<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>call</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EstiloDeEmail18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1289505704;
mso-list-template-ids:1152174424;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2098749415;
mso-list-template-ids:-972815696;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=PT-BR link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I was disconnected of the call but I think it was coming to a
close.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jaime Wagner</span></b><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>
</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br"
title="mailto:Presidentejaime@plugin.com.br mailto:mariano@corp.plugin.com.br"><span
style='font-size:7.5pt'>jaime@corp.plugin.com.br</span></a><br>
</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:gray'>Cel (51) 8126-0916<br>
Fax (51) 3123-1708</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] <b>Em nome de </b>KnobenW@telekom.de<br>
<b>Enviada em:</b> quinta-feira, 10 de junho de 2010 11:27<br>
<b>Para:</b> ispcp@icann.org<br>
<b>Assunto:</b> [ispcp] call<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Colleagues,</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Regards</span>
<br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Wolf-Ulrich</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 2: Prioritization of GNSO work</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 3: GNSO AoC DT Endorsement Process</b> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><<gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf>>
</span><br>
<b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>MOTION TO
APPROVE AOC ENDORSMENT PROCESS:</span></b> <br>
Made by: Bill Drake<br>
Seconded by: Caroline Greer <br>
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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the AOC Review Requirements Drafting team (AOC-RR Drafting Team)
has proposed a process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed
process for all future AOC review team selections;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: <br>
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Endorsement Process
described in the attached document<br>
<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf</a>;
<br>
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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Discussion of AoC Selectors proposed composition of the SSR & Whois
Review Teams</b> <br>
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 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 4: Implementation of New gTLD Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar
names)</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Proposed
Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2)</span></b> <br>
Made by: Edmon Chung<br>
Seconded by: Rafik Dammak <br>
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 (<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08962.html</a>)
and Rafik accepted the amendment as friendly on 4 June 2010 (<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09000.html</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>WHEREAS: <br>
<span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> 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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> The GNSO Council
recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on
the Draft Applicant Guidebook;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> 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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> 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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>RESOLVED: <br>
<span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> 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".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> ICANN Staff prepare
a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. <br>
<span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> The GNSO Council takes
action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the
letter. <br>
PROPOSED LETTER: <br>
To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,<br>
CC: ICANN Board <br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>•</span> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 5: AGP Policy questions</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=disc>
<ul type=circle>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'>Should the Council consider modifying the
AGP Limits Policy to no longer require semi-annual updates? <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo1'>Should the Council consider modifying the
AGP Limits Policy by defining the terms “extraordinary circumstances” or
“reoccur regularly? For example: <o:p></o:p></li>
<ul type=square>
<ul type=square>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l1 level4 lfo1'>Should instances of consumer fraud
automatically be a legitimate use of AGP deletes? <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l1 level4 lfo1'>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? <o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:144.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 6: Whois Studies</b> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><<Whois
studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf>>
<<whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf>> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 7: GNSO Improvements OSC Recommendations from the CCT</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>COUNCIL
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CCT FINAL CONSOLIDATED REPORT</span></b> <br>
Made by: Chuck Gomes<br>
Seconded by: Olga Cavalli <br>
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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23apr10-en.htm</a>
completed between 23 April 2010 and 16 May 2010 and a Staff Summary and
Analysis <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/msg00004.html</a>
has been prepared;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>NOW, BE IT THEREFORE: <br>
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Final Consolidated Report <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf</a>
of the CCT, without further modification, and directs Staff to begin work on
implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful feedback
of those community members who contributed to the Public Comment Forum <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/cct-recommendations/</a>
and directs Staff to consider their suggestions and recommendations during the
implementation phase;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b>Item 8: Other Business</b> <br>
8.1 Agendas for Brussels meetings <br>
8.2 Request from ccNSO re. the possible establishment of a joint DNS-CERT WG
with the ccNSO <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=disc>
<ul type=circle>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo2'>Refer to email message from Chris Disspain
forwarded by Chuck on 9 June:<br>
<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo2'>Any objections to asking for volunteers to
draft a possible charter? <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo2'>Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors) <o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:72.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>