[bc-gnso] AGENDA TIME ALLOCATION: FOR TODAY'S BC CALL

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agenda for BC Call: Time allocation : we will do our best to stick to only 75 
minutes, but thereare a lot of policy and positions to go through. 

Introductions/roll call: BenedettaOverview of Agenda/addition of topics from 
members: Marilyn Cade - 5 minutesPolicy Discussions/Council prep : 45 
MinutesUpdate on Election to Board:   Sarah Deutsch: 10 minutesAny important 
Business announcements: TBD: Chris Chaplow: 5 minutesAoB:  From Members list:  
Marilyn Cade: 10 minutesCall concludes 75 minutes goal
DIAL IN CAME FROM BENEDETTA SEPARATELY -- SECRETARIAT-BC@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy Calendar for 31-Mar-2011 BC Member call
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:18:00 +0000




Here is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during 31-Mar member call. 
Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment
process:  ICANN Public Comment
page is at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ Selected Public Comments
open at this time:  (in order of comment
closing dates)
 1: Inter-registrar transfer policy (IRTP-B) – proposed final report  
(31-Mar)Mikey O'Connor sent discussion draft on 18-Mar.   (attached)No 
disagreement registered on list, so attached doc will be posted on 31-Mar.
2: proposed GNSO policy development process (1-Apr)Philip Sheppard circulated 
discussion draft on 25-Mar.John Berard suggested additional text on 29-Mar.  
See present comment at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01896.html If 
there is no disagreement we will post this 1-Apr
3: framework for FY2012 operating plan and budget  (4-Apr)Chris Chaplow sent 
discussion draft 21-MarJohn Berard, Marilyn Cade, and Mikey O'Conner offered 
suggestions on 25-Mar.Chris will circulate latest draft for review before 
posting next week.
4: SSR Review Team (AoC) Set of Issues (6-Apr) Adam Palmer's draft circulated 
24-Mar.Mikey O'Connor circulated edits 25-MarAwaiting reaction from members and 
Adam on Mikey's markup. (attached)
5: High Security Zone TLD final report  (7-Apr)BC members of WG agreed that BC 
comments were not warranted.
6: Post-expiration domain name recovery, WG final report (extended to 
22-Apr)Berry Cobb's discussion draft circulated 25-Mar.  (attached)Awaiting 
reaction from members.
7: WHOIS Review Team (AoC) seeking input on scope of work  (17-Apr) Looking for 
a volunteer to draft BC comments. 

Note: BC members are encouraged
to submit individual or company comments on any topic.  Based on member 
interest, the BC selects
topics on which to submit official positions.Channel 2. Support for discussion 
and votes of our
representatives on GNSO CouncilUpcoming discussions
& votes at 7-Apr GNSO Council teleconferencedraft Council agenda was not yet 
published as of 9pm ET on 30-Mar.
Motions are posted at 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11080.html 
Motion 1:  revising Council procedures for statements of interest
Motion 2: to adopt the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement 
Implementation (SCI)
Motion 3: to accept final report from Joint ccNSO/GNSO Working Group on 
single-character IDN gTLDs 
Motion 4: regarding WHOIS studies.  Staff posted an analysis of "Privacy & 
Proxy Relay & Reveal".   Council must decide which of remaining 3 studies 
(Registrant Identification, Proxy and Privacy "abuse" and this Relay and Reveal 
study) staff should initiate.  (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-11feb11-en.pdf )    
John and Zahid worked with staff on a resolution to commit funding for all 
remaining studies.
After the SFO Council meeting, a small volunteer group met 4 times to discuss 
WHOIS studies resolution.
Chuck Gomes led the discussion with Kathy Kleiman (PIR), Don Blumenthal (PIR), 
Liz Gasster (ICANN), Lisa Phifer (ICANN), and Steve DelBianco. 
Here's where we are now:
Kathy and Don feel that the RFP for the Registrant Identification Study (Study 
2) needs more definition on how registrants are classified as having 
'commercial purpose'.   I support another few weeks of this work, and can 
explain if needed.
The registries are likely to support our 2 most important studies, with minor 
adjustments to the studies' scope.  I'm talking about the Privacy/Proxy Abuse 
study (Study 3) and the Relay/Reveal study (Study 4).   I support these 
adjustments.
Attached is a modified version of John's Council motion regarding these 
studies, along with explanations.
I recommend we support the amended motion. 
I also recommend we start lobbying rest of Commercial Stakeholders Group to 
support this.
Kathy Kleiman will talk with her former colleagues in NCSG and we should also 
reach out to those Councilors and offer to explain.
The registrars are unlikely to support, but we should offer to explain how this 
improves the studies and deserves their support.  John's a logical choice for 
that outreach.--
see GNSO Project Status List as
of 10-Mar-2011, at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 

Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy
matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG)CSG decision on voting 
procedure for ICANN Board election    (Sarah Deutsch)Channel 4. BC statements 
and responses during public
meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.)BC submitted written summary of 
our SFO comments on GAC Scorecard   
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01890.html Affirmation review
team for Whois   (Susan Kawaguchi, Bill
Smith)
Affirmation reviewteam for SSR  (Security, Stability, &
Reslience)    (Jeff Brueggeman)