<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>call</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Colleagues,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Just an update of<B> today's GNSO council agenda</B> (major items). I hope we can get through during our call the next hour. My deadline is 16:30 UTC due to another appointment.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Regards</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Wolf-Ulrich</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 3: GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000"> <<gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf>> </FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">MOTION TO APPROVE AOC ENDORSMENT PROCESS:</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Made by: Bill Drake<BR>
Seconded by: Caroline Greer</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team) has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process for all future AOC review team selections;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process described in the attached document<BR>
</FONT><A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">;</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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.</FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Discussion of AoC Selectors proposed composition of the SSR & Whois Review Teams</FONT></B>
<BR> <FONT FACE="Times New Roman">SSR WHOIS <BR>
GAC, including the Chair 2 1 <BR>
GNSO 2 2 <BR>
ccNSO 2 1 <BR>
ALAC 2 1 <BR>
SSAC 1 1 <BR>
RSSAC 1 <BR>
ASO 1 1 <BR>
Independent Expert 1 - 2 2 (law enforcement /<BR>
privacy experts) <BR>
CEO 1 1 <BR>
13 - 14 10 <BR>
</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar names)</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2)</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Made by: Edmon Chung<BR>
Seconded by: Rafik Dammak</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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 (</FONT><A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">) and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (</FONT><A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">WHEREAS:</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> 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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> 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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> 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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">RESOLVED:</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> 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".</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010.</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter.</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">PROPOSED LETTER:</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,<BR>
CC: ICANN Board</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> 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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Tahoma">•</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> 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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 5: AGP Policy questions</FONT></B>
</P>
<UL>
<UL>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? </FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms “extraordinary circumstances” or “reoccur regularly? For example: </FONT></LI>
<UL>
<UL>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? </FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">If a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? </FONT></LI>
<BR>
</UL></UL></UL></UL>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 6: Whois Studies</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000"> <<Whois studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf>> </FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000"> <<whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf>> </FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 7: GNSO Improvements OSC Recommendations from the CCT</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">COUNCIL RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Made by: Chuck Gomes<BR>
Seconded by: Olga Cavalli</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum </FONT><A HREF="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis </FONT><A HREF="http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> has been prepared;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report </FONT><A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on implementation.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum </FONT><A HREF="http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the implementation phase;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><B><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Item 8: Other Business</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG with the ccNSO</FONT>
<UL>
<UL>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Refer to email message from Chris Disspain forwarded by Chuck on 9 June:<BR>
</FONT><A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Times New Roman">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"> </FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Any objections to asking for volunteers to draft a possible charter? </FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors) </FONT></LI>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</UL></UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>