[council] Wrap-up topics

Thu Oct 27 12:03:00 UTC 2011

I'm sorry if my email request was unclear.  I was referencing the below resolved(s) from the 6 October resolution:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:

1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number.

Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address.

2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar's respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.

3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention

(example: lawenforcement at example.tld<mailto:lawenforcement at example.tld>) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours.

4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency's first contact with a registrar.

5. The Issue Report should include a freedom-of-expression impact analysis.

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
TEL 202.429.6260 | FAX 202.261.7547
bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>

The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at “bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com.”  Thank you.

On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:54 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>> wrote:

Brian,

Which Issue Report are you referring to?

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:48 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Wrap-up topics

Thank you Stéphane.  May I request that next steps on the RAA issue report be added to the wrap up agenda?  It would probably assist Staff to know how to approach writing it, or whether the need for it has been superseded by subsequent events.
Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
TEL 202.429.6260 | FAX 202.261.7547
bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>

The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at “bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com.”  Thank you.

On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>> wrote:
Councillors,

As you know, our ICANN meeting wrap-up sessions do not have a set agenda, as they are discussions and stock-taking sessions.

As pointers to those discussions, here are a few topics we might like to consider. These are just suggestions stemming from the notes I have been taking throughout the week. We don't have to discuss them all during the wrap-up, and we can obviously add or delete topics as desired.

See you all in Salon Vert room from 12:30 to 2pm today.

Stéphane

IOC Red Cross, working with the GAC
A letter has been drafted, to be sent by GNSO Council Chair to GAC Chair. Edits/comments? Should we send?

Best practices
Where to next? What does the Council want to do now?

JAS Final report
What do we want to do now? We reserved our right to approve it in the resolution we passed and we heard from Kurt on Sunday that Staff would now like some direction from the GNSO Council on whether we approve it or not.

NCA
Discussion of possible interactions between the Council and the NomCom going forward (see notes from meeting between NomCom and GNSO leadership earlier this week).

Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting
See response from SSAC Chair Patrik Faltstrom sent to Council list this week.  Next steps for the Council?

ccNSO
Suggestions from the ccNSO to have work sessions together on looking at the strategic plan. Our response?

A suggestion that the GNSO joins the ccNSO in requesting extra detail from the CFO on the budget.

Meetings: how do we strengthen our meetings with the ccNSO? How do we build the agenda in an effective way? The ccNSO has dedicated 2 people to looking at the agenda. The suggestion is that the GNSO agenda person liaise with them.

Post newgTLD landscape
Should the GNSO Council be looking at how the community will change as a result of new gTLDs and VI and ccNSO registries providing new gTLD services and vice-versa?

Costa Rica preparation
Who will handle the agenda?

Open Council meeting: Presentations by SG and C chairs at the start of the open council meeting. A suggestion to post a list of topics to the constituency list prior to the Open Council meeting so that the group leaders know what they are going to discuss…

GNSO teleconference schedule for the upcoming year
Secretariat to suggest a schedule, to be approved by Leadership team.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20111027/f4599133/attachment.html>