- ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: [council] Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - 23 June 2010
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010

FYI Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 3-7 D - 64295 Darmstadt +49 2244 873999 (Tel.) +49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) http://www.telekom.com <http://www.telekom.com/> Deutsche Telekom AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender) Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender) Hamid Akhavan, Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376 ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Montag, 14. Juni 2010 12:09 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - 23 June 2010 Dear Councillors, Attached, and in text below, please find the Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - 23 June 2010 An abbreviated agenda is posted on the ICANN Brussels Schedule: http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12487 <http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12487> The agenda is published on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_23_june_2010 and the GNSO website at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-23jun10-en.htm Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Proposed GNSO Public Council Meeting Agenda - Brussels - Wednesday 23 June 2010 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_23_june_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 08:00 Local time in Brussels - 06:00 UTC. See the table below and http://www.timeanddate.com for other times: Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members who are not able to attend the meeting in Brussels. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. Note: i) Possible changes may be made to this agenda and more detail will be added prior to 23 June; ii) This meeting will be open to the public and opportunities for audience comments and questions will be provided. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting: * 10 June Meeting - Scheduled for approval on 25 June 2010 (Insert URL) Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work (30 Minutes) 2.1 Report of 19 June Prioritization Exercise (Ken Bour) 2.2 Discussion (Council & Audience) 2.3 Approval of final ratings * Motion to approve & publish ratings: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions * Discussion (Council) * Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) 2.4 Evaluation of the prioritization process * Lessons learned? * Areas for improvement? * Discussion (Council & Audience) * Next Steps? Item 3: GNSO Affirmation of Commitments Drafting Team (AoC DT )Endorsement Process (30 minutes) 3.1 Summary of the Endorsement Process (Bill Drake) 3.2 Motion (insert URL) https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions * Original motion made for 10 June meeting https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_june_motions * Proposed amendments 3.3 Discussion (Council & Audience) 3.4 Vote (on amendments if necessary & final motion) (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed on this motion.) 3.5 Next steps regarding the AoC Review Teams (Olof Nordling) 3.6 Discussion (Council & Audience) Item 4: Whois Studies (45 minutes) 4.1 Refer to:Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm * ICANN's FY11 Draft Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011 Note: Public comment period is open until 25 June; the amount in the Draft Budget for Whois Studies is at least $ 400,000. * Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf 4.2 Procedure for deciding which study(studies) to initiate * Brief overview of the study choices (Liz Gasster) * Discussion * Next steps? 4.3 Discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies (Council & Audience) 4.4 Next steps? Item 5: GNSO Improvements (45 Minutes) 5.1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) 5.1.1 Working Group Work Team Recommendations * Refer to final report submitted to the PPSC: http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/working-group-guidelines-31may10-en.pdf * Report from the PPSC (Jeff Neuman or Marika Konings) * Next step: PPSC Action 5.1.2 Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team * Note there will be a community session this afternoon on the Initial Report of the PDP Work Team * Brief status report & next steps (Jeff Neuman or Marika Konings) 5.2 Operations Steering Committee (OSC) 5.2.1 OSC Recommendations from the Communications & Coordination Work Team * Refer to: Final recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf * Refer to Public comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/ * Refer to public comment summary & analysis: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html * Brief overview of recommendations & comments (Ken Bour) * Questions/Comments? * Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions * Discussion (Council & Audience) 5.2.2 OSC Recommendations from the GCOT & the CSG WTs * Motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions 5.3 Status Reports for Remaining GNSO Improvements Projects * GNSO Council Operations (GCOT) Recommendations * GNSO Constituency & Stakeholder Group (CSG) Recommendations 5.4 Implementation Status Reports for Approved GNSO Improvement Recommendations * Council Operations Work Team (Julie Hedlund) * Constituency & Stakeholder Group Work Team (Julie Hedlund) 5.5 Discussion (Council & Audience) Item 6 Reports from Working Groups (30 Minutes) Note: Audience comments & questions will be deferred until after all reports are given. 6.1 Vertical Integration PDP Working Group * Progress report (Roberto Gaetano &/or Mikey O'Connor or Margie Milam) * Summary of discussion from the VI WG session on Saturday (Margie Milam) * Council questions? * Next steps? 6.2 The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group * Refer to Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf * Summary of discussion from the RAP WG session on Sunday (Marika Konings) * Council questions * Next steps? 6.3 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B PDP WG * Refer to Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf * Council questions * Next Steps? 6.4 Post Expiration Domain Name Renewal (PEDNR) PDP WG * Refer to Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf * Council questions * Next Steps? 6.5 Council and Audience discussion Item 7: Other Business (20 minutes) 7.1 Joint Community DNS-CERT WG * Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html * Discussion (Council & Audience) * GNSO support? * Volunteers for charter drafting team (DT)? o Volunteers to date: § Terry Davis (NCA) § Rafik Dammak (NCSG) § Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) § Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) § Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign) § Mike Rodenbaugh (CSG, CBUC) § Zahid Jamil (CSG, CBUC) o Any additional volunteers? Item 8: Open Microphone (30 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); d. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and f. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/gnso-operating-procedures-clean-12nov09-en.p…> Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: a. Initiate a policy development process; b. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; c. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 06:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 23:00 Tuesday 22 June Cedar Rapids, USA (CST) UTC-6+0DST 01:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 02:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 03:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-2+1DST 03:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 07:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 08:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 08:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 08:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 10:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 11:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 14:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 15:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com>

1 0

CSG breakfast at the Brussels meeting
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010

All ISPCP members are invited to the CSG Breakfast session with the ICANN Board which will take place at the Brussels meeting on Tuesday 22/6 from 8.00 to 10.00a.m. This time members of the business, IP and ISPCP constituencies will also be joined by a number of senior business people who are taking the opportunity to participate in the Brussels meeting. In order to organise the event and ensure everyone has a place at the tables its important you confirm your attendance by return email if you intend to participate. If you do not respond you will not be able to attend. Further details of the venue for the event will be circulated nearer the time. Many Thanks Tony

6 5

ENC: [council] Motion and Document Deadline - Tuesady 15 June 2010
by Jaime Plug In June 12, 2010

June 12, 2010

fyi Jaime Wagner jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br Cel (51) 8126-0916 Fax (51) 3123-1708 -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Glen de Saint Géry Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de junho de 2010 07:49 Para: Council GNSO Assunto: [council] Motion and Document Deadline - Tuesady 15 June 2010 Dear Councillors, As required in the GNSO Operating Procedures, motions and reports for consideration in the Brussels Open Council meeting 23 June 2010 are due not later than 8 days in advance of that meeting, that is, Tuesday, 15 June 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ENC: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 10 June 2010
by Jaime Plug In June 12, 2010

June 12, 2010

Tony and all, We approved the motion to send the letter provided a 21 day public comment period is observed. During the meeting I asked Kurt two questions: 1) Would an extra fee be necessary for an extended evaluation period? Answer: the US$85000 fee would cover it. Indeed in this case there would be two fees involved. 2) The current evaluation process of visual confusion being to some extent subjective would not already consider detrimental confusion? Answer: the process is subjective but he could not ascertain that independent evaluators would consider detrimental confusion. Regards Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> jaime(a)corp.plugin.com.br Cel (51) 8126-0916 Fax (51) 3123-1708 De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Glen de Saint Géry Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de junho de 2010 03:15 Para: Council GNSO Assunto: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 10 June 2010 Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolution was passed during the Council meeting on Thursday, 10 June 2010. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2 & 10 June) Made by: Edmon Chung Seconded by: Rafik Dammak Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html) WHEREAS: · The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; · The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; · The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; · The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; RESOLVED: · A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". · ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. · The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters. PROPOSED LETTER: To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on ³String Similarity - Extended Review² that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be appropriate for applicants to request Extended Review for a string which has been denied further processing based on a finding of confusing similarity in the Initial Evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application that may result in a finding of no detrimental confusion notwithstanding the Initial Evaluation. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: · The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that, although similar to an existing or applied for string, is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation, but not result in the detrimental user confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. · A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation even though the delegation of both would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. The motion passed with a majority of the Contracted Parties House and unanimously in the Non Contracted Parties House by roll call vote. Contracted Parties House : 5 votes in favour 2 Councillors absent, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Parties House: 13 votes in favour Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

call
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Colleagues, Just an update of today's GNSO council agenda (major items). I hope we can get through during our call the next hour. My deadline is 16:30 UTC due to another appointment. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work Item 3: GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process <<gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf>> MOTION TO APPROVE AOC ENDORSMENT PROCESS: Made by: Bill Drake Seconded by: Caroline Greer Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on the each of the AOC review teams; Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-proce ss-01jun10-en.pdf; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the "WHOIS Policy" and the "Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS" Review Teams; and RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the "WHOIS Policy" and "Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS" review teams. Discussion of AoC Selectors proposed composition of the SSR & Whois Review Teams SSR WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent Expert 1 - 2 2 (law enforcement / privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13 - 14 10 Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names) Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2) Made by: Edmon Chung Seconded by: Rafik Dammak Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html) WHEREAS: * The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; * The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; * The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string; * The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet; RESOLVED: * A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". * ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. * The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. PROPOSED LETTER: To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, CC: ICANN Board The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on "String Similarity - Extended Review" that parallels other such sections in Module 2. This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as: * The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid. * A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion. We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. Item 5: AGP Policy questions * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? * Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly? For example: * Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? * If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? Item 6: Whois Studies <<Whois studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf>> <<whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf>> Item 7: GNSO Improvements OSC Recommendations from the CCT COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Olga Cavalli WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations; WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html has been prepared; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pd f of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on implementation. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT's specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/ and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the implementation phase; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby discharges the CCT and expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the team's dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. Item 8: Other Business 8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings 8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO * Refer to email message from Chris Disspain forwarded by Chuck on 9 June: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html * Any objections to asking for volunteers to draft a possible charter? * Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors)

2 1

WG: [council] FW: Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report -- additional redline version attached to highlight changes from initial report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 8, 2010

June 8, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2010 21:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] FW: Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report -- additional redline version attached to highlight changes from initial report All, Attached please find a redline version of the draft final WHOIS Service Requirements Report which highlights the changes made from the Initial Report of 26 March. As described further in the text, the changes were primarily made as a result of input we received from members of the SO/AC community. Again, this is a "draft final" report which we will be discussing in Brussels. Please let Steve Sheng or me know if you think further changes should be made. Thanks to Chuck for suggesting that a redline would be useful. I wish I'd thought of it! J Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:43 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review All, Attached please find a "draft" Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report for your review and discussion. This report includes input we received while soliciting the views of the SOs and ACs. We decided to leave the report as a draft to provide the opportunity for further input in Brussels. Dave Piscitello (and Steve Sheng remotely) will be facilitating a public consultation on the report, tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning at 9:30 Brussels local time. We will finalize the report shortly thereafter. Best regards, Liz

1 0

WG: [council] REMINDER:Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2010 12:43 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] REMINDER:Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing REMINDER: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27may10-en.htm Pre-Brussels ICANN Policy Update Briefing Meeting Details and How to Participate 27 May 2010 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming Brussels meeting remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday at 9 June at 13.00 and 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: .GNSO Vertical Integration Policy Development Process .GNSO Improvements .GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process .GNSO WHOIS Studies .ccNSO IDN PDP .ccNSO Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group .ASO Global policy for handling IPv4 address space The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 13.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 5, 2010

June 5, 2010

All, see attached the "selectors'" proposal on the next AoC RT size. My opinion is that we should oppose and keep the present GNSO position (4 seats). Budget limitation is really not an argument on such high level. On the other hand I would appreciate Olivier commenting on his experience regarding the size of the Accountability RT and its managing. Does this look inefficient? Tony Holmes, do you have a chance to share views with the ExComm? In addition I would welcome any comment on the RT evaluation process I've provided to you last week in order to brief Jaime and myself for the coming council meeting June 10. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 20:45 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs. Please provide any comments you have on this list. Time permitting, we will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June. Chuck From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Dear colleagues On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and composition of the two next review teams would be as follows: Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 10 I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process, budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors' view is not credible option. I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I would appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public. Best regards JK

1 0

RE: ISPCP letter to Rod Beckstrom on Security & Stability
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Now with attachment From: Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com [mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com] Sent: 04 June 2010 10:13 To: ispcp(a)icann.org; 'MAEMURA Akinori' Subject: ISPCP letter to Rod Beckstrom on Security & Stability All Attached is the letter that was sent to Rod Beckstrom in response to his request for input on security & stability. Regards Tony

2 1

ISPCP letter to Rod Beckstrom on Security & Stability
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

All Attached is the letter that was sent to Rod Beckstrom in response to his request for input on security & stability. Regards Tony

1 0