- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Cairo Selected to Host 33rd International Public Meeting
by Mark McFadden May 19, 2008

May 19, 2008

Cairo Selected to Host 33rd International Public Meeting 16 May 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: Cairo, Egypt will host the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' 33rd International Public Meeting from 2-7 November 2008. At its 28 April 2008 meeting, the ICANN Board accepted the proposal to host the meeting put forward by National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt. "This is going to be an exciting meeting for ICANN with it marking our 10th anniversary and it's fitting that it is in Egypt," said Paul Levins, ICANN's Executive Officer and Vice President - Corporate Affairs. "Egypt, with other nations and the technical community, has played a key role in moving Internationalized Domain Names forward." The meeting venue will be the Intercontinental - Cairo Citystars. The website with information on the ICANN hotel room rate and booking instructions will be posted soon. Each year ICANN holds three meetings in different regions around the world. These meetings constitute an essential part of ICANN's global consensus-building and outreach efforts. The ICANN Meetings Committee sets the regions in which ICANN will hold its meetings. Proposals are then solicited from organizations interested in hosting the ICANN Meeting. -- >From the gNSO Secretariat

1 0

FW: Paris meeting agenda
by Mark McFadden May 14, 2008

May 14, 2008

Forwarded, FYI. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:16 AM To: Mark McFadden - ISPCP Secretariat; Tony Holmes; Antonio Harris; greg Ruth Subject: Paris meeting agenda Dear All, Could you please provide an overview of your constituency agenda for the constituency day meetings in Paris on 24 June. We would like to have this up on the website in the next few days. Once you have finalised your agenda, the 'overview' can be replaced with the completed version. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [liaison6c] Presentations by IANA team
by Mark McFadden May 14, 2008

May 14, 2008

Forwarded, FYI. -----Original Message----- From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:05 AM To: liaison6c Subject: [liaison6c] Presentations by IANA team Dear All, Members of the IANA team have offered to give short presentations on the following topics on constituency day in Paris. 1. DS Key registry (new) 2. IPv4 depletion update 3. changes to IANA registry maintenance (xml) Please let me know if your constituency would be interested in one or more of these key issues and the likely time slot on your agenda that would fit for scheduling purposes. Please let me have your response NLT 19 May 2008. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Absentee Voting Modification to ICANN Bylaws Open for Public Comment
by Mark McFadden May 1, 2008

May 1, 2008

The Absentee Voting Modification to the ICANN Bylaws is open for public comment from 30 April 2008 to 21 May 2008 The GNSO Council approved a resolution to recommend to the Board a modification of the ICANN bylaws http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/absentee-voting-bylaw-amendment-15feb08.pdf that would permit electronic absentee voting in certain circumstances in order to allow Council members who are absent from Council meetings to vote. Currently, a member of the Council is unable to vote on an issue when absent from the Council meeting at which the vote occurs. The Council found that this not only disenfranchises members from opportunities to vote, but also, disenfranchises the constituencies they represent. In drafting the resolution, the GNSO considered carefully the way in which it operates today, and produced a report entitled, "Draft GNSO Council Request to the Board to enable full enfranchisement of the GNSO Council's voting responsibilities." http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/vote-enfranchisement-17jan08.pdf The report examines closely how the Council typically deliberates prior to initiating a vote on policy matters, and concludes that allowing for absentee voting would enhance participation by enfranchising absent voters by providing a means for absent members to vote electronically. The public is invited to comment on this recommendation before consideration by the Board. Please submit comments to: <absentee-voting-2008(a)icann.org> Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/absentee-voting-2008/ >From the gNSO Secretariat.

1 0

RE: [ispcp] [ SECRETARIAT ] Please volunteer for the Inter-Registrar transfer drafting group
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

Dear Glen I'm pleased to advise you that Antonio Tavares will represent the interest of the ISPCP on the drafting team looking at Inter-Register Transfers. Regards Tony

1 0

FW: Next steps re GNSO restructuring v3
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com April 22, 2008

April 22, 2008

Dear ISPCP colleagues Attached is the latest draft of the document on GNSO restructuring that has been prepared by members of the ISPCP, BC and IPC. In addition it has also been shared with representatives of the NCUC and ALAC. It represents an alternative approach towards GNSO restructuring that, pending final comment from the above constituencies, will be forwarded to the Board for their consideration. The deadline for submission is April 25th, so please forward any comments by APRIL 21st. That will allow a final round of coordination/minor edits to take place between the three constituencies whilst still meeting the deadline set by the ICANN Board. The ISPCP leadership team strongly recommends your support for this proposal. If you wish to comment please respond to the list and cc Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and myself (email addresses above). A nil response will be taken as support for this draft. Regards Tony

2 2

[ SECRETARIAT ] Please volunteer for the Inter-Registrar transfer drafting group
by Mark McFadden April 19, 2008

April 19, 2008

Dear All, The GNSO Council, at its meeting on 17 April, 2008, unanimously approved the creation of a short term drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers. The task includes suggesting changes to the initial formulations based on the comments received from the constituencies and from the public comment period. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf 1. No payment for previous registration period (including credit card charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer (Reason #5 in the policy). 2. A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status (Reason #7 in the policy). 3. A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period (Reason #8 in the policy). 4. A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs) (Reason #9 in the policy). The drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council. Olof Nordling will be the staff lead and the proposed timeline should allow for a public comment period on the recommendation and a vote to be taken at the Paris meeting in June 2008. It was further suggested that the group use the mail-server list gnso-trans-pdp[at]icann.org with the public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-trans-pdp/ Please let the Secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> know by COB on Tuesday 22 April, 2008 who would like to be on the drafting team so that there is no delay in starting work. [ from the gNSO Secreatariat ]

2 1

[ SECRETARIAT ] Staff briefing on the Introduction of New gTLDs
by Mark McFadden April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

ICANN staff is completing preparations for a briefing and discussion with the Council about the additional investigation and research staff has done on implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. As requested by the Council, arrangements are being made to accommodate in-person participation in Los Angeles (beginning the evening of 10 April and continuing all day on 11 April) by GNSO Council members (or designated constituency representatives), as well as remote participation. An agenda and additional information will be provided shortly (and posted publicly). Please see <http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> for implementation development updates (the relevant section also is included below). Please note that this 10/11 April session addresses work-in progress on potential implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. The Report is still under consideration by ICANN's Board, and a comprehensive, proposed implementation plan will not be available for consideration and comment by the GNSO and the public until the Board approves the Report and directs staff to develop an implementation plan. Please email <newgtld(a)icann.org> if you have questions. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org Program implementation development updates: ICANN has made considerable progress in developing potential implementation models of the GNSO Policy recommendations for the introduction of New gTLDs. . Background <http://icann.org/topics/background-info-newgtld-apps-13feb08.htm> Information Regarding Previous New GTLD Application Rounds (13 February 2008) . Public Comments <http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-06feb08.htm> Requested on DNS Stability: the effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System (6 February 2008) In preparing for the expected implementation of the gTLD policy recommendations, staff is conducting some review and analysis of the technical issues involved in this development. The addition of gTLDs to the namespace is an expansion of the DNS on a potentially large scale, to include many more names at the top level. ICANN is publishing a paper called DNS <http://icann.org/topics/dns-stability-draft-paper-06feb08.pdf> Stability: the effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System [PDF, 53K] to solicit informed input on the technical issues relevant to the addition of new gTLDs, and to provide transparency toward how it will interpret and implement this recommendation. The goal is a clear set of rules that will be available to potential new gTLD applicants; so that it is known from the outset what tests will be applied to each application. ICANN is seeking feedback on the proposed approach as a step in its implementation planning for the introduction of new gTLDs. Comments may be submitted to new-gtlds-dns-stability(a)icann.org by March 7 2008. Comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-dns-stability/. . ICANN has retained Deloitte Audit & Enterprise Risk Services from Belgium and Interisle Consulting Group from the United States to develop in detail important portions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the new gTLD process. (21 December 2007) These parties have begun work (at ICANN direction and using product developed by staff to date) on technical and business criteria, criteria for resolving confusing similarity, and development of a comparative evaluation process. (ICANN issued a Statement <http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-sow-06sep07.htm> of Work on 6 September 2007 and received eleven expressions of interest and seven proposals from candidates in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and the United States. . Draft standards and procedures have been developed for policy recommendations relating to resolving dispute arising from objections to proposed TLDs based on morality or public order , and legal rights of others. (21 December 2007) ICANN has engaged counsel from numerous international jurisdictions to inform the development of standards that could be applied to the GNSO recommendations and used by the Dispute Resolution Service Provider(s). It is anticipated that standards and procedures will be finalized in coordination with the selected Dispute Resolution Service Provider(s). (See ICANN's <http://icann.org/topics/drsp-call-for-expressions-of-interest.pdf> call for expressions of interest from Dispute Resolution Provider(s) [PDF, 25K] . ICANN staff has created the draft requirements document describing the program interface that will be developed in the coming months. (21 December 2007) The program interface is the web-based system to be used to receive and manage incoming applications. . Collaboration on the global communications plan and strategy continues within cross-functional teams at ICANN. (21 December 2007) A draft communications plan to address GNSO implementation advice has been completed. . ICANN has developed a draft position paper regarding the policy recommendation concerning DNS stability. (21 December 2007) ICANN expects to post the paper for public comment early 2008.

1 0

[ SECRETARIAT ] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by Mark McFadden April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-03apr08.htm 3 April 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers today launched the Contractual Compliance Newsletter, a newsletter that offers a snapshot of the wide range of compliance work being done by ICANN. Each issue of the newsletter will cover enforcement statistics, an in-depth look at part of the compliance process, information about audits and studies, and upcoming events. The Newsletter will also include new advisories for registries and registrars to help them understand and continue to improve their compliance with ICANN contracts. In recent feedback on ICANNs performance under the Joint Project Agreement with the US National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration, there was input about ICANN's work on Whois accuracy, and that compliance needed to be better understood. ICANN's goal is that this newsletter will be an important way to address these concerns and continue community dialogue about how to improve contractual compliance. The first issue of the Newsletter explains why and how ICANN does contract compliance with our contracted parties; gTLD registries and registrars. It also includes statistics on the consumer complaints ICANN receives and on enforcement notices we send out. This issues section on studies and audits includes an update on the Whois Data Accuracy Study, the Registrar Whois Data Inaccuracy Audit and the Performance Specifications Audit of Registries. Please send your comments about the newsletter and any topics you would like to see covered in it to compliance(a)icann.org. To subscribe to this Digest, simply click on the link below and provide the requested information: http://www.icann.org/newsletter/ For more information about ICANN's Contractual Compliance Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/compliance. For more information about ICANN's Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration, please visit http://www.icann.org/jpa/ . [ from the gNSO Secretariat ]

1 0

ISPCP Comments on Clarification of Reasons for Denial of Inter-Registrar Transfers
by mark.h.mcfadden＠bt.com March 18, 2008

March 18, 2008

All: Sorry to ask this of you so quickly, but we are late getting comments in on this PDP. It is related to a set of very limited issues regarding the transfer of domain names between registrars. Specifically it addresses the four main reasons under which a Registrar of Record may deny a request for transfer. Those reasons are denial for nonpayment, denial because the domain name is in lock status, denial during the first 60 days of registration and denial during the first 60 days after the previous transfer. The ISPCP comments stress clarity in process for our customers and clear definitions for terms in the inter-registrar transfer process. It also suggests that the denial during the first 60 days after previous transfer is no longer needed. We need comments very quickly so that this can be shipped up to the staff shepherd for the issue. Comments and edits would be most welcome! I provide the document in two formats for your convenience: the PDF and Word documents are the same. mark

1 0