RES: [ispcp] call

["Jaime Plug In" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

 

Jaime Wagner
 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cel (51) 8126-0916
Fax (51) 3123-1708

 

De: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome
de KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 10 de junho de 2010 11:27
Para: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
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-0
1jun10-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.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 

*	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)