- ispcp - lists.icann.org

ICANN Engagement Center
by WUKnoben May 10, 2013

May 10, 2013

Osvaldo, congratulations to Uruguay for this important step. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

RV: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections
by Novoa, Osvaldo May 9, 2013

May 9, 2013

All, We seem to be getting to the end of this matter, but I need your opinion on the questions posted by Berry Cobb. In general there was no support to waive the fees of the TMCH fro the IGO and INGO. With respect to these specific questions: 1.- I don't have the background on the GAC and ALAC standing for filing objections, though I understand the reason for GAC's. I would support waiving the fees for the qualifying IGOs and INGOs. 2.- The same 3.- I don't understand the question, maybe due to some translation issue. It seems to mean that the IGO or INGO that has an objection would have to go through the GAC. If this is the case, it would be a GAC issue and I don't think the GSO or its members would have anything to say about it. Hoping to hear from you, Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org] En nombre de Berry Cobb Enviado el: Viernes, 03 de Mayo de 2013 14:36 Para: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #3 - IGO-INGO Equivalent Standing for Objections Hi All, Judging by the responses and the Chair's assessment thus far, it appears that there is not much support for Fee Waivers at the various levels of the protection mechanisms discussed, with the exception at the top-level for future applications of gTLDs. We ask that the WG stakeholders respond to the following questions in the context that an organization's identifiers would not be placed on a reserved names list or listed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for registration: 1. Is there support for IGO, IOC, and RCRC to have equivalent standing similar to the GAC and ALAC for filing objections against top-level applications for gTLDs? (Note that there is no charge of a filing fee for that GAC and ALAC) 2. If there is no support for equivalent standing, is there support for a fee reduction for filing objections to new gTLD applications by IGO, IOC, and RCRC? 3. If there is no support for either concept, what are your thoughts about the organizations seeking protection to collaborate with the GAC for gTLD applications where an objection is being considered? We will discuss this topic at our 8 May 2013 conference call. Thank you for your input. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

3 2

Report published: Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process
by WUKnoben April 30, 2013

April 30, 2013

FYI http://forum.icann.org/lists/iana-complaint-resolution/msg00005.html Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

RV: RySG Recommendations
by Novoa, Osvaldo April 26, 2013

April 26, 2013

All, The IGO/INGO PDP WG continues its work and now we are following the registries recommendations, see the attached document. In general I agree with the proposal except that I don't think acronyms should be included in the protection, only full names. Also, there is a proposal to waive the fees for: -Objections against applications for gTLDs/Top Level -Applications to the TMCH -URS -URDP I would agree to waive the fee for the Objections not for the rest. Honestly, I think we are wasting a lot of time and money with this discussion while at the end will finish doing what the GAC asked for. If I don't receive any answer I will suppose you all agree with me and submit my opinion. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org] En nombre de Gomes, Chuck Enviado el: Sábado, 20 de Abril de 2013 15:28 Para: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org) Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] RySG Recommendations Here are the RySG recommendations to the WG with regard to policy recommendations. David & I look forward to answering any questions and discussing the recommendations further on list and in our meeting this coming week. [file:///C:\Users\chuckg\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\dots.gif] Chuck Gomes Vice President cgomes(a)verisign.com t: +1 530 676-1754 m: +1 703 362-8753 VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately. [rtfimage://] "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately." ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

Comment period is open -- Proposed RAA agreement
by Mike O'Connor April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

hi all, just a heads up -- the new RAA is out for comment. deadline for comments is 13 May, followed by reply-comments period closing 4-June. https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm m PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Draft motion - Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report
by Mike O'Connor April 19, 2013

April 19, 2013

hi all, i'm sortof the driving force behind this motion, and wanted to let Wolf-Urich and Osvaldo know that it would be great if they could introduce it or second it. thanks, mikey > > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> > Date: Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:20 > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: [council] Draft motion - Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report > > Dear All, > > As discussed in Beijing, please find attached for your consideration a draft motion on uniformity of reporting. In line with the recommendation in the Final Issue Report, the draft motion proposes not to initiate a PDP, but to form a DT to develop a charter for a non-PDP WG to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external sources to aid the policy development process as outlined in the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf) As this is not a motion to initiate a PDP, the standard voting threshold (simple majority) would apply for it to pass. > > With best regards, > > Marika > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Webinar: WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations - Implementation Update
by Mike O'Connor April 16, 2013

April 16, 2013

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Webinar: WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations - Implementation Update > Date: April 16, 2013 12:15:25 PM CDT > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-16apr13-en.htm > > Webinar: WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations - Implementation Update > 16 April 2013 > Join ICANN Staff for an update on ICANN's ongoing and planned activities to fully enforce the existing WHOIS policy for generic top-level domains. > > Webinar Details > > Date: Wednesday, 24 April > Time: 15:00-16:30 UTC > Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois/ > > You are invited to an update on ICANN's ongoing and planned activities to fully enforce the existing WHOIS policy and contractual conditions for gTLDs. These activities address ICANN's obligations to support access to accurate gTLD WHOIS data and are consistent with objectives included in the WHOIS Policy Review Team's recommendations. ICANN Staff will walk you through, and respond to questions on, the following projects: WHOIS as a strategic priority; RAA amendments; data accuracy/access; compliance and automated tools; internationalized registration data; WHOIS information portal; and outreach and communication efforts. Staff also will provide an overview of the efforts undertaken by the Expert Working Group to develop a proposed blueprint for gTLD directory services. > > Please join this webinar on Wednesday, 24 April at 15:00 UTC (duration 90 minutes). The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation. The session will be conducted in English. > > Participants will have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, these may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. > > Please register via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org by Tuesday, 23 April – 23:59 UTC to receive the dial-in details. We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with login and dial-in details. > > Background documents: > > Blog post on WHOIS & What's to Come > WHOIS policies and provisions > Board Resolution on WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations > WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations [PDF, 1.44 MB] > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Motions for Wednesday
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

https://community.icann.org/m/view-page.action?spaceKey=gnsocouncilmeetings… Motion 1 maybe amended depending on Registrar internal discussion Wolf-Ulrich Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: > Von: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > Datum: 9. April 2013 06:59:07 GMT+08:00 > An: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> > Kopie: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [council] Motions for Wednesday > > > Motion 2 remains on the table. I am open to discussion of wording with > fellow councilors. > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > On 04/08/2013 03:38 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Please can the makers of Wednesday's motions confirm the current status. Are both still on the table and if so do we have the correct current wording. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Jonathan >> >>

1 0

Fw: [Outreach] Important Information for Beijing Outreach ThursdaySession
by WUKnoben April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Guys, those interested in the outreach development: here’s a good opportunity to get engaged in the efforts during Beijing46 Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben From: Janice Douma Lange Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 5:34 PM To: Outreach(a)icann.org Subject: [Outreach] Important Information for Beijing Outreach ThursdaySession The Global Stakeholder Engagement team is looking forward to your participation in our Interactive Work session this Thursday 11 April…please read Invitation document provided. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Outreach mailing list Outreach(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach

1 0

Fwd: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de April 4, 2013

April 4, 2013

FYI Sent from my personal phone Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: > Von: john(a)crediblecontext.com > Datum: 4. April 2013 03:50:32 GMT+08:00 > An: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Betreff: RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting > > All, > > From a purely personal point-of-view (and as a communications consultant), I was struck by the pejorative nature of some of the language used in what otherwise could have been a motion written to make the point without using the sharp end of a stick. > > So as to be specific, I have boldfaced the words that led me to this conclusion: > > "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's flawed genesis and the strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent substantive policy-making rather than purely technical or operational implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. > > The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly. > > As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder model. > > The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed course of action regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50 additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of their implications." > > There is no issue that cannot be brought up, many of which are in our mandate and some that have led to actionable motions. This could be one, too, but with "disappointment" met with "fervently." I worry the horse may be out of the barn. > > See you in a few days. > > Cheers, > > Berard > --------- Original Message --------- > Subject: RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting > From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com> > Date: 4/3/13 10:51 am > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Dear all: > > > > The IPC opposes this motion and fervently disagrees with statements proposed therein. We will follow up in due course with additional details on the IPC’s position. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian J. Winterfeldt > > Partner > > bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com > > Steptoe > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:40:47 PM > To: 'Maria Farrell'; council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting > Auto forwarded by a Rule > > > > Thanks Maria, > > > > One practical question, I believe you are not going to be at the meeting in Beijing. > > > > So, is it your intention that someone else leads the making of the motion and the initial discussion or will you do so remotely? > > > > Jonathan > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell > Sent: 02 April 2013 23:30 > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting > > > > Dear Jonathan and fellow Council members, > > I would like to request the addition of an item to the draft Beijing GNSO Council meeting agenda, circulated earlier today, by proposing a motion for discussion and adoption, copied below. > > > "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's flawed genesis and the strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent substantive policy-making rather than purely technical or operational implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. > > The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly. > > As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder model. > > The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed course of action regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50 additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of their implications." > > Best regards, > > Maria

1 0