October 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 14, 2003

Oct. 14, 2003

Hello Jeff, Thanks for forwarding this notice to the Council. Note that the PDP process incorporates several stages. The first stage is the production of an issues report by ICANN staff (including the General Counsel) for consideration by Council. The issues you raise below should be dealt with within the issues report. I am expecting Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey to attend the Council meeting this week to answer questions and take feedback. If the Council decides to request the production of an issues report, then the issue you raised below should be included in that issues report. The registry constituency representatives on Council will have the opportunity on the call this week to raise their concerns directly with Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey, for addressing within a possible issues report. I hope that the registry members of council will participate in the call this week. I think the production of an issues report is consistent with your request below. The issues report is where the general counsel may advise the council that a particular issue is outside the scope of ICANN or beyond the capabilities of the GNSO to address. Note also that the council must formally vote on continuing the policy development process after receiving the issues report, and also formally vote on approving any consensus recommendations, and finally the Board must formally vote on whether to accept any policy from the GNSO. If an issue report is produced, the Council will also need to carefully develop the process terms of reference for any task force assigned to examine the issue. In developing the terms of refernece the Council may clearly identify issues wihic are in-scope and out-of-scope. Thus there are many checks and balances in the process to prevent problems with competitiors trying to restrict the introduction of new services. I think you should trust and work within the process that has been developed after extensive community consultation. Regards, Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] > Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2003 12:06 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 > > >

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Oct. 13, 2003

Oct. 13, 2003

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 >

1 0

FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 13, 2003

Oct. 13, 2003

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 >

1 0

Revised motion
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 9, 2003

Oct. 9, 2003

Hello All, I have taken on board Jeff's comments to include a reference to the ICANN bylaws and gtld registry agreements, and also removed the date restriction to ensure the Staff Manager has time to produce a quality issues reportas requested my Milton Mueller. 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, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)" Regards, Bruce

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference - proposed agenda - Thursday 16/17 October
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; announce(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda Thursday, October 16/17, 2003 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-16oct03.shtml This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council Coordinated Universal Time UTC 21:00 - see below for local times Bruce Tonkin will be chairing the GNSO Council teleconference. Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins. Dial-in number sent individually to each Council member. Approval of Agenda Item 1. 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." - Discussion of this request with the ICANN President and General Counsel, - Plan how to meet this request in the time frame suggested. Item 2. Any other business (14:00 LA, 17:00 New York, 23:00 Paris, 6:00 Japan/Korea, Friday 17 October, 7:00 Melbourne Friday 17 October ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between April and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21 :00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA UTC-8+1DST 14:00 Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+1DST 4:00 Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 17:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2003, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] Notice of motion
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

Hello Milton, > As things stand now I would oppose this motion unless the date of the > issues report is moved back to late November or some other more > reasonable time frame, giving both staff and the new Council members > time to consider the complexities of the form of business > regulation into > which we are being pushed. Thanks for your input. I am happy to remove the date from the resolution. I will wait until other Council members have had a chance to comment, and then post a revised motion in 24 hours. It is good to see the mailing list used to refine the motion BEFORE the council meeting :-) Regards, Bruce

1 0

Re: [council] Notice of motion
by Milton Mueller Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

>>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> 10/07/03 08:27PM >>> >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". As things stand now I would oppose this motion unless the date of the issues report is moved back to late November or some other more reasonable time frame, giving both staff and the new Council members time to consider the complexities of the form of business regulation into which we are being pushed. Since ICANN's new counsel and Dr. Twomey, both of whom are very smart people but have no experience in industry regulation or regulatory economics, are copied on this message, let me make it clear that in some ways I wouldn't mind watching ICANN drive off this cliff at 80 miles an hour - the wreckage would be much more colorful and entertaining - but the impact will be softer if we slow down a bit, and we might navigate some of the twists and turns more adroitly. This kind of haste would be much more appropriate for the new TLD process that the Department of Commerce was promised, seeing as how it's been nearly 6 years and no regular procedure for additions has been defined. And the issues are not unrelated - VeriSign's antics would be much less significant if the market were less concentrated, and it would give ICANN a chance to develop new template contracts for TLDs that might address some of the post- Sitefinder issues. Unless one believes that VeriSign and the other registries are going to inundate us with a host of new "registry services" in the next six months (and if you do believe that, let's see some evidence), I think this railroad needs a brake. --MM

1 0

RE: [council] Notice of motion
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

Thanks Bruce. If we could add then in the first part the words "CONSISTENT WITH ICANN's BYLAWS INCLUDING ITS CORE VALUES", although I agree may not be "necessary", but may make the motion more palatable to some in the ICANN community. Your definition of Registry Services is from the new TLD Agreements (biz, info, pro, name, etc.). However, VeriSign was able to negotiate a different definition its .com and .net agreements. Some have argued that these differences are significant. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:37 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: try-planning(a)nic.museum Subject: RE: [council] Notice of motion Hello Jeff, > > "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an > Issues Report on the need for a predictable procedure, > CONSISTENT WITH ICANN's CORE VALUES OF PRESERVING OPERATIONAL > STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY > OF THE INTERNET, AND THE PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE > ENVIRONMENT, for the introduction of new "Registry Services," > AS DEFINED BY THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS WITH THE GTLD > REGISTRIES, by October 27, 2003 for consideration at the > [INSERT NOVEMBER COUNCIL MEETING]". With regard to adding text about core values, I think that is unnecessary because the issues report as defined in the bylaws must include a statement from the ICANN General Counsel: "In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or 5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy." You have also not mentioned all the ICANN core values in Article 1 of the ICANN bylaws (there are 11 of them). Might be better to just say consistent with ICANN's mission and core values as defined in the ICANN bylaws. You suggested text to clarify the definition of Registry services seems reasonable. I note from the generic tld agreement that Registry Services is defined as: "Registry Services" means services provided as an integral part of the operation of the Registry TLD, including all subdomains in which Registered Names are registered. In determining whether a service is integral to the operation of the Registry TLD, consideration will be given to the extent to which the Registry Operator has been materially advantaged in providing the service by its designation as such under this Agreement. The development of technology, expertise, systems, efficient operations, reputation (including identification as Registry Operator), financial strength, or relationships with registrars and third parties shall not be deemed an advantage arising from the designation. Registry Services include: receipt of data concerning registration of domain names and nameservers from registrars, provision to registrars of status information relating to the Registry TLD, dissemination of TLD zone files, operation of the Registry TLD zone servers, dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain-name and nameserver registrations in the Registry TLD, and such other services required by ICANN in the manner provided in Subsections 4.3 through 4.6. Registry Services shall not include the provision of nameservice for a domain used by a single entity under a Registered Name registered through an ICANN-Accredited Registrar. > > > In addition, I believe that getting the report on the 27th > and then voting on the issues report a couple of days later > )2 I think) is not enough time to consider this report. This > issue is too critical to not have careful consideration and > is central to the Registries future viability. That combined > with the fact that several members of the council will not be > present in Tunisia, makes it unrealistic for us as a group to > consider the Issues Report prior to the November meeting. The Council needs to consider an issues report within 15 days of receiving it. I note that there may be difficulty in forming a properly constituted council meeting at that time depending on the state of constituency elections for new representatives. However I accept that there would be little time for Council representatives to consult with their constituencies. There is nothing stopping us considering the report in Carthage, but I accept your comment that it maybe premature to actually vote on initiating the policy development process at that time. > > Furthermore, I have some other concerns about this process > that I may be ready to discuss at the next Council meeting. > Although a predictable process for the introduction of > Registry Services is certainly a good thing, we are reviewing > the legal implications of having members of the ICANN > community [other than the ICANN staff or Board], who may or > may not be competitors to us, provide input (either from a > process or substance > standpoint) into the introduction of registry services. Certainly the council would need to consider this in the development of a process, and I encourage the committee/task force to request the ICANN General Counsel to provide advice on this point. Regards, Bruce >

1 0

RE: [council] Notice of motion
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

Hello Jeff, > > "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an > Issues Report on the need for a predictable procedure, > CONSISTENT WITH ICANN's CORE VALUES OF PRESERVING OPERATIONAL > STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY > OF THE INTERNET, AND THE PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE > ENVIRONMENT, for the introduction of new "Registry Services," > AS DEFINED BY THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS WITH THE GTLD > REGISTRIES, by October 27, 2003 for consideration at the > [INSERT NOVEMBER COUNCIL MEETING]". With regard to adding text about core values, I think that is unnecessary because the issues report as defined in the bylaws must include a statement from the ICANN General Counsel: "In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or 5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy." You have also not mentioned all the ICANN core values in Article 1 of the ICANN bylaws (there are 11 of them). Might be better to just say consistent with ICANN's mission and core values as defined in the ICANN bylaws. You suggested text to clarify the definition of Registry services seems reasonable. I note from the generic tld agreement that Registry Services is defined as: "Registry Services" means services provided as an integral part of the operation of the Registry TLD, including all subdomains in which Registered Names are registered. In determining whether a service is integral to the operation of the Registry TLD, consideration will be given to the extent to which the Registry Operator has been materially advantaged in providing the service by its designation as such under this Agreement. The development of technology, expertise, systems, efficient operations, reputation (including identification as Registry Operator), financial strength, or relationships with registrars and third parties shall not be deemed an advantage arising from the designation. Registry Services include: receipt of data concerning registration of domain names and nameservers from registrars, provision to registrars of status information relating to the Registry TLD, dissemination of TLD zone files, operation of the Registry TLD zone servers, dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain-name and nameserver registrations in the Registry TLD, and such other services required by ICANN in the manner provided in Subsections 4.3 through 4.6. Registry Services shall not include the provision of nameservice for a domain used by a single entity under a Registered Name registered through an ICANN-Accredited Registrar. > > > In addition, I believe that getting the report on the 27th > and then voting on the issues report a couple of days later > )2 I think) is not enough time to consider this report. This > issue is too critical to not have careful consideration and > is central to the Registries future viability. That combined > with the fact that several members of the council will not be > present in Tunisia, makes it unrealistic for us as a group to > consider the Issues Report prior to the November meeting. The Council needs to consider an issues report within 15 days of receiving it. I note that there may be difficulty in forming a properly constituted council meeting at that time depending on the state of constituency elections for new representatives. However I accept that there would be little time for Council representatives to consult with their constituencies. There is nothing stopping us considering the report in Carthage, but I accept your comment that it maybe premature to actually vote on initiating the policy development process at that time. > > Furthermore, I have some other concerns about this process > that I may be ready to discuss at the next Council meeting. > Although a predictable process for the introduction of > Registry Services is certainly a good thing, we are reviewing > the legal implications of having members of the ICANN > community [other than the ICANN staff or Board], who may or > may not be competitors to us, provide input (either from a > process or substance > standpoint) into the introduction of registry services. Certainly the council would need to consider this in the development of a process, and I encourage the committee/task force to request the ICANN General Counsel to provide advice on this point. Regards, Bruce >

1 0

RE: [council] Notice of motion
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 8, 2003

Oct. 8, 2003

I would like to add a few words to the resolution: "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the need for a predictable procedure, CONSISTENT WITH ICANN's CORE VALUES OF PRESERVING OPERATIONAL STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET, AND THE PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT, for the introduction of new "Registry Services," AS DEFINED BY THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS WITH THE GTLD REGISTRIES, by October 27, 2003 for consideration at the [INSERT NOVEMBER COUNCIL MEETING]". I trust that there would be no objection to the concepts above. In addition, I believe that getting the report on the 27th and then voting on the issues report a couple of days later )2 I think) is not enough time to consider this report. This issue is too critical to not have careful consideration and is central to the Registries future viability. That combined with the fact that several members of the council will not be present in Tunisia, makes it unrealistic for us as a group to consider the Issues Report prior to the November meeting. Furthermore, I have some other concerns about this process that I may be ready to discuss at the next Council meeting. Although a predictable process for the introduction of Registry Services is certainly a good thing, we are reviewing the legal implications of having members of the ICANN community [other than the ICANN staff or Board], who may or may not be competitors to us, provide input (either from a process or substance standpoint) into the introduction of registry services. Thanks. Jeff Neuman NOTE: For the avoidance of doubt, this e-mail is being sent in my own capacity and does not necessarily reflect the view of the gTLD Registry Constituency. I hope to have their views by the meeting next week. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 8:28 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: jeffrey(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Notice of motion 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