfast with the Governmental Advisory Committee Tuesday, March 25, 8:00am – 9:15am Topics for Discussion: § Improvements for Cooperation between the GNSO and the GAC § Internet Governance Open CSG Meeting Tuesday, March 25, 9:45 am - 11:05 am 9:45am – 9:55am: Welcome and Agenda Review 9:55am – 10:25am: Meet with SSAC 10:25am – 11:05am: Final prep for Board CSG Meeting with ICANN Board Tuesday, March 25, 11:15pm - 12:15pm

2 1

Fwd: [council] Input Request:Preliminary Issue Report on Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS
by Mike O'Connor March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014

hi all, is anybody able to pick up the lead on this topic? i’m not very well versed in the interaction of IGO/INGOs with the UDRP/URS. mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Subject: [council] Input Request:Preliminary Issue Report on Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS > Date: March 12, 2014 at 6:35:47 AM CDT > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10mar14-en.htm > Preliminary Issue Report on Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS > > Comment / Reply Periods (*) > Comment Open Date: 10 March 2014 > Comment Close Date: 14 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC > Reply Open Date: 15 April 2014 > Reply Close Date: 6 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC > Important Information Links > Public Comment Announcement > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > View Comments Submitted > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: GNSO > Categories/Tags: > Contracted Party Agreements > Policy Processes > Purpose (Brief): > To obtain community input on the Preliminary Issue Report requested by the GNSO Council concerning possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, to enable access to them by protected International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations. > > Current Status: > The GNSO Council unanimously approved the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group's consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013, as contained in the WG's Final Report [PDF, 645 KB]. One of these recommendations was for an Issue Report on amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure to enable their use by protected IGOs and INGOs. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the publication of the requested Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 288 KB] and of the opportunity to comment on it. > > Next Steps: > ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that will be submitted to the GNSO Council along with the Final Issue Report. The GNSO Council will then vote on whether or not to initiate. > > Staff Contact: > Mary Wong > Email Staff Contact > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: > The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) unanimously approved at its meeting on 20 November 2013 the consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group, which are now pending Board action. The detailed recommendations can be found in the Final Report [PDF, 644 KB], with a summary provided within the GNSO Council motion. One of the recommendations adopted was for the GNSO Council to request an Issue Report, preceding a possible Policy Development Process (PDP), to examine International Governmental Organization (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) access to curative rights protection mechanisms such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). > > Section II: Background: > For a detailed background and history of the issue on whether to protect certain IGO and INGO identifiers prior to the initiation of the IGO-INGO PDP, please see the Final GNSO Issue Report [PDF, 675 KB] on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs. The IGO-INGO PDP Working Group (WG) was formed on 31 October 2012 and the WG Charter approved by the GNSO Council on 15 November 2012. On 10 November 2013 the WG published its Final Report [PDF, 644 KB] and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Final Report. The WG's Final Report includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from various WG members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration. > > The WG's consensus recommendations were unanimously approved by the GNSO Council on 20 November 2013 and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. One of the recommendations adopted was for the GNSO Council to request an Issue Report, preceding a possible PDP, to examine possible amendments to the UDRP and URS to enable access by protected IGOs and INGOs to these curative rights protection mechanisms. ICANN staff has prepared the requested Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 288 KB] and is posting it for public comment prior to preparing the Final Issue Report for the GNSO Council's consideration and vote. > > Section III: Document and Resource Links: > Final Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs [PDF, 645 KB] > Supplement A – Minority Positions [PDF, 216 KB] > Supplement B – WG Consensus Call Tool [PDF, 203 KB] > Supplement C – Public Comment Review Tool [PDF, 385 KB] > Supplement D – Red Cross Red Crescent Societies Identifier List [PDF, 616 KB] > GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board [PDF, 705 KB] > Section IV: Additional Information: > N/A > > (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

apology
by Mike O'Connor March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014

hi all, i filled out the Pew Research Center poll about “the Internet in 2025” on a day when i was in a bad mood. i’m *sure* i said that the opinions expressed were my own, but that was stupid — i should have completed the form as an individual, not as your representative to the Council. the upshot is a bad misrepresentation — my view appearing to be yours. i’ll try to send a correction, but the damage is done. i’m learning a lot of valuable lessons in this new role you’ve elected me to. unfortunately at your cost. i would be happy to resign if you think it appropriate. i’m really sorry about this. here’s a link to the article (NPR is National Public Radio in the US — "all tech considered” stories are generally broadcast on Monday evenings on NPR’s national radio news program). http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/03/11/288695332/the-interne… and here’s the quote: The downside? Group-think, mob mentality and manipulation. "The Internet will be used as the most effective force of mind control the planet has ever seen, leaving the Madison Avenue revolution as a piddling, small thing by comparison," says Mikey O'Connor, an elected representative to ICANN's GNSO Council, representing the ISP and Connectivity Provider Constituency. sorry, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

4 4

the Name Collisions workshop is under way -- really good so far
by Mike O'Connor March 9, 2014

March 9, 2014

hi all, i’m watching the live stream of the Name Collisions workshop. http://wpnc2014live.modstreaming.com/live-stream mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

string delegations
by Mike O'Connor March 8, 2014

March 8, 2014

hi all here are all the strings delegated last week. while there are no “interesting” delegations, there *are* some “interesting” reports out this week. JAS has published “Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions” and it is open for public comments Public comment page: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm Report: http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-… Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-… ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has published SAC064 “Advisory on Search List Processing” which bears directly on the name-collision issue Report: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-064-en.pdf The SSAC has also published SAC065 “Advisory on DDoS Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure" Report: https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-065-en.pdf All three of these reports should be of keen interest to people following this list — and need to be publicized more broadly mikey DATE STRING REGISTRY 5 March 2014 .OPR (xn--c1avg) – Russian for "organization/org" Public Interest Registry 5 March 2014 .KOELN NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH 2 March 2014 .BID dot Bid Limited 2 March 2014 .OKINAWA BusinessRalliart Inc. 2 March 2014 .VOTE Monolith Registry LLC 2 March 2014 .VOTO Monolith Registry LLC Description of the name-collision problem and link to mitigation research project -- http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/name-collision-research ICANN's "Name Collision Resources and Information" page - http://www.icann.org/en/help/name-collision ICANN's list of all delegated new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings ICANN’s list of scheduled “sunrise” and “trademark claims” periods for new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods Follow this link if you would like to subscribe to this weekly bulletin — http://ispcp.info/mailman/listinfo/gtld-delegations Follow this link if you would like to learn more about the Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) constituency of ICANN’s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) — www.ispcp.info _______________________________________________ gTLD-delegations mailing list - sponsored by ICANN's ISP and Connectivity Provider constituency (www.ISPCP.info) gTLD-delegations(a)ispcp.info http://ispcp.info/mailman/listinfo/gtld-delegations - click this link to subscribe, or review list information and prior posts

1 0

translation and transliteration of contact information
by Mike O'Connor March 7, 2014

March 7, 2014

hi all, i’m responding to Wolf-Ulrich’s request for thoughts on this topic — mostly by starting this thread on our list. i have to admit i’m pretty clueless about this issue so view these comments as the ravings of the Village Idiot, Wolf-Ulrich it seems to me that maybe a way to carve a middle ground is for registry/registrars to provide the *opportunity* for registrants to enter *their own* translated/transliterated information in a non-latin script if they so choose. it seems that might address both the problem of accuracy (which seems really hard if it’s done by machine) and cost (since the burden of data entry and accuracy would remain with the registrant and all the R’s would have to do is provide data-collection and display mechanisms — essentially extending Whois data to cover optional scripts). i think the notion of having the Ry/Rr doing the translating/transliterating is going to be really hard for them to do accurately, and that the cost of that effort would be prohibitive. the question of *requiring* the registrant to enter information into a non-Latin script is interesting/complicated, especially if they’re not familiar with the language/script. it seems this project is dependent on the outcome of the EWG and the subsequent PDP to a certain extent. how can this PDP really make solid recommendations without knowing what the capabilities of the underlying registrant data system will be? it seems as though this effort will be hampered by that. it seems as though this project will also run into “universal acceptance” type problems until the transition from current Whois to The Next Thing is complete — so an aggressive implementation schedule seems complicated see? ravings of an idiot. but maybe that’s enough to get conversation started. does that help, Wolf-Ulrich? mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

ISPCP FY15 budget request
by WUKnoben March 7, 2014

March 7, 2014

Dear FY15 budget team, on behalf of the Internet Services Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) Constituency I herewith submit the related FY15 budget request forms. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISPCP Vice Chair

1 0

here's the current state of our ISPCP agenda for the Singapore meeting
by Mike O'Connor March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

hi all, i just posted our tentative agenda to the Singapore meeting site. here’s the link https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ISPCP+Singapore+mee… mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Publication of One World Trust Report on ICANN Accountability Benchmarks and Metrics
by Mike O'Connor March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

hi all, i found this report really interesting — here’s a link to the actual report http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/metrics/benchmarks-consultanc… mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Publication of One World Trust Report on ICANN Accountability Benchmarks and Metrics > Date: March 4, 2014 at 7:24:43 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04mar14-en.htm > > Publication of One World Trust Report on ICANN Accountability Benchmarks and Metrics > 4 March 2014 > BACKGROUND > > One World Trust (OWT) has submitted an independent assessment and measurement recommendations to ICANN. OWT was contracted to assist with developing a means to measure ICANN's accountability performance over time, as well as relative to other (broadly) similar organizations. This effort is part of ICANN's commitment to accountability and continuous improvement, and also responds to Accountability and Transparency Review Team advice. These measures also will: > > Illustrate and communicate how ICANN is meeting its global accountability obligations; > Help ICANN benefit from learning how other international organizations are accountable to their stakeholders; and > Continue to enhance ICANN's accountability (and transparency, which is viewed as a part of accountability). > The implementation of the accountability framework, metrics and benchmarks is an important step in evolving ICANN's performance measurement discipline. This process is aligned with broader measurements of performance being implemented as part of ICANN's Management System to support continuous improvement. > > One World Trust is an independent, UK-based organization that conducts research, develops recommendations and advocates for reform to make policy and decision-making processes in global governance more accountable to the people they affect. > > SUMMARY > > OWT's "ICANN Accountability and Transparency Metrics and Benchmarks: Consultancy Report," is available here [PDF, 752 KB]. Their work consisted of several elements: > > Review of the accountability principles promoted by four international accountability standard setting initiatives; > > Qualitative analysis of ICANN's policies and practices through desk research and interviews with key stakeholders and staff (list available in Appendix C), for insight into ICANN's current accountability strengths and challenges, as well as gathering ideas about how the metrics and benchmarks might work; and > > Analysis of the accountability policies and practices of three multi-stakeholder, international non-profit organizations, to establish their current level of accountability in comparison with ICANN, and identify useful learning opportunities. > > OWT provided a framework and practical suggestions for metrics within each of the six dimensions of Accountability (see Accountability Framework below), and recommended that ICANN staff determine specific metrics, including appropriate targets. This work will be integrated with the development of organization-wide performance metrics as part of ICANN's Management System, which will include: Key Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators used to plan and measure performance against the Fiscal Year 2015 Operational Plan and Budget; and trend lines demonstrating performance over time illustrated with Executive Dashboards. > > OWT found that ICANN has performed well in comparison with other, similar organizations, and they suggested some areas where ICANN accountability could be improved. These recommendations will be considered in conjunction with the recommendations [PDF, 3.46 MB] of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) and will be implemented, as appropriate. > > > NEXT STEPS > > Next steps will include a community briefing and discussion at the ICANN Singapore meeting as part of the "Management System Linkage" session, and additional presentations and discussions, as needed, to gather community input. > > ICANN recognizes that this is the beginning of an improved process of continuous improvement and evolution, and in line with OWT's recommendation, staff will begin the implementation with a "pilot," including a selection of accountability metrics to illustrate reporting mechanisms and to collect community feedback. Revisions will then be considered and a long-term implementation plan developed. > > We welcome your feedback, ideas and questions. Please send your communications to accountabilitymetrics(a)icann.org. > > ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND > > Community briefing and consultation on ICANN Accountability & Transparency Metrics & Benchmarks at ICANN48 in Buenos Aires, November 2013 > > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IRTP Part D PDP WG Initial Report Public Comment Opened
by Mike O'Connor March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014

woohoo! this is the Initial Report for IRTP-D — the last in the many-year series of PDPs on this issue. i co-chair this one along with James Bladel. mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IRTP Part D PDP WG Initial Report Public Comment Opened > Date: March 3, 2014 at 7:32:00 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-03mar14-en.htm > > IRTP Part D PDP WG Initial Report Public Comment Opened > 3 March 2014 > > Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 3 March 2014 > Categories/Tags: Policy Processes > Purpose (Brief): > This Public Forum invites comments on the Initial Report on the IRTP Part D PDP. The Report provides 12 preliminary recommendations to the six questions that this PDP Working Group (WG) was charted with. Please note that the WG is seeking public comment especially on Charter questions B and C to help inform its final recommendation. > > Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.htm > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 2