- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Staff analysis of WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Abuse Study RFP responses
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

All, Attached please find staff's analysis of the Proxy and Privacy "Abuse" study based on responses received from independent researchers to the RFP we previously published. We would be glad to answer any questions or provide additional information. The analysis will be posted tomorrow and may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Update on issues following failure of conference call
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com Oct. 6, 2010

Oct. 6, 2010

All Following the failure to hold the planned conference call yesterday and difficulties in rearranging, in order to advance the work of the Constituency discussions have taken place between Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Tony Harris and myself and I would like to propose the following way forward on the issues that were on the agenda for yesterday. . New gTLds Rec 6 - public comment on WG report. The ISPCP will support the draft Board Resolution. . Vertical Integration As the WG are unable to reach consensus at the moment the ISPCP will support the Board in their resolution taken during their Trondheim meeting, for this round of gTLDs, on the basis that further delays to the programme are untenable. However the ISPCP will offer support for the continuation of the WG with the aim of resolving this issue in a satisfactory manner before any further rounds of new gTLDs. For this round it is the view of the ISPCP that the status quo situation should remain. . JAS (support for gTLD applicants). Accepting that some parties within the GNSO cannot support the Board resolution that financial support will not be available to applicants for this round of new gTLDs, the ISPCP will support the Board resolution for this round. For future rounds the ISPCP would support further discussions on this point, particularly as ICANN would have then gained additional revenue that could be considered as a means of addressing some of those needs. . GNSO Chair and Vice Chair elections The ISPCP view discussion over the timetable and process for these elections as urgent and will raise this matter within the CSG. Discussions within the Constituency will take place prior to the Cartagena meeting. . FY10 plan for enhancing SSR Wolf-Ulrich will prepare a draft Constituency response and circulate for comment before submission (cut off date to respond is 3rd November). . CSG special meeting in Washington (12th October) Those people from the ISPCP attending this meeting by phone or in person should look to ensure that the CSG Charter; - Does not specify that the CSG will speak for the CSG Constituencies on issues where there is not full consensus - Does not take away the ability of any Constituency to act independently on issues where consensus does not exist - Does not impose rigid constraints or limit flexibility to determine working, financial, or process arrangements of any Constituency. The ISPCP will also propose an additional agenda item for this meting; GNSO Chair/Vice Chair elections is added. Unless major concern is expressed over any of the above points the proposal to hold a rearranged ISPCP call on Thursday 7th will be withdrawn. Please respond ASAP if you wish to raise any issues. Regards Tony

2 1

RE: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

All Apologies I was on the call an hour too early! Wednesday and Thursday are both difficult for me now. Suggest that the call is now held on Thursday as per the other original option (13.00-14.00 UTC) but with Wolf-Ulrich as the lead. I will talk to Wolf-Ulrich beforehand to assist as much as possible. Is that OK with everyone? Sorry for the confusion once again. Tony From: gisella.gw(a)o2email.co.uk [mailto:gisella.gw@o2email.co.uk] Sent: 05 October 2010 14:12 To: Anthony Harris; owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org; Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; KnobenW(a)telekom.de; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October dear Tony, Are you on this call now? Is there an issue? Please let me know - I can call Verizon. Thank you, Kind regards$ Gisella Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device _____ From: Anthony Harris <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> Sender: <owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:06:00 -0300 To: Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>; <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>; <ispcp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October I am on call, alone? Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de ; ispcp(a)icann.org Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October All I could not make the leader code work? Have contacted the conference centre and the line should now be open. Please respond by email if you can join the call in the next 15 mins. Tony From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: 05 October 2010 11:50 To: tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: AW: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October All, I'd like to discuss the thefollowing items: * Council agenda items: - New gTLD Rec. 6, public comment on WG report due 22 Oct - Vertical Integration: next steps - JAS: status, board resolution, joint effort with ALAC? - Chair and VC nominations * FY11 plan for enhancing SSR, public comment due 03 Nov * CSG meeting: - charter - Council chair, VC nomination Tony, can we use the same bridge as usual? Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Gesendet: Montag, 4. Oktober 2010 14:19 An: ispcp(a)icann.org Betreff: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October Dear ISPCP members The next ISPCP conference call will take place tomorrow, Tuesday 5yh October from 13.00 to 14.00 UTC Please note this is one hour earlier than originally proposed following feedback on availability. Call in details will follow shortly. Regards Tony

1 0

AW: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

still waiting. I've talked to the call coordinator. She advised me that Tony has to activate the call with the passcode. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ________________________________ Von: gisella.gw(a)o2email.co.uk [mailto:gisella.gw@o2email.co.uk] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Oktober 2010 15:12 An: Anthony Harris; owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org; Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; ispcp(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October dear Tony, Are you on this call now? Is there an issue? Please let me know - I can call Verizon. Thank you, Kind regards$ Gisella Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device ________________________________ From: Anthony Harris <harris(a)cabase.org.ar> Sender: <owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:06:00 -0300 To: Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com<tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>; <KnobenW(a)telekom.de>; <ispcp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October I am on call, alone? Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de ; ispcp(a)icann.org Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October All I could not make the leader code work? Have contacted the conference centre and the line should now be open. Please respond by email if you can join the call in the next 15 mins. Tony From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: 05 October 2010 11:50 To: tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: AW: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October All, I'd like to discuss the thefollowing items: * Council agenda items: - New gTLD Rec. 6, public comment on WG report due 22 Oct - Vertical Integration: next steps - JAS: status, board resolution, joint effort with ALAC? - Chair and VC nominations * FY11 plan for enhancing SSR, public comment due 03 Nov * CSG meeting: - charter - Council chair, VC nomination Tony, can we use the same bridge as usual? Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com Gesendet: Montag, 4. Oktober 2010 14:19 An: ispcp(a)icann.org Betreff: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October Dear ISPCP members The next ISPCP conference call will take place tomorrow, Tuesday 5yh October from 13.00 to 14.00 UTC Please note this is one hour earlier than originally proposed following feedback on availability. Call in details will follow shortly. Regards Tony

2 1

ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

Dear ISPCP members The next ISPCP conference call will take place tomorrow, Tuesday 5yh October from 13.00 to 14.00 UTC Please note this is one hour earlier than originally proposed following feedback on availability. Call in details will follow shortly. Regards Tony

3 4

call
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

I'm still waiting for opening the call Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: [ispcp] ISPCP call Tuesday 5th October
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 5, 2010

Oct. 5, 2010

I've just found the call details. Thanks to Gisella. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

1 0

GNSO Council agenda Thursday, 7 October 2010
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 1, 2010

Oct. 1, 2010

FYI Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Please note that the GNSO Council meeting will be audio cast. GNSO Council meeting audiocast link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 7 October 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-07oct10-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_7_october_2010 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT; 11:00 EST; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CET; 19:00 Moscow, 20:00 Karachi, 23:00 Hong Kong, Friday, 8 October 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast <http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest * Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." * The main issues for this meeting are: New gTLDs * Recommendation 6 Community WG Report to the Board * Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support * GNSO Comments regarding both of the above * GNSO Prioritization 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09642.html> 8 September 2010 meeting - Scheduled for Approval on 30 September 2010. Item 2: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat (15 Minutes) 2.1 Refer to <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm> Board Resolutions: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm 2.2 Comments from Staff (Kurt Pritz) * Questions? 2.3 Action items * Response regarding VI PDP WG due 8 October o Refer to <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09677.html> letter from VI PDP WG: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09677.html o Refer to motion: <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?7_october_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?7_october_motions o Discussion o Vote (Note that absentee voting is not allowed.) * Request from the ALAC o Refer to <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/langdon-orr-board-resolutions-28sep10-…> message from Cheryl Langdon-Orr at http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/langdon-orr-board-resolutions-28sep10-… o How should Chuck respond? o What actions being taken by the At-Large are ones that the GNSO would like to jointly support? * Other? Item 3: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG (25 minutes) 3.1 Summary of Report (Margie Milam) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 GNSO Comments * Summary of comments on Council list to date (Margie Milam) * Additional comments * Should we submit comments from the Council or from individual SGs/Constituencies? * Next steps? o Possible Council action on 28 October (if needed)? 3.4 Special thanks to the Rec6 CWG and to Margie & Marika for their incredible support. Item 4: Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) WG (15 minutes) 4.1 Refer to the following: * <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recommend…> Excerpt from Draft Final Report - New gTLD Applicant Support http://gnso.icann.org/issues/jas/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recommend… * <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…> New gTLD Applicant Support Draft Recommendations Summary presentation http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom… 4.2 Brief <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…> Summary of Report (Rafik Dammak) 4.3 Discussion 4.4 GNSO Comments * Should we submit comments from the Council or from individual SGs/Constituencies? * Next steps? o Possible Council action on 28 October (if needed)? 4.4 Special thanks to the JAS WG members Item 5: GNSO Project Prioritization (20 minutes) 5.1 Refer to <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…> posted project ratings: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 5.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting minutes): * ". . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed further with the prioritization exercise." * ". . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful results." * "It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been resolved." * "The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the group." * "The prioritization process could be improved with further input from the Councilors and stakeholder groups." * "The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts." * "Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the Budget process." * "The question of available resources should be looked at in context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did and the community resources were available." * "Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient." 5.3 Next Steps * Staff Utilization Analysis (Liz Gasster) Refer to: <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource-management-polic…> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource-management-polic… * Results of Adobe Connect Poll regarding possible next steps: o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization - 5 votes (33%) o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term - 2 votes (13%) o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process - 0 votes (0%) o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process - 1 vote (7%) o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) - 7 votes (47%) * Discussion? * Action Items Item 6: Selections for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) 6.1 Refer to: * GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ * GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm * GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 6.2 Selections by Rod Beckstrom & Heather Dryden CSG NCSG RrSG RySG SSR Primary Jeff Brueggeman David Cake (Australia) Ken Silva Whois Primary Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep10-en.htm) 6.3 Discussion? Item 7: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings (10 minutes) 7.1 Proposed recommendations (Wendy Seltzer) 7 .2 Discussion Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) 8.1 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 8.2 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) * Volunteers to date: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC) * Feedback from Steering Committees (Rob Hoggarth) * Question raised regarding GNSO Operating Procedures: Should the concerns about the newly approved disclosure of interest requirements be dealt with by the OSC & GCOT or by the standing committee? Next Steps? Charter? 8.3 High Level Progress of House/Stakeholder Group Elections * Councilors * Chair & Vice Chair Nominations * NCA Assignments 8.4 Whois Studies * Status report for Whois Studies 3 & 4 (Liz Gasster) * Refer to redline version of Proxy/Privacy Reveal study (Study 4) RFP at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm Item 9: Other Business (5 minutes) 9.1 Status update on efforts to hire a new Director of Compliance and additional Compliance personnel necessary to bring current staff levels back up to 100% (David Olive) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ________________________________________ Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 (Friday) ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] Motion re. VI WG
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 30, 2010

Sept. 30, 2010

For discussion at our next call. Do we have a date already? Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. September 2010 19:53 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Motion re. VI WG <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc>> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October. I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off. Chuck

3 3

ICANN Board resolutions from Board meeting over the weekend
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Sept. 28, 2010

Sept. 28, 2010

FYI Wolf-Ulrich From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm 1. New gTLD Program Budget 2. New gTLDs - Directions for Next Applicant Guidebook 2.1. Geographic Names 2.2. New gTLD Applicant Support 2.3. Root Zone Scaling 2.4. String Similarity 2.5. Variant Management 2.6. Trademark Protection 2.7. Role of the Board 2.8. Mitigating Malicious Conduct 2.9. GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection Process 2.10. Registry Agreement 2.11. Vertical Integration 3. Data and Consumer Protection Working Group 4. Board Global Relationships Committee 5. Nominating Committee Chair 6. March 2011 International Public Meeting 7. Appointment of Akram Atallah as Chief Operating Officer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 1. New gTLD Program Budget =========================== Whereas, the Board Finance Committee considered the New gTLD Deployment Budget at its meeting on 20 September 2010 and unanimously recommended that the Board adopt the Deployment Budget <link to be inserted when available>. Whereas, the Board considered and discussed the New gTLD Application Processing Budget at its 24-25 September 2010 retreat in Trondheim, Norway. Resolved (2010.09.25.01), that the New gTLD Deployment Budget and the New gTLD Application Processing Budgets are approved. The Deployment Budget is to be released in order to enable the launch of the program on a timely basis upon Board approval of the Applicant Guidebook. The Application Processing budget should be released upon the approval of the final Applicant Guidebook. 2. New gTLDs - Directions for Next Applicant Guidebook ======================================================= Whereas, ICANN's primary mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Whereas, ICANN's Core Values include "depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment" where feasible and appropriate, and "introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>, and directed staff to develop detailed implementation plans in communication with the community. Whereas, one of the goals of the New gTLD program is to establish a clear and predictable process. Whereas, ICANN seeks to mitigate risks and costs to ICANN and the broader Internet community to the extent possible. Whereas, meeting these goals require tradeoffs and balancing of competing interests. Whereas, in Brussels the ICANN Board resolved <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#11> to dedicate its retreat scheduled for 24-25 September for the consideration of all the outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the New gTLD program. Whereas, the Board held a retreat in Trondheim, Norway on 24-25 September 2010, and talked through the outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the New gTLD program in order to identify potential ways forward. Whereas, the Board has identified certain directions to the CEO regarding items for inclusion in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD program. Whereas, the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook will be posted for public comment, and ICANN will take into consideration all public comments before making final decisions on all these remaining issues by approving the final version of the Applicant Guidebook. Whereas, on 23 September 2010, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided comments on version 4 of the draft Applicant Guidebook. Resolved (2010.09.25.02), staff is directed to determine if the directions indicated by the Board below are consistent with GAC comments, and recommend any appropriate further action in light of the GAC's comments. Resolved (2010.09.25.03), the Board gives the CEO the following directions relating to the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs, which is intended to be posted for public comment before the ICANN meeting in Cartagena in December 2010: 2.1 Geographic Names ===================== Sub-national place names: Geographic names protection for ISO 3166-2 names should not be expanded to include translations. Translations of ISO 3166-2 list entries can be protected through community objection process rather than as geographic labels appearing on an authoritative list. Continents and UN Regions: The definition of Continent or UN Regions in the Guidebook should be expanded to include UNESCO's regional classification list which comprises: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean. Governments that file objections should be required to cover costs of the objection process just like any other objector; the objection process will be run on a cost-recovery and loser-pays basis (so the costs of objection processes in which governments prevail will be borne by applicants). Also, the Board notes that the GAC proposal for free government objections is not specific as to particular objection grounds or particular government objectors (for example whether both national and local government objectors would be covered). 2.2 New gTLD Applicant Support ============================== Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education to encourage participation across all regions, but any direct financial support for applicant fees must come from sources outside of ICANN. Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance and organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional program development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono in-kind support, or financial assistance so that those needing assistance and those willing to provide assistance can identify each other and work together. Owing to the level of uncertainty associated with the launch of new gTLDs, the fee levels currently in the Applicant Guidebook will be maintained for all applicants. 2.3 Root Zone Scaling ====================== Real-world experience in root zone scaling has been gained as a result of the implementation of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDNs and the hard work of RSSAC and SSAC members in tackling the underlying stability question. Staff is directed to publish its analysis of the impact of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDN deployment on the root zone so far. Staff has also developed a model and a rationale for the maximum rate of applications that can be processed over the next few years. Staff is directed to publish this model and rationale and to seek Board support for the judgments embodied in this model, thereby providing a firm basis for limiting the rate of new delegations. Based on the discussions to date, this limit is expected to be in the range of 1,000 new delegations per year, with this number to be defined precisely in the publication. The Board notes that an initial survey of root server operators' ability to support this rate of growth has been conducted successfully, and directs staff to revisit the estimate on a regular basis and consider whether a further survey should be repeated . Further, ICANN will periodically consult with root zone operators regarding a procedure to define, monitor and publish data on root zone stability. As part of the regular interaction with the root server operators, ICANN will invite inputs from the root server operators and other interested parties regarding any signs of stress in the system and advice as to what actions or changes in process might be appropriate. Finally, in the event that the number of applications exceeds the maximum rate, an objective method for determining the order of application processing that conforms to the limited delegation rate (not relying primarily on time-stamping) will be defined in the Applicant Guidebook. 2.4 String Similarity ===================== Similar strings should not be delegated through the New gTLD Program absent an in-depth policy examination of the issues, including a clear, enforceable set of operating rules to avoid possible user confusion. Community-suggested modifications raise a complex set of policy issues and cannot be considered as a straightforward implementation matter for the first round of applications. Further policy work in this area is encouraged. 2.5 Variant Management ======================== No changes will be made to the next version of the Applicant Guidebook with respect to the handling of gTLDs containing variant characters. I.e., no variants of gTLDs will be delegated through the New gTLD Program until appropriate variant management solutions are developed. The recent delegation of Chinese-language ccTLDs does not yet provide a generally workable approach for gTLDs; there are serious limits to extending this approach at this time. ICANN will coordinate efforts to develop long-term policy and technical development work on these issues. The Board notes that the following scenarios are possible while evaluating variant gTLD strings: 1.Applicant submits a gTLD string and indicates variants to this string. The applicant, if successful, will get the primary string. The indicated variant strings are noted for future reference, and these variant strings will not be delegated to the applicant; the applicant has no rights or claim to those strings. ICANN may independently determine which strings are variants of each other, and will not necessarily acknowledge that the applicant's list of purported variants be treated as variants under the process. 2.Multiple applicants apply for strings that are variants of each other. They will be in contention. 3.Applicant submits a request for a string and does not indicate that there are variants. ICANN will not identify variant strings unless scenario 2 above occurs. The CEO is directed to develop (in consultation with the board ES-WG) an issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs as part of the new gTLD process in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs. The analysis of needed work should identify the appropriate venues (e.g., ICANN, IETF, language community, etc.) for pursuing the necessary work. The report should be published for public review. The CEO is directed to produce for the board by the next Board meeting (28 October 2010): 1. A Work plan for developing the issues report. 2. An identification of the skills and capabilities needed by ICANN to complete the issues report and further develop ICANN's organizational ability to continue the strategic rollout of IDN TLDs. 2.6 Trademark Protection ======================== Substantive Evaluation: The Applicant Guidebook will provide a clear description of "substantive evaluation" at registration, and retain the requirement for at least substantive review of marks to warrant protection under sunrise services and utilization of the URS, both of which provide a specific benefit to trademark holders. Specifically, evaluation, whether at registration or by a validation service provider, is required on absolute grounds AND use of the mark. Substantive evaluation upon trademark registration has essentially three requirements: (i) evaluation on absolute grounds - to ensure that the applied for mark can in fact serve as a trademark; (ii) evaluation on relative grounds - to determine if previously filed marks preclude the registration; and (iii) evaluation of use - to ensure that the applied for mark is in current use. Substantive review by Trademark Clearinghouse validation service provider shall require: (i) evaluation on absolute grounds; and (ii) evaluation of use. URS timing: In response to public comment, change the time to respond to a complaint from 20 days to 14 days , with one opportunity for an extension of seven days if there is a good faith basis for such an extension. The Board notes that the suggestion for a globally-protected marks list (GPML) was not adopted by the Board (in 2009), including for the following reasons: it is difficult to develop objective global standards for determining which marks would be included on such a GPML, such a list arguably would create new rights not based in law for those trademark holders, and it would create only marginal benefits because it would apply only to a small number of names and only for identical matches of those names. The Board recognizes that additional policy development through the GNSO could lead to further mechanisms for enhanced protection for trademarks. 2.7 Role of the Board ====================== The Board intends to approve a standard process for staff to proceed to contract execution and delegation on applications for new gTLDs where certain parameters are met. Examples of such parameters might include: (1) the application criteria were met, (2) no material exceptions to the form agreement terms, and (3) an independent confirmation that the process was followed. The Board reserves the right under exceptional circumstances to individually consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would be in the best interest of the Internet community, for example, as a result of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism. The Board approves the inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application terms and conditions. 2.8 Mitigating Malicious Conduct ================================ While efforts to mitigate malicious conduct will continue, the implementation work completed to date by the community and staff to address the mitigation of malicious conduct issue is sufficient to proceed to launch the first New gTLD application round. The remaining issues should not delay launch with the following specific directives incorporated: Background check: The background check should be clarified to provide detail and specificity in response to comment. The specific reference to terrorism will be removed (and the background check criteria will be revised). These clarifications regarding the background check criteria and process shall be included in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook. Orphan glue records: Current provisions in the guidebook require each applicant to describe proposed measures for management and removal of orphan glue records for names removed from the zone. This requirement should remain in place, and will be adjusted if SSAC makes a new recommendation in its report on this issue. High Security Zone (HSTLD) concept: The HSTLD concept is a voluntary concept being developed by a cross-stakeholder group including the financial services industry for use in TLDs wishing to provide services on a high-security basis. Thus, the development of the concept does not impact the launch of the gTLD application process. Any publication of this concept will be shared freely with other organizations that might be interested in development of such a concept. ICANN will not be certifying or enforcing the HSTLD concept; ICANN is supporting the development of a reference standard for industry that others may choose to use as a certification standard of their own. ICANN will not endorse or govern the program, and does not wish to be liable for issues arising from the use or non-use of the standard. 2.9 GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection Process ===================================================== The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important issue for the past three years. The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the determinations of experts regarding these issues. The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for further guidance as required. 2.10 Registry Agreement ======================== Required Notice and consent for increased or premium renewal prices: The current provision is necessary to protect registrants from predatory pricing upon renewals and the term should be retained. Limitation of liability: The limitation of liability should remain as is. The remedies for registry operator are limited but appropriate given that ICANN is a non-profit entity that cannot afford to be open to unlimited liability. Collection of variable transaction fee from registries if registrars decline to pay ICANN directly: The provision for the pass-through of fees is necessary to ensure that ICANN receives adequate funding in the event that ICANN accredited registrars (as a group) fail to approve the variable accreditation fees and should remain in the agreement. Searchable Whois: Refer to the Board Data Consumer Protection Working Group to study issues and provide information to the Board relating to access and privacy to develop recommendations for possible inclusion in the forthcoming version of the applicant guidebook. Indemnification of ICANN: The indemnification right should remain. ICANN staff has invited the Registry Stakeholder Group to propose language more precisely defining the exceptions to registry operator's indemnification obligations for inclusion in the next version of the Draft Registry Agreement, and such a proposal should be considered for inclusion if received in a timely fashion. 2.11 Vertical Integration ========================= The Board will send a letter to the GNSO requesting that the GNSO send to the Board, by no later than 8 October 2010, a letter (a) indicating that no consensus on vertical integration issues has been reached to date, or (b) indicating its documented consensus position. If no response is received by 8 October 2010, then the Board will deem lack of consensus and make determinations around these issues as necessary. At the time a policy conclusion is reached by the GNSO, it can be included in the applicant guidebook for future application rounds. 3. Data and Consumer Protection Working Group ============================================= Whereas, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to make recommendations to the Board regarding establishment and membership of a working group to address data and consumer protection issues (DCP-WG). Whereas the BGC has recommended the establishment and membership of the DCP-WG. Resolved (2010.09.25.04), the Board hereby establishes the DCP-WG, with its membership as follows: Harald Alvestrand, Dennis Jennings (Chair), Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin, and Ram Mohan (non-voting member). 4. Board Global Relationships Committee ======================================== Whereas, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to make recommendations to the Board regarding the membership of a Board Global Relationships Committee (BGRC). Whereas the BGC has recommend the membership of the BGRC. Resolved (2010.09.25.05), the Board hereby sets the membership for the BGRC as follows: Peter Dengate-Thrush (chair), George Sadowsky, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Katim Touray, Kuo-Wei Wu, Vanda Scartezini (non-voting member). 5. Nominating Committee Chair ============================== Whereas the Board Governance Committee is tasked each year with recommending to the Board a candidate to serve as the Nominating Committee ("NomCom") Chair. Whereas the BGC called for expressions of interest from all who would be interested in serving as the 2010-2011 NomCom Chair. Whereas the BGC considered and discussed all legitimate expressions of interest. Whereas the BGC recommends that the Board appoint Adam Peake as the 2010-2011 NomCom Chair. Resolved (2010.09.25.06), that Adam Peake is appointed as Chair of the 2010-2011 NomCom, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2011, or until the Chair's earlier resignation, removal, or other disqualification from service. 6. March 2011 International Public Meeting =========================================== Whereas, the BFC reviewed the budget for the North America ICANN meeting, compared it to prior meeting budgets, and recommend that the Board approve the budget not to exceed $1.941 million. Resolved (2010.09.25.07), the Board approves San Francisco, California as the location of the ICANN 2011 North America Meeting to be held from 13-18 March 2011, with a budget not to exceed US$1.941M. 7. Appointment of Akram Atallah as Chief Operating Officer ============================================================= Whereas, the attraction and retention of high calibre staff is essential to ICANN's operations and ICANN desires to ensure competitive compensation for staff. Whereas, Akram Atallah has been identified through a vigorous global search and senior management agrees that he is the right candidate to fill the role of Chief Operating Officer. Whereas, independent market data provided by the outside compensation consultants indicates that the base compensation for a Chief Operating Officer would fall between [redacted] at the 50th percentile and [redacted] at the 75th percentile. Whereas, independent market data provided by the outside compensation consultants indicates that the overall compensation for a Chief Operating Officer would fall between [redacted] at the 50th percentile and [redacted] at the 75th percentile. [redacted] Whereas, the Compensation Committee has recommended that the Board appoint Akram Atallah as the Chief Operating Officer and approve the suggested compensation package. Resolved (2010.09.25.08), the Board hereby appoints Akram Atallah as an Officer of the Company in the position of Chief Operating Officer effective 20 September 2010. Resolved (2010.09.25.09), the Board authorizes a starting compensation package for Akram Atallah to consist of: (i) a base salary of $350,000 USD per year; (ii) a bonus opportunity of 30% of base salary per year to be paid in a manner consistent with other U.S. based staff and in accordance with the company's bonus program; and (iii) the standard benefit programs made available to all other regular full time U.S. based staff.

1 0