ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] Policy Calendar for 31-Mar-2011 BC Member call

  • To: "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy Calendar for 31-Mar-2011 BC Member call
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • 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-Mar
John 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-Mar
Awaiting 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 
Council
Upcoming discussions & votes at 7-Apr GNSO Council teleconference
draft 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)

Attachment: BC_Position_IRTP-B_v1.0.docx
Description: BC_Position_IRTP-B_v1.0.docx

Attachment: BC_on_SSR RT Issues [v1] - mikey markup[1].docx
Description: BC_on_SSR RT Issues [v1] - mikey markup[1].docx

Attachment: BC_Position_PEDNR [v1].docx
Description: BC_Position_PEDNR [v1].docx

Attachment: Whois Study Recommendations to the RySG 29 March 2011[3].docx
Description: Whois Study Recommendations to the RySG 29 March 2011[3].docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy