[ispcp] call

Thu Jun 10 14:27:28 UTC 2010

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-proce
ss-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 

*	Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy to
no longer require semi-annual updates? 
*	Should the Council consider modifying the AGP Limits Policy by
defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly?
For example: 
*	Should instances of consumer fraud automatically be a legitimate
use of AGP deletes? 
*	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? 

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.pd
f 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
*	Refer to email message from Chris Disspain forwarded by Chuck on
9 June:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09050.html 
*	Any objections to asking for volunteers to draft a possible
charter? 
*	Any volunteers? (Need not be Councilors) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100610/12db8a29/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20489 bytes
Desc: gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100610/12db8a29/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-01jun10-en.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Whois studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 496816 bytes
Desc: Whois studies report for GNSO 23 Mar 2010.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100610/12db8a29/WhoisstudiesreportforGNSO23Mar2010.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 84985 bytes
Desc: whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100610/12db8a29/whois-studies-chart-08jun10-en.pdf>