- ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: [gnso-chairs] Agenda updates
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

All, could we talk about this at our call tomorrow? The question is whether the council - at its meeting on Feb 16 - still needs to act since WHOIS Access is definitely not part of the tasks for WHOIS Survey WG. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2012 19:49 An: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gnso Chairs Betreff: RE: [gnso-chairs] Agenda updates As others contemplate this, I do note that indeed this issue has been languishing...perhaps this is something to be placed on the consent agenda to "terminate" officially? It's still a "held-over" recommendation on the projects list, an update of which I'll send around shortly. And would you like to add an "official" agenda item w/r/t the open council meeting DT, or just cover that in your projects list review? I am noting it as awaiting Council action on the draft project update. Best regards, Liz From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:17 AM To: Liz Gasster Cc: Gnso Chairs Subject: Re: [gnso-chairs] Agenda updates Thanks Liz. My feeling is that there's no appetite for pushing this issue any further and this should be considered a closed item. What do others think? Stéphane Le 7 févr. 2012 à 16:04, Liz Gasster a écrit : Hi all, This is still not posted to the meeting agenda, and the deadline for motions is tomorrow. Do you want staff to write a motion? Or at least have a discussion with the Council? Just checking... Thanks, Liz From: Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:30 AM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Gnso Chairs Subject: RE: [gnso-chairs] Agenda updates Hi Stéphane, I'm not exactly sure what the Council will want as a next step on the WHOIS accessibility issue but how about a motion that says that if the issue is not addressed in the RAA negotiations (presumably as part of the SLA item) then it would be included for consideration in the RAA PDP? Staff could draft up such a motion or any other requested. Here is what the discussion description could say (feel free to edit of course): On 6 October, 2011, the GNSO Council approved language in its resolution to address remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations requesting that the WHOIS Service Requirements Survey Working Group consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. (Glen - please insert link to 6 October RAP resolution) The Resolution further stated that if the WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation. The WS WG indeed considered this recommendation, however, as explained in a response to the GNSO Council on 10 January, the Working Group ultimately concluded that the issue does not fall within the remit of its current charter and recommended that the item not be included in their upcoming survey. So, the Council now needs to make a decision regarding whether further action should be taken, and if so, what those next steps should be. Would a motion be helpful? Best regards, Liz From: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:46 AM To: Gnso Chairs Subject: [gnso-chairs] Agenda updates All, Please find attached an updated agenda in response to points made by Marika and Liz and to ongoing CR preparations. Glen, I have also attempted to help you out by adding proper duration times for each agenda item. I will leave the numbering until we are sure the agenda is finished. On the CR agenda review item, I have added specific subitems on agendas for each of our 3 key meetings (Board, GAC, ccNSO) as the Council needs to work on this. On IRTP Rec 9 2. Marika, I don't get your point. A motion was passed approving Council recommendations to the Board at the last meeting. On IRTP Rec 8, Marika do you know if a new motion is being worked on? On the issue report on thick whois, Marika can you please draft a suggested agenda item for me? I have remove the OTF item. On the Whois accessibility item, Liz can you please draft a suggested agenda item as I don't know what else we can do here? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

WG: [council] Fwd: [soac-discussion] ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

For the next ISPCP call Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2012 10:54 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Fwd: [soac-discussion] ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building Councillors, FYI and please pass on to your respective groups. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Début du message réexpédié : De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Objet : [soac-discussion] ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building Date : 6 février 2012 19:40:53 HNEC À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> Cc : "steve.crocker(a)icann.org" <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] Dear ICANN Community Leaders, We are approaching ICANN 43 in Costa Rica, San José. As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 15 March 2012, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. We believe building the agenda with your input facilitates this forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about.This has been the practice in the recent meetings and we would like to repeat it again for Costa Rica. We believe publishing the agenda as early as possible facilitates more informed discussions during the Public Forum as we have experienced in Dakar, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting actually starts. Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Costa Rica, before the end of Friday, 2 March 2012. We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. Thanks for your consideration and input. Kind regards, Steve Crocker

1 0

RE: URGENT REMINDER Costa Rica Schedule
by tony holmes Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

Thanks Wolf-Ulrich Helpful. Views from others welcome before I finalise please. Tony From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: 27 January 2012 10:39 To: tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Cc: onovoa(a)Antel.com.uy Subject: AW: URGENT REMINDER Costa Rica Schedule Tony, from my point of view we should discuss the following topics at the constituency day: - WhoIs: RT report and recommendations; questions/survey of the WhoIs WG - SSR: findings of the Review Team - RAA: status of discussion and ISPCP positions - Budget - ISPCP organizational matters Maybe we should invite some of the members of the RTs /WGs Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

WHOIS presentation
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

All, Following our call yesterday: here's the presentation Liz gave at the last council meeting about the WHOIS RT report and recommendations. <<GNSO - WHOIS RT v3.2.pptx>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

San José GNSO agenda
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

FYI the draft GNSO agenda for Costa Rica - still flexible. Your comments at the call tomorrow are highly welcome. <<gnso-costarica-schedule-draft-10Jan12-en_v.6.xls>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Main points from ISPCP call 26 Jan
by tony holmes Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

The following summarises the main points and actions from today's call. GNSO Issues Council met on 19th January. ISPCP were represented by Osvaldo Novoa and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben. 1 motion was passed relating to the IRTP and discussion took place relating to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) Names Discussion Group. Osvaldo Novoa attended that discussion group and will circulate to the ISPCP list 'Questions and Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at the top level'. ISPCP members are requested to provide feedback to Osvaldo and Wolf-Ulrich via the ISPCP list so that the views of the ISPCP Constituency can be represented. This issue will also be on the agenda when the GNSO meet with the GAC in Costa Rica. Discussions are on-going in council regarding the Registrar Accreditation Agreements, which were the cause of great concern for the GAC in Senegal. This issue will be given further consideration in Costa Rica. WHOIS Review Team The WHOIS review team have published their report and recommendations. The ISPCP need to provide feedback. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will provide a link to the slides summarising the report on the ISPCP list. ISPCP members are requested to provide their views on the report and in particular the Recommendations made, via the ISPCP list. The WHOIS Review Team will meet with the GNSO council during the Costa Rica meeting. GNSO Meeting Costa Rica Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working on the draft agenda for this meeting and will advise the Constituency once it's been agreed. Input from the Constituencies will be sought on specific question during the public GNSO meeting. The issues to be addressed have yet to be determined. ISPCP community request for FY13 The ISPCP have submitted four requests covering; - Secretariat services (including travel expenses) $15k - Officer travel $14k - Constituency outreach/ support for continued participation $14k - Sponsored attendance by ISPs from underserved regions $6k A separate submission will be made for toolkit items. Chairman to draft and submit after circulation. Travel to Costa Rica Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Tony Holmes will be funded by ICANN for the Costa Rica meeting. ISPCP meeting in Costa Rica ISPCP members are requested to provide draft items for the ISPCP agenda via the ISPCP list. Date of next ISPCP call Thursday 9th February at 14.00 UTC. Call details to be advised.

1 0

RV: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
by Novoa, Osvaldo Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

All, This document reflects the discussion during the Drafting Group Meeting yesterday. As you can see the discussion is now centered at the top level, though it will discuss also second level. Personally I favor the following options: Q.1 Opt. 4b Q.2 Opt. 2 Q. 3 Opt. 3 Since I am quite new in the GNSO perhaps there are some subtleties I'm not seeing your opinion is very much welcome. Jeff Neuman is expecting our position regarding the questions by February 5th, the next meeting is going to be on February 8th. The drafting group hasn't yet meet with the GAC, Jeff expects to talk with them informally next week. Best regards, Osvaldo [cid:image001.jpg@01CCDC25.45C7BB80] Ing. Osvaldo Novoa Sub Gerente General R.I.I.C. ANTEL Tel: +598 2928 6444 E-mail: onovoa(a)antel.com.uy<mailto:onovoa@antel.com.uy> ________________________________ De: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Enero de 2012 11:48 p.m. Para: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org Asunto: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level All, Thanks for the very productive session today during our call. Given the feedback on the call, we have revised the questions and options for protecting the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top level. On the call, we discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which included the notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red Cross or a relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a) and 5(b) below). It also occurred to me after the call that there is a sixth option, which enable an appeal process (like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a letter of non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the relevant governmental authority, but still nonetheless have legitimate rights to the string. Options 6(a) and 6(b) may be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are on the table. As requested during the call, these questions/options are being presented for your review and discussion within your respective groups. Please provide any comments and/or feedback you may have by Sunday, February 5th. This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to our next call on February 8th. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and time. Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round GAC Proposal At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words "test" and "example" in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled "Strings Ineligible for Registration" and would not invoke String Similarity Review. * Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered "Reserved Names" b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. * Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as "reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. * Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved names" meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. * Option 4a - Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 4b - Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the "modified reserve names" are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. * Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. * Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. * Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD. Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in "multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet." c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round. c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. ________________________________ 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

Cross Community Working Groups
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

All, As promised at today's call I attach the Draft Principles for CCWGs which are for GNSO Council Review next week. Please let me know any questions/ideas about. BTW Tony (Holmes): as we fixed the next call for Jan 26, could you pls. Let Gisella know about in order to manage the adigo facilites? Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich <<Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf>>

2 1

beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-en.pdf
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

FYI <<beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-en.pdf>> Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: [council] New Years greetings from ICANN's chair
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 9, 2012

Jan. 9, 2012

Still Happy New Year to all of you - with the letter from Steve Crocker attached Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ ICANN Board, ICANN staff and chairs of the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, [SO and AC chairs, please feel free to pass this along to your members.] I write to bring you a brief greeting going into 2012. I won't attempt to cover the full set of accomplishments for the past year nor the full set of challenges and goals for this new year, but I do want to note just a few. In terms of immediacy, the opening of the window for applications for new gTLDs is January 12, ten days from now. This is occupying a large fraction of our attention and is also the source of much attention from our stakeholders and others watching us. An enormous amount of work has gone into the program and I, among many, many others, are eager to see what will happen. The opening of the window on January 12 will be a noteworthy day, but the closing date, three months later and the publication date for the names a bit later will also be quite noteworthy. I know there is a bit of controversy over some specific aspects of the program, but I am confident the program is well constructed and will run smoothly. I expect by the time we meet in Prague in June we'll have much to discuss along this line, and I look forward to hearing an initial assessment at that time. June will also mark the transition period for our CEO. Rod Beckstrom has brought enormous energy to the position and has greatly increased the visibility of ICANN around the world. The search process for the next CEO is now in full swing. Applications have started coming in and I believe there will be an announcement in the Economist shortly. George Sadowsky is leading the Board committee steering the process, and I know first hand how hard he and the whole committee are working. Another major event on the horizon is the determination of the next IANA contract. Our proposal was submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce a few weeks ago, and I have every reason to believe it will be accepted. The IANA team, led by Elise Gerich, has done a first rate job providing the core service that was the raison d'être for the creation of ICANN. I expect the decision will be made sometime within the next two months, with perhaps a bit more time to iron out the details. These events -- gTLD launch, CEO transition, IANA contract -- will naturally attract a lot of attention both within our community and from the press and others, but they are obviously not the totality of our mission nor even the most important things for us to focus on. ICANN was created a little over thirteen years old. I believe we're well established and have demonstrated competence in our mission. However, like most teenagers, we still have some room to grow and become smoother. I'm sure each of you has his or her own list of improvements we should aim for. Here's my two in broad terms. Effectiveness. We often emphasize our commitment to a multi-stakeholder model. There's no question this is important. However, from my point of view, we are organized around broad participation from all parties because it's a system that has worked well in the Internet ecology. And "working well" means the job gets done. If we are not effective and reasonably efficient at doing the job we were created to do, the details of our processes will matter very little. We have many processes in place to measure ourselves in terms of transparency, accountability and other attributes of fairness. I applaud and support all of these, but I would like us all to keep in mind that in addition to these very important measures that we also focus on making sure that we deliver the service our community needs. Cooperation and Rapport. ICANN has some unique characteristics, but it is also just one among many organizations involved in supporting the development of the Internet and management of its critical resources. Despite the misconceptions sometimes appearing in the press, ICANN does not run the Internet, is not responsible for either the growth or the problems of the Internet, and has very little power over the very big challenges for the future. We have a vital and important role, but it's within a much larger ecology. I look forward to cementing and deepening the relations we have with the other organizations that created the Internet and hence created the environment that led to our creation, particularly the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the TLD registries, the ISPs, the many and varied providers of content, and, perhaps the least easy to define, the innovators, researchers, and entrepreneurs who continuously mine the rich set of possibilities made possible by the openness of both the Internet architecture and the lightweight governance structures that evolved. And as important as all of these non-governmental organizations are, it is equally vital that we continue to cement and deepen our relations with governments around the world and provide them with confidence that the service we are providing to the entire community is balanced, predictable, effective and consistent with broadly shared values. I have had the good fortune to be involved in the network community for more than forty years, and it continues to be a privilege to be allowed to serve. I look forward to a vigorous and successful 2012, and I particularly look forward to the pleasure of working with all of you. My very best wishes to each of you both personally and professionally. Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

1 0