- ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: [council] AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Craig Schwartz Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. Juni 2010 16:29 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report Dear Councilors, Please find attached the third AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report. This report provides a status update on the implementation of the Policy since it was announced to the community on 17 December 2008. ICANN looks forward to providing an update to the Council at its meeting on 10 June 2010, and answering any questions councilors may have about this information. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

1 0

WG: [council] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Initial Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings Gesendet: Montag, 31. Mai 2010 10:02 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Initial Report Dear All, For your information, please find attached the Post-Expiration Domain name Recovery PDP Initial Report. In addition to an update to the GNSO Council on Saturday 19 June, the PEDNR WG will be organizing an information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels (details to be confirmed). A public comment forum will be opened following the meeting in Brussels. With best regards, Marika

1 0

WG: [council] Registration Abuse Policies Final Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Mai 2010 13:57 An: Council GNSO Cc: Greg Aaron Betreff: [council] Registration Abuse Policies Final Report Dear All, On behalf of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, I hereby submit its Final Report for your consideration. With best regards, Marika

1 0

WG: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

As mentioned during the call yesterday this is the draft motion about DAGv3 amendment with regards to the evaluation process for confusingly similar strings. Any comments welcome Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Edmon Chung Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:49 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Betreff: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion Hi Everyone, Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from different people, I would like to make a number of changes to the Proposed Motion on New gTLD Recommendation (IDNG motion on clarifications for confusingly similar TLD string). The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for a 21 day comment period for the letter before it being sent by the council. Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different people, including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially conflicting with the IRT report. Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes. Below is a clean version for consideration. Rafik, I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly amendments? :-) Edmon Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2) =================================================== 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.

1 0

ISPCP issues
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

All Today conference call covered the following issues. 1. Response to Rod Beckstrom request to the ISPCP on security issues. The proposed draft was discussed. The plan is to forward the final version to ICANN tomorrow. The draft is attached. Please respond promptly with any final comments. 2. GNSO Priorities The proposed list of priorities will be discussed during next week's GNSO call. Please supply any comment to Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Jaime Wagner in advance of that meeting. 3. GNSO endorsement of AoC applicants. Clarity was sought between the overall selection process and the role of the GNSO. It was noted that the GNSO is likely to be endorsing just 4 slots, instead of 6. The intention is to finalise the selection process ASAP, but this will still allow discussion to take place at the Brussels meeting before final agreements are in place. 4. Implementation of new gTLDs Concern has been voiced by some parties over the process where IDN applications are evaluated for string similarity against gTLDs in other scripts. Arguments have been made that in some cases the degree of confusion arising may greatly differ and in some cases where it is minor, a different approach may be considered. This will be discussed further at the Brussels meeting. 5. Date of next call Thursday 10th June at 15.00 UTC The agenda for the ISPCP meeting will be determined on this call.

2 1

Prioritization list
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Maggie and guys, See attached the project prioritization list with explanations <<GNSO Work Prioritization Project List (Staff FINAL-30 Apr 2010).pdf>> Regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: [council] DAG v4
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

FYI Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. Juni 2010 08:56 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] DAG v4 The latest draft of the applicant guidebook is now available: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-31may10-en.htm Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

call
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Tony and colleagues, I've still an ISPCP call scheduled today 14:00 UTC. Do we keep this call? Items to discuss regarding the next council meeting ( 10 June) could be - prioritization - GNSO endorsement process for AoC applicants - Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation (confusingly similar names) Regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 5

ENC: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
by Jaime Wagner - CGI May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

I´m not sure IF Wolf already sent this. This is the exercise the council member have to do and we would appreciate some input from the group. Jaime Wagner CGI (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) Representante dos Provedores de Acesso e Conteúdo jaime <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> (51)8126-0916 j.w(a)gner.net.br De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Ken Bour Enviada em: sexta-feira, 21 de maio de 2010 10:08 Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: GNSO; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Assunto: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 GNSO Council Members and Liaisons: In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows: Step Dates Activity Status Step 1 30 April - 20 May Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort Completed Step 2 21 May - 7 June Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days) In Progress Step 3 19 June (Brussels) Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings Scheduled Step 4 23 June (Brussels) Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org Scheduled The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1. The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> 6 and ANNEX), is quoted below: "Value ... this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. " In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference]. Scale Interpretation 1 Far Below 2 Moderately Below 3 Slightly Below 4 Average 5 Slightly Above 6 Moderately Above 7 Far Above Scale Guideline: As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> Section 2.2), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings. "Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project "X" is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have "anchored" your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that "average" project in terms of this factor. If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value. In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other." Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible. Instructions: Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet. ***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation*** Expected Output: The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June. If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity. Good luck with your ratings! Ken Bour Policy Staff Consultant Email: ken.bour(a)verizon.net Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)

1 0

WG: [council] Draft Final WHOIS Service Requirements Report attached for your review
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

FYI. It could be helpful to invite Liz Gasster to the ISPCP constituency meeting in Brussels to discuss the report. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. Mai 2010 20:43 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [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