- ispcp - lists.icann.org

ISPCP representation in Nairobi - URGENT
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com Jan. 7, 2010

Jan. 7, 2010

Could those members of the ISPCP who are already committed to attend the Nairobi meeting or, are considering attending but have yet to make a final decision, please notify me by close of play Friday 8th January Thank You Tony

2 1

WG: [council] GNSO Council Meeting agenda Thursday/Friday 7/8 January 2010 at 20:00UTC
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 6, 2010

Jan. 6, 2010

Happy New Year to all! Just for your information I'm sending you the agenda for the council meeting on Jan. 07. There will be no motion to be discussed. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ GNSO Council Agenda 7 January 2010 Item 1: Administrative matters 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 following Council meetings per the new Council Operating Procedures: * 17 December meeting - Approved on 31 December 2009 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-17dec09-en.htm Item 2: Issues Report regarding vertical separation of Registries and Registrars 2.1 Refer to Issues Report on Vertical Integration: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf 2.2 Overview of Issues Report (Margie Milam) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/issues-report-summary-17dec09-en.pd f 2.3 Discussion 2.4 Information about the ICANN Consultation on New gTLD Registry Agreement on 7 January 2010 in Washington D.C.? (Margie/Kurt) 2.5 Next steps 2.5.1 Action regarding decision on whether or not to initiate a PDP - 28 Jan meeting? Item 3: Prioritization of GNSO work 3.1 Status Report (Olga) 3.2 Next steps? Item 4: The Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Implementation Working Team Final Report 4.1 Refer to report at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-implementation-working-team -report-final-03dec09-en.pdf 4.2 Brief overview of report (Bart Boswinkel) 4.3 Action item: The working team report recommends that the GNSO & ccNSO do policy work with regard to the following two issues related to single-character IDN top level names: 1) selection of scripts for which single character IDN TLDs should be allowed; 2) method for allocation of single character IDN TLDs. 4.3.1 Discussion 4.3.2 Volunteers for working with ccNSO volunteers to develop a draft charter? Item 5: Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy - Implementation Report 5.1 Refer to http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf 5.1.1 Staff Presentation - Craig Schwartz http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-gnso-agp-slides-07jan1 0-en.pdf 5.2 Action Items 5.3 Discussion Item 6: Status updates 6.1 Items of interest to the GNSO from the ccNSO (Olga Cavalli/Han Chuan Lee) 6.2 Other? 6.3 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-07jan10-en.htm Item 7: Any Other Business (AOB) 7.1 Staff update on plans to ensure safety and security in Nairobi 7.2.1 Draft Proposal for Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review Teams http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-pr oposal-26dec09-en.pdf published at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26dec09-en.htm 7.2.1.1 Brief review of the proposal 7.2.1.2 Should the Council submit comments on behalf of the GNSO? If so, develop plan. Public Comments: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev 7.2.1.3 How should GNSO volunteers be identified as nominees for each of the four review teams? (Next steps?) 7.3 Joint Meeting with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in Nairobi 7.3.1 Discussion re. GAC proposed topics: 1) New gTLD policy implementation, including Expression of Interest (EoI); 2) Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). 7.3.2 Other possible topics to propose to the GAC? 7.3.3 Discussion re. how we should prepare for the joint GAC/GNSO session. Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List (formerly Pending Action Item List) is at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 8.1 Questions/comments?

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2009
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 22, 2009

Dec. 22, 2009

FYI! I wish you all a Merry Christmas Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2009 15:18 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2009 Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2009. Please let me know if you would like any changes to be made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#dec on Thursday, 31 December 2009. Please note the action items arising from the minutes: Item 4 Action Item: Discussion of the Issues Report regarding vertical separation of Registries and Registrars http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf Council members are encouraged to involve their stakeholder groups in discussing this issue and to provide input on the Council mailing list in preparation for the next Council meeting on 7 January 2010 and at a specially convened meeting for that purpose if it is decided to schedule such meeting. Margie Milam's overview can be accessed at: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/issues-report-summary-17dec09-en.pdf Item 6.2.4 Action Item: Councilors are encouraged to solicit input from their stakeholder groups on the Final Report of the IDN Implementation Working Team http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-implementation-working-team-re… in preparation for discussion at the next Council meeting on Thursday, 7 January 2010. Item 7.1 Action Item: Chuck Gomes to send a message to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team capturing the discussion and outcome of the request for a face to face meeting. Item 7. 3 Action Item Councilors are asked to forward the AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf to their stakeholder groups and be prepared to discuss the issue in the meeting on 7 January 2010. Reminder: Following the new GNSO Council operating Procedures we no longer will need to approve minutes in our live meeting but each Councilor will individually be responsible for reviewing and commenting on the minutes. GNSO Council operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/gnso-operating-procedures-clean-12nov09-en.p… 3.5 Procedure to Produce the Minutes "Within 10 days of the meeting, the Chair and Vice Chairs will edit the draft and request the Secretariat to circulate the draft summary to GNSO Council members for comment and approval. All comments received will be accepted for inclusion into the draft minutes unless there are objections. If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting. All comments received from GNSO Council members will be incorporated in the summary unless there are objections from other GNSO Council members." Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009
by Jaime Wagner Dec. 18, 2009

Dec. 18, 2009

FYI The motion to support a F2F PDP meeting was not voted. There was an opposition from the BC. Discussions centered around lack of budget prevision and not enough funds to support all the requirements that could possibly be made after such a precedent. Jaime Wagner j(a)bwagner.com.br +55(51)8126-0916 skype: jaime_wagner From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: quinta-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2009 20:01 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009 Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed unanimously during the Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December 2009. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Olga Cavalli Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a tool kit of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0 3feb08.pdf>, p. 46.); Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>); Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report; Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review; Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations; Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting; Whereas the implementation of the toolkit has process and budgetary implications; RESOLVED, the Council approves the recommendations (<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05 nov09-en.pdf>) and directs Staff to: 1) share the recommendations with the Board; 2) post the document on the GNSO web page at <http://gnso.icann.org/>; 3) estimate the cost of the services; 4) estimate what funds might be available; 5) prioritize the list of services in cooperation with the Council; 6) develop specifications for providing the services, including requirements for their use and procedures for requesting them; and 7) notify applicable GNSO organizations of the services, specifications and procedures for requesting them. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. 2 Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) and amended by Kristina Rosette Motion made by: Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by: Debra Hughes Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df ) to the GNSO Council requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program; Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO Council created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the staff implementation models of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System that were proposed for inclusion in the Draft Application Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its members; Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended by the STI review team; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative proposal on an expedited basis; Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the overall package of recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described in the STI Report are more effective and implementable solutions than the corresponding staff implementation models that were described in memoranda accompanying the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a public comment period that will end on 26 January 2010 to allow the ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook. The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote of all Council members present. Council members absent: Contracted Party House - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Party House - NCSG - Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong 3. Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by Bill Drake and Jaime Wagner WHEREAS, the GNSO Council requested that Staff prepare an Issues Report on Vertical Integration at its 24 September 2009 meeting; WHEREAS, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf has been delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 December 2009 <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;p age_name=11%20December%202009> ; WHEREAS, in light of the approaching year-end holidays and the numerous important issues pending before the GNSO Council, the Council desires to have ample time to evaluate the recommendations contained in the Issues Report; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the Council acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report, thanks Staff for its efforts to produce the report, and agrees to delay consideration of the decision on whether to launch a PDP on the topic of vertical integration until January 2010. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 18, 2009

Dec. 18, 2009

FYI! The 4th draft motion on the agenda regarding ICANN support of a face to face meeting of the PDP working team was not voted because missing a quorum. After almost 3 hrs council meeting there was no more BC member available for the vote. Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2009 23:01 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009 Dear All, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed unanimously during the Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December 2009. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Kind regards, Glen 1. Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09) Motion by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Olga Cavalli Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a "tool kit" of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0…>, p. 46.); Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>); Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report; Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review; Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations; Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting; Whereas the implementation of the toolkit has process and budgetary implications; RESOLVED, the Council approves the recommendations (<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05n…>) and directs Staff to: 1) share the recommendations with the Board; 2) post the document on the GNSO web page at <http://gnso.icann.org/>; 3) estimate the cost of the services; 4) estimate what funds might be available; 5) prioritize the list of services in cooperation with the Council; 6) develop specifications for providing the services, including requirements for their use and procedures for requesting them; and 7) notify applicable GNSO organizations of the services, specifications and procedures for requesting them. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. 2 Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) and amended by Kristina Rosette Motion made by: Stéphane van Gelder Seconded by: Debra Hughes Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df ) to the GNSO Council requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program; Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO Council created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the staff implementation models of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System that were proposed for inclusion in the Draft Application Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its members; Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended by the STI review team; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative proposal on an expedited basis; Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the overall package of recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described in the STI Report are more effective and implementable solutions than the corresponding staff implementation models that were described in memoranda accompanying the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a public comment period that will end on 26 January 2010 to allow the ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook. The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote of all Council members present. Council members absent: Contracted Party House - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis Non Contracted Party House - NCSG - Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong 3. Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded by Bill Drake and Jaime Wagner WHEREAS, the GNSO Council requested that Staff prepare an Issues Report on Vertical Integration at its 24 September 2009 meeting; WHEREAS, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf has been delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;p…> December 2009; WHEREAS, in light of the approaching year-end holidays and the numerous important issues pending before the GNSO Council, the Council desires to have ample time to evaluate the recommendations contained in the Issues Report; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the Council acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report, thanks Staff for its efforts to produce the report, and agrees to delay consideration of the decision on whether to launch a PDP on the topic of vertical integration until January 2010. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports
by Jaime Wagner Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

All, We should discuss particularly the minority positions this during the next 40 days. Jaime Wagner j(a)bwagner.com.br +55(51)8126-0916 skype: jaime_wagner -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: terça-feira, 15 de dezembro de 2009 21:43 To: GNSO Council; gnso sti Subject: RE: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports Dear All, Please find attached the STI Final Report, with an updated Trademark Clearinghouse, Section 2.1, per Alan Greenberg's request below. Best Regards, Margie ____________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ___________ -----Original Message----- From: Margie Milam Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:06 PM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; GNSO Council; gnso sti Subject: RE: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports Alan, Yes, I will update Section 2.1 and will resend to the Council shortly. Best, Margie __________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN __________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:50 PM To: GNSO Council; gnso sti Subject: Re: [council] STI Final Report, Updated with Minority Reports Margie, could you please delete the reference to an At-Large Minority Position in Clearinghouse 2.1. Thanks, Alan At 15/12/2009 01:58 PM, Margie Milam wrote: >Dear All, > >Please find attached for your review the Final STI Report, which has >been updated to include the Minority Reports received to date. I >also cleaned up some formatting issues (such as deleting the Board >letter attachment) to make the document easier to review and download. > >Best Regards, > >Margie Milam > >______________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >______________ > >

1 0

WG: Registry Agreement Consultation
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

FYI Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: GNSO Secretariat [mailto:GNSO.Secretariat@icann.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2009 22:55 An: 'Tony Holmes'; 'Jaime Wagner'; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: Registry Agreement Consultation Forwarded from Craig Schwartz - Please forward to all your members Dear Community Members, ICANN invites community participation in an open consultation regarding the proposed registry agreement for new gTLDs. This meeting is being organized in response to a commitment made by ICANN at its meetings in Seoul to continue discussions with the community about open issues in the agreement, including the process for amending the agreement, aspects of registry services reviews, and restrictions on registry operators' ability to distribute names through affiliated registrars (e.g., vertical separation). The consultation will be held on Thursday, 7 January 2010, from 14:00 to 20:00 UTC <http://timeanddate.com/s/1gwx>. A conference call bridge and Adobe Connect access will be available for this discussion and all interested parties are encouraged to participate. ICANN will facilitate this discussion from Washington, DC and space will be available to accommodate some in-person participation. The reference materials for the consultation include the Registry Agreement published in Draft Applicant Guidebook v3 viewable at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-clean-04oct09-en…, the redline version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook from v2 to v3 viewable at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-04oct09-…. If you are interested in participating, please confirm at registry-liaison(a)icann.org by 28 December 2009. Please indicate whether you will attend in-person or remotely. Additional details regarding remote participation will be provided in advance of the consultation. We look forward to your participation in this work. Thank you. Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN Please note the announcement 15 December 2009 ICANN Consultation on New gTLD Registry Agreement http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15dec09-en.htm العربية\ltrch 中文 English Français Español Русский 日本語 Deutsch Português ÇÑ±¹¾î Italiano Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] Preliminary Report of ICANN Board Meeting 9 Dec 2010
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 16, 2009

Dec. 16, 2009

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: Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2009 01:04 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Preliminary Report of ICANN Board Meeting 9 Dec 2010 Hello All, See below for preliminary report on the ICANN Board meeting held last week. Key issues of interest to the GNSO are: - approval of the Verisign partial bulk transfer process for .com and .net - in principle support for an expression of interest phase for new gTLDs and to move forward to get public comment on the analysis done so far on the public comments and a proposed model for consideration "Resolved, (2009.12.09.05), ICANN staff is hereby directed to record and publish for public comment the risks and considerations considered by the board and the ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model. Staff is also directed to continue undertaking additional analysis on those determinations. Resolved, (2009.12.09.06), ICANN staff shall summarize: a) the public comments resulting from the publication of the risks and considerations considered by the board, b) ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model, and c) the additional staff analysis undertaken; and present that summary to the ICANN Board. Further, along with that summary ICANN staff shall present a proposed EOI process model for approval at the ICANN Board's February 2010 meeting. " - the Board determined that the CyberSafety Constituency (CSC), the City TLD Constituency, and IDNgTLD Constituency did not meet the requirements for a new constituency in the GNSO. No determination was made on the Consumer Constituency yet. - the Board approved the re-delegation of .co to a new ccTLD manager: .CO Internet S.A.S. - the Board approved the .POST sponsorship agreement Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm Preliminary Report of Special Board Meeting 9 December 2009 [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes, when approved by the board at a future meeting. A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 9 December 2009 @ 20.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order. In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Dennis Jennings (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, Steve Crocker, Gonzalo Navarro, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Jonne Soininen, TLG Liaison; and Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Liaison. Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison, Rajasekhar Ramaraj and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison, sent apologies. This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 9 December 2009. A. Consent Agenda ================== =================== 1. With Board Finance Committee Approval - Payment of Jones Day Invoices ======================================================================== = RESOLVED (2009.12.09.01) that the President and Chief Executive Officer is authorized to direct the Chief Financial Officer to pay Jones Day invoices for services provided in September 2009. 2. Amendment for Partial Bulk Transfer in dot-COM and dot-NET =============================================================== Whereas, VeriSign has submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the dot-COM and dot-NET Registry Agreements to offer partial bulk transfer (also known as Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition or BTAPPA). Whereas, the ICANN Board previously approved a similar BTAPPA service requested by Neustar for the dot-BIZ gTLD in November 2006. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendments to the dot-COM and dot-NET Registry Agreements as new registry services pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval ( http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ ). It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.02) that the amendments to Appendix 7 in the dot-COM and dot-NET Registry Agreements are approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. 3. From the Security & Stability Advisory Committee - Thank You to Rajasekhar Ramaraj for his service on SSAC ======================================================================== ======== Whereas, Rajasekhar Ramaraj was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 2 November 2007, Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Rajasekhar Ramaraj for his service to the Internet community by membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. It is RESOLVED (2009.12.09.03), that Rajasekhar Ramaraj has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN by his membership on the SSAC, and that the Board wishes Ramaraj well in all future endeavors. Resolutions 2009.12.09.01; 2009.12.09.02; and 2009.12.09.03 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items. All Board Members present unanimously approved these resolutions. B. Regular Agenda ================= ================= 1. [With Board Finance Committee Approval] - Approval of Lease for Washington D.C. Office Space ======================================================================== ============ The Board received a request for discussion of ICANN's global presence at the next meeting of the Board of Directors to address further expansion of office locations outside of the United States. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, ICANN has a need for office space in Washington, DC to meet needs for current and future staff; including the Vice President of Government Affairs, Whereas, ICANN has an organization benefit in maintaining a geographic presence in a leading center of government and in geographic proximity of major registry and registrar operators, Whereas, future ICANN staff growth is likely to be outside of the existing offices in Marina del Rey, CA and likely to increase in other parts of the U.S. and the World; It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.04) that the ICANN Board authorize either the Chief Operating Officer or the Chief Financial Officer to negotiate and finalize a lease for office space in Washington, DC on commercially reasonable terms, for approximately 6,000 square feet of space, not to exceed a ten year term, and for total occupancy costs to start out at less than $400,000 per year, and not to exceed $600,000 per year during the lease term. One Board member abstained from voting on this resolution. All remaining Board members in attendance approved of this resolution. The resolution passed. 2. President's Report ==================== The Board received a report from the President regarding ICANN's recent work, activities and achievements, including efforts on strengthening ICANN's global relationships. 3. Affirmation of Commitment Reviews ===================================== The Board received a report from staff regarding ICANN's planning work underway to facilitate the identification of review teams and commencement of the community-based reviews identified within the Affirmations document. The Board discussed additional items that should be considered, and stressed the community nature of the reviews. 4. Plan for Expressions of Interest ================================== The Board received a presentation from staff outlining the work done in response to the Board's resolution passed in Seoul directing staff to provide a plan for Board consideration regarding a call for "expressions of interest" in the New gTLD program. The Board then discussed the proposed plan and took the following action: Whereas the ICANN Board has passed a resolution in Seoul directing ICANN staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal "expressions of interest", and provide a plan for Board consideration in December 2009, including possible options and a risk analysis relating to a proposed action; Whereas ICANN staff has presented an analysis of the potential benefits of an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process, and has developed a preliminary EOI process model for ICANN Board discussion; Whereas the board discussion has resulted in some preliminary determinations pending formalizing the EOI process model and obtaining public comment on those determinations; Resolved, (2009.12.09.05), ICANN staff is hereby directed to record and publish for public comment the risks and considerations considered by the board and the ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model. Staff is also directed to continue undertaking additional analysis on those determinations. Resolved, (2009.12.09.06), ICANN staff shall summarize: a) the public comments resulting from the publication of the risks and considerations considered by the board, b) ICANN Board's determinations on the EOI process model, and c) the additional staff analysis undertaken; and present that summary to the ICANN Board. Further, along with that summary ICANN staff shall present a proposed EOI process model for approval at the ICANN Board's February 2010 meeting. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of the resolutions 5. Updated Project Plan on New gTLDs ==================================== The Board received an update from staff regarding assumptions and interdepedencies affecting the project planning for New gTLDs and provided further guidance and input. 6. New GNSO Constituency Applications ===================================== The Board discussed the fact that work was continuing on one of the four new GNSO Constituency Applications. The Board then took the following action: Whereas, The Board has received four formal petitions for the creation of four new GNSO Constituencies, the first formal requests for new GNSO constituencies in a decade; Whereas, Each petition has been subjected to a two-phase, public process that was instituted as part of the GNSO Improvements effort, and Public Comment Forums for all four petitions have concluded; It is RESOLVED (2009.12.09.07) that: 1. The Board is pleased with the response of the community in organizing these four prospective new Constituencies and in completing the various notifications, petitions, and charter documents designed to formally seek Board recognition and approval; 2. The Board thanks and acknowledges the work of the four Constituency proponents for their perseverance and dedication in attempting to further the evolution and representativeness of the GNSO; 3. The Board appreciates the work done by proponents of the CyberSafety Constituency (CSC), including its most recent response to various Board member and community questions and concerns. The Board, after careful reconsideration, has determined that this petition does not satisfy the standards for a new GNSO Constituency established by the Board; thus, the petition is not approved. Those individuals, groups, and organizations who have been involved with the CyberSafety proposal are encouraged to remain active within ICANN and, where applicable, seek to join other approved Constituencies. 4. The Board appreciates the work done by proponents of the City TLD Constituency; however, that petition is not approved on the basis that the Registries SG will be organized as a grouping of individually contracted Registries rather than as a grouping of Constituencies; as such, each City will be eligible to join the RySG once it signs a formal ICANN contract as a registry operator. In the interim, the proposed RySG Charter provides for "observer" status for any City TLD proponent interested in becoming an ICANN gTLD Registry. 5. The IDNgTLD Constituency petition, as presently formulated does not appear to be focused enough to be eligible for any single Stakeholder Group, is not comprised solely of non-governmental entities, and apparently is not focused on gTLD policies beyond non-Latin script IDNs. The Board acknowledges and thanks the IDNgTLD Constituency petitioners for their interest and effort, and welcomes further input on the structural and membership concerns raised. One Board member abstained from voting on this resolution. All remaining Board members in attendance approved of this resolution. The resolution passed. 7. Update on IDN FastTrack Applications ====================================== In the interest of time, the Chairman directed staff to provide an update via email. 8. Update on Strategic Plan ========================== In the interest of time, the Chairman deferred an update and reminded the Board to provide input as requested into the Strategic Planning Process. 9. Reforecast of FY10 Budget =========================== The Board received a short update from staff regarding budget reforecasting activities and provided suggestions of additional information that could be of use in a Board review. 10. Redelegation of .CO ======================== The Board took the following action: Whereas, "CO" is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Colombia; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .CO to .CO Internet S.A.S.; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.08), that the proposed redelegation of the .CO domain to .CO Internet S.A.S. is approved. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. The Chairman of the Board expressed his thanks to all working in the IANA Functions department for their work on this matter. 11. Any Other Business ======================== a. .POST Sponsorship Agreement The Board took the following action, following on from the recently closed public comment period: Whereas, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) applied for the .POST sponsored top-level domain in 2004 during the application round for sponsored new gTLDs; Whereas, ICANN and the UPU conducted extensive, time consuming and challenging negotiations to overcome a number of contracting issues unique to the UPU as a result of its status as an intergovernmental organization and specialized agency of the United Nations; Whereas, ICANN and the UPU concluded their negotiation with an agreement in principle in October 2009; Whereas, the proposed .POST Sponsorship Agreement was posted for public comment on 2 November 2009, and two comments were received, and both were reviewed with the board; It is hereby RESOLVED (2009.12.09.09) that the .POST Sponsorship Agreement is approved, and the President and CEO is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement. All Board members in attendance unanimously approved of this resolution. The President expressed his thanks for the work on this item. b. Other The Board requested staff to provide an update on the review of economic studies. C.Executive Session ==================== ==================== The Board conducted an executive session, without staff present, in confidence, and all resolutions passed in the executive session, were held confidentially. The board meeting was adjourned at 23.14 UTC.

1 0

Main points from ISPCP conference call 11 December
by Tony Holmes Dec. 14, 2009

Dec. 14, 2009

This conference call focused on the issues to be discussed during the GNSO Council meeting December 17. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Jaime Wagner represent the ISPCP on the Council. Jaime was unable to join the call due to personal circumstances. Wolf-Ulrich provided an overview of the issues on the agenda for this Council meeting and the following main decisions were taken; . Proposal for the PPSC to hold a face to face meeting in the US, early 2010 The ISPCP support the view that this meeting is required in order for this WG to finalise their work and that funding attendance of representatives who have been actively engaged in the process is an appropriate an valid use of ICANN funds. Wolf-Ulrich will draft a motion to support this view. . Prioritisation of work The current proliferation of issues which require resource (15-18 projects) demands that Council prioritise the work. Wolf-Ulrich is participating in initial discussions within Council that will result in an approach being placed before Council for their consideration and agreement. The ISPCP will be kept aware of progress. . Vertical integration of Registries and Registrars AN issues report is on the table for discussion but the ISPCP have supported the postponement of any discussion over the PDP until January. His remains an important issue for the ISPCP. Additional issues discussed - Travel Support There is a need to determine the level of support available and how that will be utilised for the next ICANN meeting (Nairobi in March) at the next ISPCP Conference call. It was reiterated that the ISPCP supports the view that travel funding should be allocated to the Constituencies and placed under their jurisdiction to utilise in a manner that best meets the Constituency requirements/representation at ICANN meetings. Future ISPCP calls The next ISPCP call will be scheduled for the week beginning 18th January.

1 0

WG: [council] Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 12, 2009

Dec. 12, 2009

FYI Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Margie Milam Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Dezember 2009 02:19 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars Wichtigkeit: Hoch Dear All, I am pleased to submit for your review and consideration, the attached Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars. As you may recall, this report was requested by the GNSO Council in response to a motion made by Mary Wong for the 3 September 2009 GNSO Council meeting, and carried during the Council teleconference meeting on 24 September 2009. Please note that I will be providing a brief overview of the Issues Report at the next council meeting on 17 December 2009, and look forward to answering any questions that you may have at the meeting. Best Regards, Margie ____________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN ____________

1 0