October 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Notice of motion
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

Hello Al, In response to the request from the ICANN President to "formulate a proposal for a timely, transparent and predictable procedure for the introduction of new registry services, including as to how a reasonable determination of the likelihood that a proposed change will have adverse effects. This process, to be conducted under the GNSO's new streamlined policy development process, should be completed by 15 January 2004." And in accordance with the ICANN bylaws for the policy development process: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA Article A, Section 2: Creation of an Issues Report I propose the following motion for voting at the next Council meeting (Thursday 16 Oct) "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new registry services by Monday 27 October 2003 for consideration at the ICANN meeting in Carthage". Regards, Bruce

1 0

Notice of Council meeting - Thursday 16 October, 21:00 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

Hello All, Given that the ICANN President has requested that the GNSO: "formulate a proposal for a timely, transparent and predictable procedure for the introduction of new registry services, including as to how a reasonable determination of the likelihood that a proposed change will have adverse effects. This process, to be conducted under the GNSO's new streamlined policy development process, should be completed by 15 January 2004." I would like to call a meeting of the GNSO prior to Carthage to discuss this request with the ICANN President and General Counsel, and also begin planning how to meet this request in the time frame suggested. Note that after Carthage the next physical ICANN meeting will not be until 2-6 March 2004. (ie 4 months later). Therefore we should am to take the best advantage of the meeting in Carthage to begin the work as soon as possible. I propose that we hold a Council teleconference at: Thursday 16 October, 21:00 UTC Thursday 16 October, 2pm USA West Coast (e.g Los Angeles) Thursday 16 October, 5pm USA East Coast (e.g Washington, DC) Thursday 16 October, 10pm, London Friday 17 October, 7am, Melbourne, Australia This time will maximise participation from ICANN in Los Angeles. The Agenda for the meeting will be to discuss the request in more detail with ICANN staff and to schedule meetings in Carthage. Note the bylaws require: "Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an "Issue Report")." As I don't believe that an instruction has been provided by the ICANN Board, I suggest the Council vote on a motion for the Staff Manager to produce an Issues Report within 15 days (ideally in time for discussion at the ICANN meeting in Carthage). At this stage I suggest that the Council meet as a "committee of the whole council" in Carthage on Monday afternoon 27 Oct 2003 to refine terms of reference, and timeframes for approval by the Council at its meeting on Wednesday 29 Oct 2003. Ideally the committee and council will be able to consider the issues report at that time. To avoid delays while the new council is formed following Carthage (which is dependent on constituencies completing thir elections, and also electing a new chair of Council), one approach for the Council to consider is forming a task force comprising the present members of Council to examine the topic of new registry services, and report its findings to the new Council. By using the presnt members of Council in the task force, it will save time in attempting to form a task force from people. I look forward to feedback from Council on the above suggestions. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council

1 0

ICANN announcements:President's WIPO ll working group;Board to discuss Deletes TF Report
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 7, 2003

Oct. 7, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Please note the two latest ICANN announcements concerning: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06oct03.htm President Appoints Joint Working Group for WIPO-2 Process Issues http://www.icann.org/carthage/deletes-topic.htm One of the topics scheduled for ICANN Board discussion and possible action in Carthage, Tunisia (27-31 October 2003) is the Final Report of the GNSO Council's Deletes Task Force. The Deletes Task Force report recommends ICANN adopt a new uniform policy concerning gTLD registrar procedures for handling expiration of domain registrations. GNSO Secretrariat

1 0

RE: [council] Request for GNSO to consider processes forintroducing new registry services
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 6, 2003

Oct. 6, 2003

Hello Milton, > > So we are being asked to conduct "prior review" of all new > registry services? I believe that we are being asked to develop a procedure that ICANN can use for introducing new registry services whatever they may be. E.g a possible procedure might look like: (1) Registry operator notifies ICANN of potential new service (2) ICANN refers to procedure for introducing new services which might include seeking public comment, and seeking a report from the Security and stability committee and/or IAB (3) ICANN approves or rejects permission for new service (4) Registry operator announces date when service will go live The GNSO develops policies, but does not act on each implementation of the policy. E.g The GNSO revised the Transfers Policy that registry and registrars must comply with, but we don't act to approve or reject individual registrant transfer requests that would be far too slow. Regards, Bruce

2 1

Re: [council] Request for GNSO to consider processes for introducing new registry services
by Milton Mueller Oct. 6, 2003

Oct. 6, 2003

>>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> 10/03/03 09:55AM >>> Advisory Concerning Demand to Remove VeriSign's Wildcard http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03oct03.htm >ICANN's President and CEO Paul Twomey is >asking the Generic Names Supporting Organization to formulate a proposal >for a timely, transparent and predictable procedure for the introduction >of new registry services, including as to how a reasonable determination >of the likelihood that a proposed change will have adverse effects. This >process, to be conducted under the GNSO's new streamlined policy >development process, should be completed by 15 January 2004." So we are being asked to conduct "prior review" of all new registry services? To me, that sounds like a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to this problem. Perhaps I misunderstand what is being asked for. I look forward to discussing this with other Councillors.

1 0

Request for GNSO to consider processes for introducing new registry services
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 4, 2003

Oct. 4, 2003

Hello All, There are a couple of paragraphs in recent announcements from ICANN that relate to the GNSO. Ie from: Advisory Concerning Demand to Remove VeriSign's Wildcard http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03oct03.htm "ICANN is sympathetic to concerns that have been expressed by VeriSign and others about the process by which proposed changes in the operation of a top-level domain registry are evaluated and approved by ICANN. To deal with these concerns, ICANN's President and CEO Paul Twomey is asking the Generic Names Supporting Organization to formulate a proposal for a timely, transparent and predictable procedure for the introduction of new registry services, including as to how a reasonable determination of the likelihood that a proposed change will have adverse effects. This process, to be conducted under the GNSO's new streamlined policy development process, should be completed by 15 January 2004." Also from: Letter From Paul Twomey to Russell Lewis http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-lewis-03oct03.htm "Various press reports have quoted VeriSign representatives as being concerned about the processes by which changes in the operation of top-level domains are evaluated and approved by ICANN. I share those concerns. The introduction by registry operators of new products or services that do not threaten adverse effects to the Internet, the DNS or the top-level domains which they operate should not be impeded by unnecessary or prolonged processes. On the other hand, VeriSign, like other operators of top level domains, occupies a critical position of public trust, made even more important given the fact that it is the steward for the two largest generic top level domains. This means that VeriSign has both a legal and a practical obligation to be responsible in its actions in operating those top level domains. To ensure that this obligation is carried out, there must be a timely, transparent and predictable process for the determination of the likelihood that a proposed change in the operation of a generic top-level domain under contract with ICANN will have significant adverse effects. To this end, I will be asking the GNSO to begin to create such a procedure, taking into particular account any comments submitted by other ICANN advisory bodies, liaisons, and constituencies. I will request the GNSO to make its recommendations no later than 15 January 2003." I assume we will be hearing more from the ICANN President on the request to the GNSO, but we should start considering how to manage this request. Note especially the deadline of 15 Jan 2003. I will place the issue on the agenda for the meeting in Carthage, but it may be worthwhile having a short 1 hour teleconference in the next 14 days to discuss the agenda for Carthage in more detail and possibly schedule some targeted meetings in advance to deal with specific items of the GNSO agenda prior to the formal meeting (which will be the last meeting of the Counsel with its present membership). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Update on Declaration of conflict of interest
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 2, 2003

Oct. 2, 2003

I guess I will be the first to respond. Bruce, personally I have the utmost respect for you as a person and in your role as chair of the GNSO Council. I truly believe your motives were in the right place in agreeing to serve on the VeriSign committee and I in no way believe that your serving in that capacity serves as a conflict of interest. I believe the job you have done as GNSO Chair has been exemplary and that you should continue in this role (even beyond the annual meeting). It is hard for me to understand who or why anyone could even question your loyalty on this or any other issue and I also do not believe that it is a conflict for you to serve on the VeriSign committee. I trust that if your opinion differs from that of VeriSign, then you would make your thoughts known to us all. Thanks for this statement, and for your honesty. Jeff Neuman -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:58 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Update on Declaration of conflict of interest Hello All, I need to update my conflict of interest statement below. In my role as Chief Technology Officer of Melbourne IT, I have requested that Verisign voluntarily suspend the Sitefinder service and participate in the various review processes now underway. Melbourne IT voted in favour of a motion in the registrars constituency (see: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/broitman-to-twomey-01oct03.htm) concerning the Sitefinder service, supports the request from ICANN for Verisign to voluntarily suspend the service (http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm) supports the recommendations of ICANN's Security and Stability Committee (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/secsac-to-board-22sep03.htm) and supports the GNSO resolution passed at the last Council meeting (consistent with Registrar interests) (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00136.html) As a result of my request of Verisign to consider carefully the issues raised by the ICANN community, Verisign asked me to chair a group of internal Verisign technical staff and external people to collate and address each of the issues that have been raised by the community. I am doing this as I believe that it is important to work with all parties on this issue. I don't hold myself out to be a technical expert on the subject of wildcards, but I hope I can help with processes to address technical issues as they are raised. I am receiving no compensation (nor would I accept any compensation), nor is Melbourne IT receiving any compensation for this role. The details of this group can be found here: http://www.verisign.com/nds/naming/sitefinder/trp.html Verisign will take its own actions in response to any advice it receives. It is still both Melbourne IT's and my personal opinion that Verisign should show good faith and voluntarily suspend the service while the issues are analysed. At a personal level, if I am ever publicly critical of how things have been done by an individual or organisation, I also accept an obligation to attempt to work in good faith with the entity to correct the problem. I have heard from members of the community that I may have compromised the GNSO in my actions, and that is not my intent. I apologise to the GNSO Council if that is the result. To avoid any conflicts of interest with the GNSO I will not chair any discussion on the Sitefinder service, but I will support any recommendation of the GNSO on this matter. If it is the wish of the GNSO Council, I am also happy to resign as chair if the GNSO believes that the conflict of interest is too severe. My current term as GNSO chair expires at the end of the ICANN annual meeting in Carthage Tunisia, at which time the constituencies will need to appoint their new members, and the new council will need to formally elect a chair of the GNSO. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars Representative on the GNSO Council > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Thursday, 25 September 2003 9:58 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Declaration of conflict of interest > regarding agenda item 4 > > > Hello All, > > Agenda item 4 of the GNSO Council meeting relates to a > discussion of Verisign's introduction of wildcard entries > into the .com and .net zones. > > I would like to declare the following potential conflicts of > interest. I am an employee of Melbourne IT. > > Melbourne IT is a customer of Verisign, and Melbourne IT has > directly communicated with Verisign over this issue. > > Melbourne IT is a supplier to Microsoft of domain name > services. Microsoft currently benefits from a feature in > their browsers that can direct users to a MSN search page > when a domain name is not found in the DNS. In some cases > users may be offered the chance to register domain names. > Melbourne IT has not been approached by Microsoft to advocate > any position on this matter, and I have seen no public > response from Microsoft on this matter. > > Melbourne IT is a supplier to Yahoo of domain name services. > It has been reported that Yahoo has an interest in that it is > in the process of acquiring Overture (which manages > paid/sponsored search listings), and owns Inktomi (which > provides search listing for the Verisign service). I don't > know how this may affect Melbourne IT with respect to domain > name services. Melbourne IT has not been approached by Yahoo > to advocate any position on this matter, and I have seen no > public response from Yahoo on this matter. > > While I believe that my views are independent of any of the > potential conflicts of interests above and that I act in the > best interests of ICANN whilst acting in my capacity as chair > of the GNSO, I want to ensure that I am not seen to bias any > discussion on this topic as chair of the GNSO. > > As has been my practice in the past on issues where I have a > potential conflict of interest, I have asked Philip Sheppard > as the immediate past chair of the Names Council, to chair > the discussion on agenda item 4. I have also invited the > ICANN General Counsel (John Jeffrey), the Chair of the > Security and Stability Advisory Committee (Steve Crocker), > and a representative from Verisign (Chuck Gomes) to be > available to answer any questions of a factual nature. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > >

1 0

Update on Declaration of conflict of interest
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 2, 2003

Oct. 2, 2003

Hello All, I need to update my conflict of interest statement below. In my role as Chief Technology Officer of Melbourne IT, I have requested that Verisign voluntarily suspend the Sitefinder service and participate in the various review processes now underway. Melbourne IT voted in favour of a motion in the registrars constituency (see: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/broitman-to-twomey-01oct03.htm) concerning the Sitefinder service, supports the request from ICANN for Verisign to voluntarily suspend the service (http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm) supports the recommendations of ICANN's Security and Stability Committee (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/secsac-to-board-22sep03.htm) and supports the GNSO resolution passed at the last Council meeting (consistent with Registrar interests) (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00136.html) As a result of my request of Verisign to consider carefully the issues raised by the ICANN community, Verisign asked me to chair a group of internal Verisign technical staff and external people to collate and address each of the issues that have been raised by the community. I am doing this as I believe that it is important to work with all parties on this issue. I don't hold myself out to be a technical expert on the subject of wildcards, but I hope I can help with processes to address technical issues as they are raised. I am receiving no compensation (nor would I accept any compensation), nor is Melbourne IT receiving any compensation for this role. The details of this group can be found here: http://www.verisign.com/nds/naming/sitefinder/trp.html Verisign will take its own actions in response to any advice it receives. It is still both Melbourne IT's and my personal opinion that Verisign should show good faith and voluntarily suspend the service while the issues are analysed. At a personal level, if I am ever publicly critical of how things have been done by an individual or organisation, I also accept an obligation to attempt to work in good faith with the entity to correct the problem. I have heard from members of the community that I may have compromised the GNSO in my actions, and that is not my intent. I apologise to the GNSO Council if that is the result. To avoid any conflicts of interest with the GNSO I will not chair any discussion on the Sitefinder service, but I will support any recommendation of the GNSO on this matter. If it is the wish of the GNSO Council, I am also happy to resign as chair if the GNSO believes that the conflict of interest is too severe. My current term as GNSO chair expires at the end of the ICANN annual meeting in Carthage Tunisia, at which time the constituencies will need to appoint their new members, and the new council will need to formally elect a chair of the GNSO. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars Representative on the GNSO Council > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Thursday, 25 September 2003 9:58 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Declaration of conflict of interest > regarding agenda item 4 > > > Hello All, > > Agenda item 4 of the GNSO Council meeting relates to a > discussion of Verisign's introduction of wildcard entries > into the .com and .net zones. > > I would like to declare the following potential conflicts of > interest. I am an employee of Melbourne IT. > > Melbourne IT is a customer of Verisign, and Melbourne IT has > directly communicated with Verisign over this issue. > > Melbourne IT is a supplier to Microsoft of domain name > services. Microsoft currently benefits from a feature in > their browsers that can direct users to a MSN search page > when a domain name is not found in the DNS. In some cases > users may be offered the chance to register domain names. > Melbourne IT has not been approached by Microsoft to advocate > any position on this matter, and I have seen no public > response from Microsoft on this matter. > > Melbourne IT is a supplier to Yahoo of domain name services. > It has been reported that Yahoo has an interest in that it is > in the process of acquiring Overture (which manages > paid/sponsored search listings), and owns Inktomi (which > provides search listing for the Verisign service). I don't > know how this may affect Melbourne IT with respect to domain > name services. Melbourne IT has not been approached by Yahoo > to advocate any position on this matter, and I have seen no > public response from Yahoo on this matter. > > While I believe that my views are independent of any of the > potential conflicts of interests above and that I act in the > best interests of ICANN whilst acting in my capacity as chair > of the GNSO, I want to ensure that I am not seen to bias any > discussion on this topic as chair of the GNSO. > > As has been my practice in the past on issues where I have a > potential conflict of interest, I have asked Philip Sheppard > as the immediate past chair of the Names Council, to chair > the discussion on agenda item 4. I have also invited the > ICANN General Counsel (John Jeffrey), the Chair of the > Security and Stability Advisory Committee (Steve Crocker), > and a representative from Verisign (Chuck Gomes) to be > available to answer any questions of a factual nature. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > >

1 0

UDRP Issues
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 1, 2003

Oct. 1, 2003

Enclosed is a list of our top 5 UDRP issues. We apologize for its lateness. (1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions (including complainant and respondent filings)? (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? (15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"? (16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith? (19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect? Jeff Neuman Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency

1 0

Proposed introduction of fees for use of ISO-3166 codes
by Cary Karp Oct. 1, 2003

Oct. 1, 2003

If this has consequences for application in the DNS, they may be big ones. Anyone know more about this? http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5079256.html /Cary

1 0