October 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Arrival times - possible GNSO/GAC meeting - Carthage
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members and liaisons, In view of a possible meeting with two GAC working groups -- GTLD and WHOIS which could meet simultaneously with the GNSO Council, could you please inform me when and what time you will be arriving in Carthage, Tunisia. This information would be appreciated at your earliest convenience so as to make the necessary arrangements and send out notices. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org glen(a)icann.org Tel: +33 4 92 181 442 Tel: +33 4 93 452 127

1 0

RE: [council] Update on Declaration of conflict of interest
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

Hello All, Just a further update on my conflict of interest statement below. I ceased to chair or be a member of the Verisign SiteFinder Technical Review Panel last week. As far as I know, the work of the panel was completed last week. Regards, Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 1:58 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.h > tm), 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 > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

I think the statement is pretty clear. Even discussions regarding a policy development process (from those in the community that could be compeititors (i.e., registrars, ISPs, other businesses, etc.)) on new registry services has implications on competition from a legal standpoint. It is for this reason that we are requesting a formal legal opinion from ICANN's general counsel on this issue and are also obtaining our own legal advice from our own counsels. -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:16 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: try-planning(a)nic.museum Subject: RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP Jeff, this seems quite strange to me. Are you suggesting that the Council cannot address a PDP? Given that it is council's job and responsibility to develop consensus policy, what are your suggestions to address such policy development? 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:06 AM To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Cc: 'try-planning(a)nic.museum' Subject: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP Importance: High This message was sent by the unsponsored registry members of the gTLD Registries Constituency this morning. We cannot support the contemplated PDP process without these issues being addressed and we are evaluating whether or not we will participate in this week's scheduled call -- this being the only issue to be addressed on the call. Jeff Neuman > -----Original Message----- > From: Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:02 AM > To: 'twomey(a)icann.org'; 'jeffrey(a)icann.org'; 'smith(a)icann.org' > Cc: 'vcerf(a)mci.net'; 'apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx'; 'dam(a)icann.org'; > 'halloran(a)icann.org'; 'pritz(a)icann.org' > Subject: Statement of New Registry Services PDP > Importance: High > > Dear Paul, > The unsponsored registry members of gTLD Registries Constituency (.biz, > .com, .info, .name, .net, .org and .pro) are concerned that a process for > the introduction of Registry Services involving a policy development > process within the ICANN community may pose serious competition issues. > Referral of new Registry Services through a PDP, or even community > consultation, when some members of the community may be viewed as > competitors with the gTLD Registries for certain Registry Services could > potentially inhibit and interfere with the business of the gTLD > Registries. > We therefore formally request that any engagement of the policy > development process involving procedures for the introduction of Registry > Services, be halted until such time as the ICANN General Counsel provides > a formal legal opinion the ramifications of such a process from an > antitrust and unfair competition standpoint. > In addition, we intend to engage our own individual counsels on these > vital issues prior to engaging in this process with the ICANN staff and/or > community. > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Chair > gTLD Registries Constituency >

2 1

Note the times for the council meeting on 16/17 Oct
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

(14:00 LA, 17:00 New York, 23:00 Paris, 6:00 Japan/Korea, Friday 17 October, 7:00 Melbourne Friday 17 October Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21 :00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA UTC-8+1DST 14:00 Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+1DST 16:00 Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 17:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 18:00 Sao Paulo, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom UTC+0+1DST 22:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 23:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 23:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 23:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST 23:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 23:00 Jerusalem, Israel UTC+2DST 23:00 Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 6:00 Friday 17 Melbourne, Australia UTC+10+0DST 7:00 Friday 17 Auckland, Wellington, New Zealand UTC+12+0DST 10:00 Friday 17 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] New GNSO Council Reps
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

In looking at the minutes of our last gTLD Registries meeting, I may have jumped the gun on which one has one year and which has two year term. To make a long story short, the terms are actually dependent on whether or not there will be a third rep. from our constituency on the Council. If there are three reps that are allowed, then what I stated below will hold true (i.e., Cary getting the two year term, Ken getting the 1 year term). IF there are only two reps, there may be a different outcome. Sorry for the confusion. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:01 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; Neuman, Jeff Cc: Council(a)gnso.icann.org; halloran(a)icann.org; secretary(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [council] New GNSO Council Reps Thanks for the reminder. The 2 year term will be Cary Karp, and the 1 year term will be Ken Stubbs. If a third rep is allowed, then Jordyn Buchanan will serve that applicable term. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:56 PM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Council(a)gnso.icann.org; halloran(a)icann.org; secretary(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [council] New GNSO Council Reps Hello Jeff, > In accordance with the current By-laws, the gTLD Registries > Constituency has elected the following people to serve as the > gTLD Representatives on the new GNSO Council after the > meeting in Carthage: > > Cary Karp (Europe) > Ken Stubbs (North America) > > If there is a third rep, our rep will be Jordyn Buchanan > (Asia-Pacific). > Thanks for notifying the council of your election results. Please also note that the results must be notified to the "ICANN Secretary" As per http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XX Article XX, Section 5, clause 8: ".... shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term. You will need to identify which of the elected candidates will serve a 2 year term, and which a 1 year term. I believe that Dan Halloran is presently the Acting Secretary for ICANN: halloran(a)icann.org I assume secretary(a)icann.org probably works also. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Regarding anti-competitive discussions
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

Hello Jeff, > > The gTLD Registries Constituency will be participating in the > call tomorrow. I believe Cary will not be in attendance, but > that he has given his proxy to Jordyn and if he is not there, to me. Thanks for advising in advance. > If we > believe that the discussion takes a turn towards what we > believe are anti-competitive or discussions that have > anti-trust implications, we will have no choice but to leave the call. Very wise. I don't recall such a discussion occurring anytime while I have been on the council, but if you believe we get into such a discussion you should let us know. I note that our calls are recorded and the recordings made public, our mailing list is public, and minutes made public. This does help ensure that we never have an discussions that would be viewed as anti-competitive. In fact in all my time on Council we have sought to ensure the promotion of competition in the industry. The ICANN General Counsel will be in attendance on the call and can certainly provide independent advice to the GNSO Council. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] New GNSO Council Reps
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

Thanks for the reminder. The 2 year term will be Cary Karp, and the 1 year term will be Ken Stubbs. If a third rep is allowed, then Jordyn Buchanan will serve that applicable term. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:56 PM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Council(a)gnso.icann.org; halloran(a)icann.org; secretary(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [council] New GNSO Council Reps Hello Jeff, > In accordance with the current By-laws, the gTLD Registries > Constituency has elected the following people to serve as the > gTLD Representatives on the new GNSO Council after the > meeting in Carthage: > > Cary Karp (Europe) > Ken Stubbs (North America) > > If there is a third rep, our rep will be Jordyn Buchanan > (Asia-Pacific). > Thanks for notifying the council of your election results. Please also note that the results must be notified to the "ICANN Secretary" As per http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XX Article XX, Section 5, clause 8: ".... shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term. You will need to identify which of the elected candidates will serve a 2 year term, and which a 1 year term. I believe that Dan Halloran is presently the Acting Secretary for ICANN: halloran(a)icann.org I assume secretary(a)icann.org probably works also. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] New GNSO Council Reps
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 16, 2003

Oct. 16, 2003

Hello Jeff, > In accordance with the current By-laws, the gTLD Registries > Constituency has elected the following people to serve as the > gTLD Representatives on the new GNSO Council after the > meeting in Carthage: > > Cary Karp (Europe) > Ken Stubbs (North America) > > If there is a third rep, our rep will be Jordyn Buchanan > (Asia-Pacific). > Thanks for notifying the council of your election results. Please also note that the results must be notified to the "ICANN Secretary" As per http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XX Article XX, Section 5, clause 8: ".... shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term. You will need to identify which of the elected candidates will serve a 2 year term, and which a 1 year term. I believe that Dan Halloran is presently the Acting Secretary for ICANN: halloran(a)icann.org I assume secretary(a)icann.org probably works also. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Re: [council] Changing the thread on an earlier email/ was :Attendance at Council meetings -- NOW: If th
by Milton Mueller Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

NCUC will be sending a representative to Tunisia, and I am still confused about this Cross-Constituency meeting. Is it the normal ISPC-CBUC-IPCC axis meeting on Tuesday, or is it a special and separate meeting on Monday? This message of Marilyn's seems to indicate the latter: "Separately, the Cross Constituency (CC) would like to meet with your constituency [Registrars] to discuss views about wildcards. While we usually meet Tuesday am., I understand that isn't good for you, Accordingly, we could suggest Monday am. if we can jointly work on organizing an hour where whomever is available from our groups can come to meet with you. This is really separate from the public informational workshop, and I hope that is clear." I'd appreciate someone clearing this up (publicly). --MM

1 0

Changing the thread on an earlier email/ was :Attendance at Council meetings -- NOW: If the Registries want to meet with the CC, PLEASE email me and work out a time frame for Tuesday.
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

thanks, Tony. You have captured the purpose and the plans. The CC is meeting Tuesday, and the Registries are welcome to come and talk to the CC. The only purpose of those meetings is to give the opportunity to others to provide information. Others have taken the opportunity to do so in the past. It would be a welcome change to see the Registries as well. Let me know, Jeff. I'm coordinating the schedule for the CC. I have no idea why we are "spamming the ICANN staff/CEO, OR the Council on this dialogue, so after this email, I am hereby notifying all of you that I won't be spamming you further on whether or not the Registries want to speak to the CC. :-) Marilyn S. Cade 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:41 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: jeffrey(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org; ebroitman(a)register.com Subject: Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings Jeff, The practice of having cross-constituency meetings between the BC, IPC and ISPCP constituencies has been routine over the last couple of years at ICANN meetings. Much as I can romanticize about being a character in a cloak and dagger secretive encounter, the meetings are organized to avoid having certain "leading" topics (and presentations related to these topics from relevant specialists), repeated in three different rooms on the same day, as well as leveraging the various viewpoints that can emerge from a larger group. As far as I know, no other constituency ever indicated any desire to participate, and the meetings have always been announced and everyone has been aware of them. Hope that can ease your misgivings! Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us> To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: <jeffrey(a)icann.org>; <twomey(a)icann.org>; <ebroitman(a)register.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings > Bruce, > > The gTLD Registries Constituency will be participating in the call tomorrow. > I believe Cary will not be in attendance, but that he has given his proxy to > Jordyn and if he is not there, to me. > > However, our earlier concerns and reservations still apply. Our > participating in this call should not be viewed in any way as waiving any of > those concerns or reservations. If we believe that the discussion takes a > turn towards what we believe are anti-competitive or discussions that have > anti-trust implications, we will have no choice but to leave the call. > > In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving openness and > transparency. It has come to our attention that the Business Constituency > has attempted to arrange a private meeting during the Tunisia meeting with > several other constituencies (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, > etc.) to discuss the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services > in general. > > While meetings on ICANN-issues should certainly be encouraged, meetings that > exclude certain groups from participating (including the Registries and the > Noncommercial Constituency) are, in our view, in violation of ICANN's Bylaws > and not in line with the notion of transparency and openness. > > While we see no problem with one constituency having closed meetings to > formulate policy positions and handle internal constituency matters, when > more than one constituency gets together to discuss topics, then those > meetings should be required to be open to all constituencies to attend. This > type of activity goes to the core of our concerns about anti-trust and > unfair competition. > > By this note, I have also put the ICANN General Counsel on notice of our > concerns. I trust that this type of exclusionary practice will not occur at > the Tunisia meeting or any other ICANN-sponsored event. > > Jeff Neuman, > Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency >

1 0