I was disconnected of the call but I think it was coming to a close.

 

Jaime Wagner
jaime@corp.plugin.com.br
Cel (51) 8126-0916
Fax (51) 3123-1708

 

De: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de KnobenW@telekom.de
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 10 de junho de 2010 11:27
Para: ispcp@icann.org
Assunto: [ispcp] call

 

 

Colleagues,

Just an update of today's GNSO council agenda (major items). I hope we can get through during our call the next hour. My deadline is 16:30 UTC due to another appointment.

Regards
Wolf-Ulrich




Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work

Item 3: GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process
<<gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf>>
MOTION TO APPROVE AOC ENDORSMENT PROCESS:
Made by: Bill Drake
Seconded by: Caroline Greer
Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN’s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitment (AOC), the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on the each of the AOC review teams;

Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document
http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf;
Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the Endorsement Process for all future AOC review team selections, including the “WHOIS Policy” and the “Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS” Review Teams; and

RESOLVED FURTHER, ICANN Staff is requested to post and distribute the Endorsement Process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of the “WHOIS Policy” and “Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS” review teams.

Discussion of AoC Selectors proposed composition of the SSR & Whois Review Teams
        SSR     WHOIS  
GAC, including the Chair        2       1      
GNSO    2       2      
ccNSO   2       1      
ALAC    2       1      
SSAC    1       1      
RSSAC   1              
ASO     1       1      
Independent Expert      1 - 2   2 (law enforcement /
privacy experts)       
CEO     1       1      
        13 - 14 10     

Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names)

Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2)
Made by: Edmon Chung
Seconded by: Rafik Dammak
Note: The original motion was discussed in the Council meeting on 20 May and deferred to 10 June. In making the amended motion, Edmon submitted a redline version to the Council list on 2 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html)

WHEREAS:
• The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse;

• The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;

• The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally similar to another string;

• The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet;

RESOLVED:
• A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure".

• ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010.
• The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter.
PROPOSED LETTER:
To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,
CC: ICANN Board
The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on “String Similarity - Extended Review” that parallels other such sections in Module 2.

This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as:

• The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid.

• A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

Item 5: AGP Policy questions

 

Item 6: Whois Studies
<<Whois studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf>> <<whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf>>

Item 7: GNSO Improvements OSC Recommendations from the CCT

COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT
Made by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Olga Cavalli
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 May 2010 meeting, accepted the deliverable of the Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) as its final set of recommendations;

WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html has been prepared;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period;

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on implementation.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT’s specific recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/ and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the implementation phase;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby discharges the CCT and expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the team’s dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

 

Item 8: Other Business
8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings
8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO