- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Main points from ISPCP conference call 6 August 2012
by tony holmes Aug. 8, 2012

Aug. 8, 2012

The main points from yesterdays call are listed below. . Inpact of new gTLDs on ICANNs structure. A request from Bertrand de La Chapelle on behalf of the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), sent to ICANN Constituencies and SO's was discussed. This makes a call for initial input by September 10th prior to a Board Workshop in mid-September. Tony Holmes will circulate a draft paper for constituency comment within the next two weeks. . Travel support for Toronto meeting. Available to the ISPCP are the two fully funded slots for ISPCP Councillors and following a decision announced within the approved FY-13 budget, 3 slots for Constituency executive officers or their designates. That decision to increase the number of slots available, from 2 to 3, was based on ICANN only meeting twice within FY-13. It was confirmed that Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Tony Holmes and Tony Harris will receive travel support. Mikey O'Connor was also supported as a designate along with Jaime Wagner if he can rearrange his schedule to attend. The secretariat was requested to enquire whether one supported travel slot could be carried over to the next meeting in Beijing. . ISPCP outreach committee It was confirmed the ISPCP Outreach Committee will hold a conference call on Tuesday 14th August commencing at 14.00 UTC. . GNSO council Wolf-Ulrich Knoben reported that no motions were placed before Council for approval at the last meeting. There will no GNSO Council meeting during August as many members would be on vacation. Council are also due to consider the request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on their activities, as requested by the Board Governance Committee. It was reported that little progress has been made on the IoC discussions to date but the pressure remains on ICANN to resolve those issues. . Date for next ISPCP call; Monday 10th September commencing at 14.00 UTC.

2 1

ISPCP conference call.
by tony holmes Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 6, 2012

I would like to propose an ISPCP conference call is held next week. Please let me know your preference for a call at the following times. Monday 6th August at 15.00 UCT Thursday 9th August at 15.00 UCT Thursday 9th August at 16.00 UCT Friday 10th August at 16.00 UCT Thanks Tony

5 8

Meeting Invitation / ISPCP Call / Monday 23 August at 1400 UTC
by Gisella Gruber-White Aug. 3, 2012

Aug. 3, 2012

Dear All, Please note that the next ISPCP call is scheduled for on Monday 23 August 2010 at 1400 UTC. Please find the dial-in details below. Thank you Kind regards Gisella ------------------------------------------------------------- Passcodes: Participant: 1385274 Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0489 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4854 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1956 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7725 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5235 1-800-009-646 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8211-1378 1-800-009-646 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-80-004 0800-677-079 BELGIUM 32-2-401-7012 0800-4-9773 BRAZIL 0800-7610709 CHILE 1230-020-2471 CHINA* 86-400-810-4743 10800-712-1185 10800-120-1185 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156479 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-06 800-700-159 DENMARK 45-7014-0229 8088-5346 ESTONIA 800-011-1092 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-156 0-800-1-12318 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-67 080-563-9648 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-25-91 080-563-9648 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20599 0800-101-2179 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0630 00800-12-5998 HONG KONG 852-2286-5624 800-968-767 HUNGARY 06-800-15230 INDIA 000-800-852-1209 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3492 IRELAND 353-1-431-9674 1800-992-641 ISRAEL 1-80-9214131 ITALY 39-02-3600-0507 800-985-846 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4755 00531-12-1423 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5146 00531-12-1423 LATVIA 8000-2933 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1305 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8114 MEXICO 001-866-761-6529 NETHERLANDS 31-20-713-3466 0800-020-3473 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4633 0800-445-270 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-05 800-11825 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072096 PERU 0800-53765 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3702 POLAND 00-800-1210066 PORTUGAL 8008-12795 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9763011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9189 800-120-4141 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-07 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93386 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1044 00798-14800-6315 SPAIN 34-91-414-08-12 800-099-807 SWEDEN 46-8-506-92-118 0200-897-066 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4209 0800-000-663 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7338 00801-137-557 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65077 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9007 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3207 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2107 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7098-0710 0800-279-9198 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1407 0800-279-9198 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3427 USA 1-210-795-0464 866-617-1530 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3717 Certain dialing restrictions can apply from specific countries. To ensure that your participants have the correct dialing procedures, please include this link in your invitation: https://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.com/audioconferencing/global_access.php

6 30

WG: Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

FYI. Please contact me if you're interested in participating - in addition to myself. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 00:06 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team Call for Volunteers for Drafting Team to develop Charter for 'thick' Whois PDP WG Introduction At its meeting on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120314-1) Following a short delay, the GNSO Council decided at its last meeting that a group of volunteers should now be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on 'thick' Whois'. The elements of the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>: Working Group identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Volunteers If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>). You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest in order to participate. Background Information on the Issue For the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries, ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through the registry agreements (ICANN 2009 Registry Agreements) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries satisfy their Whois obligations using different services. The two common models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name. A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service. With thin registries, Registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA 3.3 for those domains they sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin registries. Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 noting that the Issue Report should 'not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not'. The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN Staff on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) and in this report a number of issues are outlined that will need further consideration should a PDP proceed. The staff recommendation notes that staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO and notes that it is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that further investigation of 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not. Recommended Reading for Volunteers * Final Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines (http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

WG: WhoIs motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

All: With Mikey's assistance I've slightly amended the motion and sent to the council. I'll keep you informed about until the council meeting tomorrow. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ______________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 01:06 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: WhoIs motion All, following the council discussion last weekend on the WhoIs motion the ISPCP constituency discussed today the matter and came to the conclusion to provide this motion in an amended form as attached. I hope this brings more clarity on the reference as well as on the target. As there is still room for discussion I would appreciate your comments. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: [council] informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Thomas Rickert Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 13:11 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: [council] informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions Councillors, this is a follow-up to the invitation that I sent to the list earlier. Please feel free to share the document with your respective groups. Thomas On Monday, June 25, an informal group of community members convened to exchange thoughts on potential answers to the questions of Batching and Digital Archery. The group did not neither craft nor agree on a common proposal to present to the ICANN Board since the time available did not allow for an attempt to do so. A huge number of ideas and suggestions were presented and commented on. With this document, I would like to briefly summarize those and more ideas that were brought to my attention in follow-up discussions and try to structure them. The conclusions I will draw do not represent the group's view, but my personal thoughts based on the cumulative input. The main areas of discussion were - Application Evaluation Batching and - Delegation Batching. However, the subjects of Digital Archery as well as the impact of the letter by the GAC to the ICANN Board on any proposal were also discussed and deemed necessary factors when defining what could be a superior solution to the current approach. The group also felt that more data was needed to come up with a sound proposal in order to base calculations on facts rather than guesses. Apart from questions on parameters of the contracts with the firms that have been tasked to carry out the evaluation, the question of the maximum delegation rate per day or week was of interest to anticipate potential roll-out scenarios in the delegation phase. Kurt Pritz responded to this both in the informal meeting as well as during the public session. In summary, there does not seem to be a clear answer with unambiguous figures rather than the fact that the 1000 TLDs somewhat need to be distributed over the year i.e is a rate per year. For the evaluation phase, there seemed to be a lot of support and little or no opposition to processing all applications in a single batch. That should be done as quickly as possible. While Kurt Pritz emphasized that quality is of highest priority and that it is not easy to add more evaluators since they have been trained for months, ICANN should try to deploy more resources. There is partially identical information in applications using the same Registry Service Provider and those of portfolio applicants. For these (and I am not suggesting that these should be processed in batches), only the the differences of the applications have to be identified, i.e. the evaluator would process one in total and then be able to concentrate on the variations of the applications and the impact of those on the assessment of the application. By doing so, it should be possible to expedite the evaluation process significantly. I understand that there are other proposals currently being drafted which focus exclusively on incasing process efficiency. There did not seem to be an unanimous view on whether all results of initial evaluation should be published at the same time or whether they should be published as their evaluation is completed. A proposal was made to publish the results for individual applications as the initial evaluation is completed and then queue them for delegation as they are ready to go until the delegation rate limit of 1000 TLDs per year is reached. Numerous proposals have been made to establish a sequence of processing and then delegating TLDs. These can roughly be grouped into the following categories: - Clustering Several participants argued for different treatment for different types of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs, Community TLDs, grouping by competitors (applicants should tell who should not be delegated earlier than their application), grouping not only by contention sets, but also by synonyms (i.e. .music should be grouped with .hiphop). - Financial Proposals were made to provide financial incentives to those who agree to be processed later or to give each applicant one point and that such points can be traded. - Choice Applicants should get the opportunity to opt-out and portfolio applicants could volunteer to prioritize their own applications. - Natural sequencing Several attendees pointed to the fact that there will be a natural sequencing because of contention sets, objections, extended evaluations, GAC Advice, differences of time required for contract negotiation and execution. In addition to that, withdrawals or rejections of applications will further reduce the number of TLDs that need to be delegated. Another idea was to use the quality of the applications as a basis for sequencing them, eg. by scoring them or taking into account the requirement to get back to the applicant for additional information. Conclusions: It seems like creating groups of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs etc., is not an approach that gets broad community support. No matter how legitimate the reasons brought forward may be to either prioritize those or at least ensure that they are not processed at the end of the queue, it seems unrealistic to serve all these groups. Thus, it will be difficult to establish a new methodology for clustering applications as the basis for creating an order for processing and delegating them. A combination of various elements described above could be an eligible solution. These elements could be: - Resources: ICANN should hire more resources to provide for an expedient evaluation taking into account the suggestions above. - Choice: Applicants should say whether the earliest possible delegation is of high, medium or low priority for them. The applications will be processed in that order. - Complexity: In terms of complexity, a distinction needs to be made between external and internal factors. Internal factors: Priority is given to applications with, i.e. where no additional information has to be requested and where no extended evaluation is required. This addresses the widely welcome idea that quality should be a factor. External factors: Where contentions, objections or GAC advice are given, the applications are processed in the order these issues are resolved. The results of the initial evaluation of applications where no clarifying information had to be provided by the applicant was required, should be published at the same time. For the remaining applications, the results should be published whenever the evaluation is completed. The applications will then be processed whenever the respective next stage is reached. There will be a natural sequencing because of different time needed for contract negotiations and execution. It should also be noted that the delegation process is not under ICANN's exclusive control, which will provide for additional sequencing. Again, this document and the conclusion is an attempt to summarize and amalgamate proposals and feedback into what might be a possible approach. It is an effort in personal capacity which does not necessarily represent the view of the participants. Please circulate to those who are interested. I will collect feedback and make that available later this week. Thomas Rickert ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Director Names & Numbers ------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Lichtstraße 43h 50825 Köln Fon: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0 Fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111 E-Mail: thomas.rickert(a)eco.de<mailto:thomas.rickert@eco.de> Web: http://www.eco.de<http://www.eco.de/> --------------------------------------------------- eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv. Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478 Sitz des Vereins: Köln

1 0

RE: [ispcp] CSG breakfast tomorrow Hilton Prague
by tony holmes June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

This is the CSG breakfastwith the ccSO Tony From: Jaime Wagner - CGI [mailto:jaime@cgi.br] Sent: 25 June 2012 18:11 To: 'tony holmes'; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: RES: [ispcp] CSG breakfast tomorrow Hilton Prague At the same time as the CSG breakfast? Jaime Wagner - Direção <mailto:manuela@powerself.com.br> jaime(a)powerself.com.br Geral: (51) 3233 3551 Ramal 17 | Celular: (51) 8126 0916 Skype: jaime_wagner Msn: Site: <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br <http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/powerself> Facebook | <http://www.twitter.com/powerself> Twitter | <http://www.linkedin.com/company/2131855?trk=tyah> Linkedin PowerTasks: <http://www.powerself.com.br/PowerTasks/power_tasks.php> App PowerSelf para iPhone De: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de tony holmes Enviada em: segunda-feira, 25 de junho de 2012 09:51 Para: ispcp(a)icann.org Assunto: [ispcp] CSG breakfast tomorrow Hilton Prague The breakfast with ccNSO managers tomorrow morning will start at 7:30 a.m. in the Cafè Bistro of the Hilton on the Mezzanine level. Tony

1 0

CSG breakfast tomorrow Hilton Prague
by tony holmes June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

The breakfast with ccNSO managers tomorrow morning will start at 7:30 a.m. in the Cafè Bistro of the Hilton on the Mezzanine level. Tony

1 0

Invitation for CSG breakfast
by tony holmes June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Please see attached invitation to the CSG breakfast, noting the topics for discussion. If you wish to attend and have not notified me please do so by close of play today. tony

1 0

PRAGUE dial in details: CSG open session on Tuesday June 26th 2012 at 9:45 am local time
by tony holmes June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Dear All, Please find below the dial in details for the CSG open session scheduled for Tuesday June 26th at 9:45 am local time in Prague, to circulate to members off site. Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: CSG For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

1 0