- ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: Friendly Amendment on WhoIs Motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

The attached motion is a compromise which was worked out between the CSG and the registries. John Berard, CSG, drafted the original motion which was rejected by the CPH. The CSG seems to be satisfied with the compromise and is asking for ISPCP opinion. So I'm asking whwthwer there is any objection to adopt this motion. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ----- Original Message ----- From: john(a)crediblecontext.com To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben(a)t-online.de ; jaime(a)powerself.com.br Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:01 PM Subject: Friendly Amendment on WhoIs Motion Wolf, Jaime: I wonder if we might chat about your (and the ISPs) view of the WhoIs motion as amended? I think you are agreed that there is a need for data on which to base better decisions. I wanted to confirm that and get your take on the modest changes that have resulted from consultations between the BC and the Registries. Let me know. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: Recommendations regarding Whois studies From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>; Date: Wed, March 30, 2011 8:57 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Kathy Kleiman <kKleiman(a)pir.org> All, As discussed during the San Francisco Council meeting, members of the RySG met with Liz Gassner and Steve Delbianco to work on the issues that the RySG had with both the current WHOIS resolution motion put on the table by John Berard and the descriptions put out by ICANN staff on the actual WHOIS studies. We are happy to report that we are able to provide the following revised motion on the WHOIS studies which, with these changes, we are now able to support. We are proposing that these changes be accepted as a friendly amendment. I have copied a redline of the motion in this e-mail with strikethroughs representing deletions and red italic text for additions. The attached document discusses the rationale for the changes and provides the changes that we would like to see made to the description of the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study. These changes were discussed with Liz and Steve Delbianco as well. We truly hope that this demonstrates our commitment to making progress on these issues and that you find these changes acceptable. Best regards, Jeff Neuman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion made by John Berard & seconded by Debbie Hughes (With Friendly Amendment Proposed by the RySG) Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining study details, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report -25feb08.pdf). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml) The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies ( http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf) The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. ( https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois _study_hypotheses_wg_final_report). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC ( http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf) The Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois "Misuse" and Whois "Registrant Identification" Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 and take approximately one year to complete. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10 -en.pdf). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacy services. The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8) On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois "Misuse" Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009. On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05 oct10-en.pdf. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy or privacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts with overall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 and take less than a year to complete. On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy "Relay and Reveal" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report- 11feb11-en.pdf, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study "survey" be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10 -en.pdf). Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 28 April 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 20 April 2011. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes (insert link) and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, as described in staff's 5-October-2010 report and as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05 oct10-en.pdf. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" pre-study survey, as proposed in staff's 11-February-2011 report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report- 11feb11-en.pdf. Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up the any shortfall of $130,000 between the amount of "at least $400,000" that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000); the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000) if subsequently approved; the Proxy/Privacy "Abuse" Study ($150,000); and the Proxy and Privacy "Pre-study" ($80,000), total of $530,000. Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 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/> Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166

1 0

Comments on the IANA contract
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

All As agreed during our San Francisco meeting, please find attached the ISPCP draft response on the renewal of the IANA contract. My thanks to Olivier Muron , Jill Mertsch and Alain Bidron who assisted in producing this. The deadline for submission is the 31st so please submit any comments before 18.00 UTC tomorrow! Thanks Tony

2 1

ENC: Proposed Motion: JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs
by Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Dear All, This motion will be on the agenda of the next meeting. I would like to consult with you all if there are any restrictions or comments to be made. My tendency is to vote for it. Jaime Wagner jaime(a)powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 30 de março de 2011 03:36 Para: 'Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf' Cc: 'Ching Chiao' Assunto: FW: Proposed Motion: JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs Hi Jaime, Hoping to get your support for the resolution to accept and push forward the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLD. Just as a very quick summary of the substance for you: - identified and studied a comprehensive set of policy aspects regarding Single Character IDN TLD - completed Initial Report (public comment), Draft Final Report (public comment), and incorporated the public comments into the final report - recommend to allow Single Character IDN TLD - consistent with GNSO IDN WG outcome report recommendation - added implementation considerations with specific considerations for alphabetic script single Character IDN TLDs (because they can be typed by a single keystroke and therefore additional technical confusability considerations were suggested) - included suggested editorial changes to implement recommendation into applicant guidebook Please let me know if you have any concerns. Edmon From: ching.chiao(a)gmail.com [mailto:ching.chiao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ching Chiao Sent: March 30, 2011 9:42 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Gery; Edmon Chung Subject: Proposed Motion: JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs Dear Stéphane and all, I'd like to propose the following motion on JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs. This community working group is co-chaired by Edmon Chung (GNSO) and Jian Zhang (ccNSO). The final report is attached in this email (URL will be posted shortly). I would also like to invite Edmon to join the upcoming Council call. Thank you very much. Ching ============= WHEREAS, The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO ( <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO ( <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907) The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; The JIG has issued an Initial Report ( <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments ( <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and thereupon a Draft Final Report ( <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments ( <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs; The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm) including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report ( <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and, The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs. RESOLVED, The GNSO council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs". =============

1 0

WG: Motion to adopt the SCI charter
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

All, I'd like to inform you that I've provided the motion attached. The council had nominated me as chair of the dreafting team. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. März 2011 17:17 An: Council GNSO Betreff: Motion to adopt the SCI charter All, As a result of the drafting team's work I would like to make the motion attached to adopt the SCI charter (Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation). Any friendly amendments prior to the council meeting are welcome. According to the motion the council should nominate an interim chair to the SC. A second would be appreciated. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

1 0

WG: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

FYI. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Montag, 28. März 2011 21:59 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Kathy Kleiman (kKleiman(a)pir.org) Don Blumenthal; Steve DelBianco (sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org) Lisa Phifer (lisa(a)corecom.com) Betreff: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions All, Following is an update on discussions that have been occurring with several registries and others regarding pending consideration of the Whois studies. Staff has participated in three calls with Chuck Gomes, Kathy Kleiman and Don Blumenthal of the Registry Stakeholder Group and Steve Del Bianco of the Business Constituency to help the Registry Stakeholder Group understand some of the details of the pending Whois studies, and to provide further information so that they can decide which studies they might want to support, or whether modifications might be desired to mitigate any concerns. The plan has been for the RySG to develop possible amendments to the Whois study motion if needed, and have them reviewed by the RySG in time for them to be submitted to the Council list not later than Wednesday, 30 March for consideration in the 7 April Council meeting. While the discussions focused specifically on the RySG concerns, the group also noted that Steve and Kathy would communicate with CSG and NCSG members respectively as needed or helpful. As a result of these discussions, good progress was made on studies 3 and 4. Staff prepared a synopsis of the pre-study survey proposed for Study #4, and I have attached that document in the hopes that it will also be useful for the full Council in your deliberations. More time is needed for the RySG to discuss study #2, the "Registrant Identification" Study and a follow up call will be scheduled to continue the discussions on this study. The RySG will decide in its meeting on Wednesday what it will recommend regarding studies 3 and 4. As these studies are of broad interest, the RySG reps asked me to convey the current status to all of you. Thanks, Liz

1 0

ISPCP call with Board candidate
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

ALL Thank you for submitting your questions to raise with Bill Graham on tonight's call commencing at 18.00 UTC. Dial in details for the call have already been circulated by Gisella. PLEASE CHECK LOCAL TIMES AT; http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=28 <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=28&month=3&year=20 11&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=0> &month=3&year=2011&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 I've compiled the combined list of questions from your input below. Regards Tony ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Do you think ICANN's structure is a good model for multistakeholder governance? Could it be improved in any way? Do you think there is a good balance in the Board regarding different stakeholders? How do you see the future role of governments regarding the Internet governance? ICANN is committed to performing a Multi-Stakeholder-oriented bottom-up approach in decision making. Taking into consideration that during this process many different voices are trying to influence board decisions (SOs, ACs, professional and private interest groups, personal opinions...): how would you as a board member channel and weigh those voices in order to develop your and the board's decisions? What are your priorities of your work at board? What is your position regarding the major concerns the GAC raised with its scorecard for the new gTLD implementation? . Do you agree that previous experience with ICANN is a requirement for this board seat? . Could you briefly describe the previous experience that qualifies you as a candidate?

1 0

ICANN Public Comments
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

May I draw your attention in particular to the following documents released for public comment where I've been a related WG member: Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-pdp-final-report> (ends 1 April 2011) Proposed Changes to Section 5.0 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-5> (ends 26 March 11) The latter one is dealing with the frame conditions of an SOI (statement of interest). Since it appears not critical I don't expect any community comment. The new PDP is fundamental for the future GNSO work, and I would appreciate any critics, proposals etc. In particular stage 4 "Voting and Implementation" and the related recommendations were controversely discussed in the WT (e.g. rec. 42: What does "board act..." mean?). So please think over these recommendations carefully. The Working Team shall meet for comment evaluation after closing. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

FW: RES: [ispcp] Board seat elections
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

All Jaime has requested a later start. Unless I receive a negative response to that proposal from anyone by 10.00 UTC tomorrow the call will now commence at 17.00 UTC to allow Jaime to participate. Please ensure you copy any response to Gisella as well. Regards Tony _____ From: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf <jaime(a)powerself.com.br> Sender: <owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:38:00 -0300 To: 'Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com'<tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>; <ispcp(a)icann.org>; 'Thomas Rickert'<rickert(a)anwaelte.de> Subject: RES: [ispcp] Board seat elections Tony I took a 5 day holiday in Hawaii (10h ahead UTC). Could we make it 2 or 3 h later? Jaime Wagner jaime(a)powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Enviada em: domingo, 20 de março de 2011 19:30 Para: ispcp(a)icann.org; Thomas Rickert Assunto: [ispcp] Board seat elections Dear ISPCP members Those of you who attended the San Francisco meeting will be aware of the ongoing discussions taking place concerning the GNSO Board elections for the seat currently held by Rita Rodin. Further discussion has now taken place between CSG executives concerning both the process and potential candidates. On that basis it would be timely to hold a short call to provide an update. Therefore you will shortly be receiving details of an ISPCP call scheduled for 15.00 UTC on Tuesday 22nd March. I appreciate many people will be very busy this week but anticipate being able to complete the call within 30 minutes. Could you please let me know if you are able to participate. Thanks Tony

3 5

Questions for ICANN board candidate
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

Here are my questions: * How do you see the future role of governments regarding the Internet governance? * ICANN is committed to performing a Multi-Stakeholder-oriented bottom-up approach in decision making. Taking into consideration that during this process many different voices are trying to influence board decisions (SOs, ACs, professional and private interest groups, personal opinions...): how would you as a board member channel and weigh those voices in order to develop your and the board's decisions? * What are your priorities of your work at board? * What is your position regarding the major concerns the GAC raised with its scorecard for the new gTLD implementation? Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140 D - 53113 Bonn +49 2244 873999 (Tel.) +49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) http://www.telekom.com Deutsche Telekom AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender) Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender) Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido Kerkhoff, Edward R. Kozel, Thomas Sattelberger Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376

2 1

Call with ICANN Board candidate
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011

Dear ISPCP members For those who were unable to join yesterdays ISPCP conference call, please be aware that a call has been scheduled with Bill Graham who is a candidate for the Board seat currently held by Rita Rodin. This is your opportunity to ask Bill questions prior to the GNSO election. Please advise me in advance of any issues you wish to raise and I'll compile the list of questions. That should enable us to maximise the use of our spent speaking with Bill. The call will commence at 19.00 UTC on MONDAY 28th MARCH and will last for a maximum of 1 hour. Call in details will be circulated later. Regards Tony

1 0