November 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Terms of office for the GNSO Council
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 13, 2003

Nov. 13, 2003

Hello Philip, My personal view of the current status is: Under the ICANN By-laws on an ongoing basis: - two reps each serving staggered two year terms Under the transition article: - one term for 2 years (end of annual meeting 2005) - one term of one year (end of annual meeting 2004) - one term initially until end of annual meeting in 2004, and subject to review next year >From the point of view of the GNSO Council this means: - - one term for 2 years, and two terms for 1 year (ie this should be shown on the council members page) At the constituency level however, depending on your by-laws etc - it would seem to me (speaking personally) that you could internally elect the third member for 2 years, but with the caveat that this will be subject to review by the ICANN Board. Ie you can stagger so that next year you elect one or two members. If the Board approves permanently appointing 3 members, then the third member from the constituency would automatically continue for another year (without the need for the constituency to hold another election). So in summary I think each constituency can make its own decision about how they elect the third member to council, but from a by-law point of view that person is currently only in office until the end of the annual meeting 2004 (subject to review by the ICANN Board) as part of the transition article. With respect to registrars, the registrar by-laws refer to the main ICANN by-laws and only allow for 2 GNSO reps. The third rep is elected as part of the recent change to the transition article allowing a third member until the end of the annual meeting in 2004. If the ICANN Board permanently changes the by-laws, then the registrars constituency would need to adjust their by-laws. Hope that makes sense. I think in summary it should be governed by the constituencies by-laws and rules of procedure. Regards, Bruce (speaking personally!)

1 0

Re: [council] Terms of office for the GNSO Council
by Milton Mueller Nov. 13, 2003

Nov. 13, 2003

Thanks for raising this issue, Philip. We at NCUC had been assuming that two of the Council reps would be for one-year terms and only one for two-year terms. This assumption was based on the idea that the re-expansion of constituency representation to three was provisional. Which it may or may not be. If it is, two one-years and a two-year seems better. Hope this gets cleared up >really< quickly. >>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> 11/12/03 07:28AM >>> Council, The ICANN by-laws section 3 introduces the concept of staggered terms of office for Council reps. Terms are two-year but there is rotation every year. The transition article of the by-laws achieves this staggering in year one (2003) uniquely with one rep being elected for just one year. Thereafter all elections are held for two-year terms. Further to the decision by the Board, there are currently three representatives per constituency. It is consistent with the concept of two-year terms, that there is initially one representative elected in 2003 for the one-time only one-year term, while the remaining two representatives are elected as usual for two-year terms. It is the intention of the Business Constituency to nominate representatives accordingly. We welcome comment from other constituencies on this approach. Philip Sheppard Marilyn Cade Grant Forsyth

1 0

Terms of office for the GNSO Council
by Philip Sheppard Nov. 12, 2003

Nov. 12, 2003

Council, The ICANN by-laws section 3 introduces the concept of staggered terms of office for Council reps. Terms are two-year but there is rotation every year. The transition article of the by-laws achieves this staggering in year one (2003) uniquely with one rep being elected for just one year. Thereafter all elections are held for two-year terms. Further to the decision by the Board, there are currently three representatives per constituency. It is consistent with the concept of two-year terms, that there is initially one representative elected in 2003 for the one-time only one-year term, while the remaining two representatives are elected as usual for two-year terms. It is the intention of the Business Constituency to nominate representatives accordingly. We welcome comment from other constituencies on this approach. Philip Sheppard Marilyn Cade Grant Forsyth

1 0

TR: Thanks and regards
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Nov. 10, 2003

Nov. 10, 2003

Dear Ellen, It has been a pleasure to have your participation on Council. I know that we will all miss you on Council. Best wishes for a productive end of year... but seriously, don't get too far from your email! Council has need of task force participants in any number of areas! Best regards, Marilyn 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:16 AM To: council Subject: [council] TR: Thanks and regards lundi 10 novembre 2003 11:09 Ellen Shankman wrote: Dear fellow Council Members: As I wind up my seat, I want to tell you how much I've enjoyed meeting and working with you. It's been a pleasure and a privilege - and often enlightening! Warm regards, Ellen Ellen B. Shankman, Adv. Ellen Shankman & Associates 13 Weizmann Street Rehovot 76280 Israel tel: +972-54979026 fax: +972-89364241 e-mail:ellen@ellenshankman.com

1 0

TR: Thanks and regards
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 10, 2003

Nov. 10, 2003

lundi 10 novembre 2003 11:09 Ellen Shankman wrote: Dear fellow Council Members: As I wind up my seat, I want to tell you how much I've enjoyed meeting and working with you. It's been a pleasure and a privilege - and often enlightening! Warm regards, Ellen Ellen B. Shankman, Adv. Ellen Shankman & Associates 13 Weizmann Street Rehovot 76280 Israel tel: +972-54979026 fax: +972-89364241 e-mail:ellen@ellenshankman.com

1 0

RE: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Nov. 8, 2003

Nov. 8, 2003

We need to ensure that legal advice to Council comes to the Council from the appropriate source -- ICANN General Counsel. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:33 PM To: names council Subject: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry Services UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names Supporting Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored and six Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd. (.info), DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name), Musedoma (.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org), RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com & .net). On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we submit the following statement set forth below: BACKGROUND Each of the gTLD Registry Operators has entered an agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which governs the relationship between ICANN and the individual registry operator. It should be noted that only the Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any provisions regarding "Registry Services." In addition, the Unsponsored Registry contracts only provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new "Registry Service" so long as the operation as such service does not truly threaten the technical stability of the domain name system . While this constituency recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service", with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach, the contracts themselves do not give ICANN or any third party, including any of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or Advisory Committees, the ability to consent to any other aspects of "Registry Services." The applicable contracts do not provide a role for ICANN with respect to prices or specifications for services or products provided by registries that are not "Registry Services" as defined in such agreements. To the extent that ICANN wishes to increase its scope and/or powers with respect to "Registry Services", it may only do so in accordance with its agreements or with the express written consent of those with which it has contracts (namely, the Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars). In addition, the meaning of such agreements will be governed according to applicable legal principles. It cannot be said that any interpretation by one party after having entered the agreement is binding on the other party or evidences ambiguity. In addition, interpretations offered by third parties have no particular relevance in determining the meaning intended by the parties to the relevant agreements. To the extent that there are any disputes over the meaning of any terms within ICANN's Agreements with the registries, there is a built in dispute resolution process in the contracts. Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even Advisory Committees. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES REPORT The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned about the issues raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Manager's Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services." Not only are most of those issues irrelevant to the introduction of "Registry Services" as defined in the applicable contracts with gTLD Unsponsored Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests that parties other than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be entitled to prevent the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry Services." As stated above, many of these issues involve contractual interpretation that involve only the parties to those contracts, and not the ICANN community as a whole. ICANN may not unilaterally, or through the policy development process, promulgate rules or regulations interpreting these agreements without the consent of the registry operators. Any attempt to do so would be considered a violation of those agreements and subject to the dispute resolution process set forth in such agreements. It is the gTLD Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics identified in the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO, Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN staff/board and the gTLD Registry Operators. IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD REGISTRIES To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency of the GNSO that this PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD Registries, specifically the Unsponsored Registries. Not only does the introduction of "Registry Services" impact the competitive environment in which we operate, the investment which we are able to make in our businesses, but ultimately, it affects the very survival of our businesses. Without a procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service" with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach by which ICANN exercises its rights with respect to Registry Services, the future of domain name registries is in jeopardy. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report, the gTLD Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues Reports, when such report is released. In addition, the comments contained herein do not address the substance of the issues raised in the report, but merely provide, as we were asked to do, an impact statement. Afilias, Ltd. Global Name Registry NeuLevel, Inc. Public Interest Registry RegistryPro, Inc. VeriSign, Inc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency e-mail: <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us

1 0

Public Notification of Initiation of the PDP: WHOIS Public Comment Period ends 28 November 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 8, 2003

Nov. 8, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; announce(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] In accordance with the ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#AnnexA 6. Public Notification of Initiation of the PDP After initiation of the PDP, ICANN shall post a notification of such action to the Website. A public comment period shall be commenced for the issue for a period of twenty (20) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. The Staff Manager, or some other designated representative of ICANN shall review the public comments and incorporate them into a report (the "Public Comment Report") to be included in either the Preliminary Task Force Report or the Initial Report, as applicable. Please see the request for Public comment on: http://gnso.icann.org/ The Descriptions of Work for the 3 task Forces: Title: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor.shtml Title: Review of data collected and displayed http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor2.shtml Title: Improving Accuracy of collected data http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor3.shtml COMMENT PERIOD ENDS 28 NOVEMBER 2003, 23:00 GMT Thank you in anticipation for the time taken to comment. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services
by Ken Stubbs Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry Services UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names Supporting Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored and six Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd. (.info), DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name), Musedoma (.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org), RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com & .net). On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we submit the following statement set forth below: BACKGROUND Each of the gTLD Registry Operators has entered an agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which governs the relationship between ICANN and the individual registry operator. It should be noted that only the Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any provisions regarding "Registry Services." In addition, the Unsponsored Registry contracts only provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new "Registry Service" so long as the operation as such service does not truly threaten the technical stability of the domain name system . While this constituency recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service", with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach, the contracts themselves do not give ICANN or any third party, including any of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or Advisory Committees, the ability to consent to any other aspects of "Registry Services." The applicable contracts do not provide a role for ICANN with respect to prices or specifications for services or products provided by registries that are not "Registry Services" as defined in such agreements. To the extent that ICANN wishes to increase its scope and/or powers with respect to "Registry Services", it may only do so in accordance with its agreements or with the express written consent of those with which it has contracts (namely, the Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars). In addition, the meaning of such agreements will be governed according to applicable legal principles. It cannot be said that any interpretation by one party after having entered the agreement is binding on the other party or evidences ambiguity. In addition, interpretations offered by third parties have no particular relevance in determining the meaning intended by the parties to the relevant agreements. To the extent that there are any disputes over the meaning of any terms within ICANN's Agreements with the registries, there is a built in dispute resolution process in the contracts. Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even Advisory Committees. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES REPORT The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned about the issues raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Manager's Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services." Not only are most of those issues irrelevant to the introduction of "Registry Services" as defined in the applicable contracts with gTLD Unsponsored Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests that parties other than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be entitled to prevent the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry Services." As stated above, many of these issues involve contractual interpretation that involve only the parties to those contracts, and not the ICANN community as a whole. ICANN may not unilaterally, or through the policy development process, promulgate rules or regulations interpreting these agreements without the consent of the registry operators. Any attempt to do so would be considered a violation of those agreements and subject to the dispute resolution process set forth in such agreements. It is the gTLD Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics identified in the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO, Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN staff/board and the gTLD Registry Operators. IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD REGISTRIES To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency of the GNSO that this PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD Registries, specifically the Unsponsored Registries. Not only does the introduction of "Registry Services" impact the competitive environment in which we operate, the investment which we are able to make in our businesses, but ultimately, it affects the very survival of our businesses. Without a procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry Service" with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach by which ICANN exercises its rights with respect to Registry Services, the future of domain name registries is in jeopardy. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report, the gTLD Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues Reports, when such report is released. In addition, the comments contained herein do not address the substance of the issues raised in the report, but merely provide, as we were asked to do, an impact statement. Afilias, Ltd. Global Name Registry NeuLevel, Inc. Public Interest Registry RegistryPro, Inc. VeriSign, Inc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us

1 0

In Memorium: Hans Kraaijenbrink
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org] Posted by kind permission of Michael Palage Hello All: For those new Board members or staff that did not have the opportunity to personally know Hans, I thought I would try to attempt to capture the essence of the person that I had gotten to know over the past several years in the following words. Hans was on the original ICANN Board of Directors and he helped sheppard ICANN through its initial formation and its evolution and reform. Despite his unwavering support of ICANN the institution, he was vilified by many of ICANN's critics and became a lightening rod for their attacks. To these critics Hans will always be known as the last of the ICANN Board Squatters. However, it is in this light that one finds the true essence of who Hans really was. Hans always "listened" to the community and consider all the facts surrounding an issue. However, once he made up his mind he stood by it regardless of how unpopular it was. No amount of lobbying could sway him once he made up his mind. After hearing of this tragic news, I thought back to the last substantive conversation that Hans and I had. It was in Montreal at the VeriSign registry cocktail party. Hans, Paul Kane, and myself were outside having a philosophical argument over the ccNSO. The discussion was "lively." At the conclusion of the discussion, Hans leaned over to me and told me that this was the fun that lied ahead of me as a director over the next couple of years, and that although a lot of work had been done, much more remained. The last couple of months have been challenging for me as I try to find my place as a director. Although Vint joked during last Friday's Board meeting about me being with next Andy/Karl with regard to my abstentions, I always viewed myself as a tenacious Hans with Louis Touton's knowledge of where all the skeletons were buried. This was a joke that I have shared with many people over the past several months. However, in light of the tragic and untimely loss of Han, I instead view this as a unique opportunity over the next two years to pay tribute to Hans' memory. While many of us that knew Hans personally try to cope with this loss, I think Hans the consummate professional would not want us not to lose focus of the obligations to ICANN the institution. Specifically, finding a successor for him as the Chair of the Nominating Committee. This is a very important position, and one that Hans was uniquely positioned to fulfill. Finding a new Chair will not be easy, but one which we must attend to in short term. Finally, I also strongly support Tom Niles's recommendation that any communication be made in English and Dutch. Respectfully, Michael D. Palage

1 0

Fwd: Hans Kraaijenbrink
by Elisabeth Porteneuve Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

Sharing a sad news. See also http://www.sidn.nl/ Elisabeth Porteneuve > Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:59:04 +0100 > To: ga(a)lists.centr.org > From: Bart <Bart(a)sidn.nl> > Subject: [centr-ga] Hans Kraaijenbrink > > Dear all, > Unfortunately I have to inform you Hans Kraaijenbrink, chairman of the > Board of SIDN and former member of the ICANN Board, has deceased last > Wednesday. The funeral ceremony will take place coming Tuesday, 11 > November. His sudden death is a great shock to the Dutch Internet Community > and SIDN in particular. > Kind regards, > Bart > >

1 0

RE: [council] Reminder about WHOIS task force participation:
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

The BC is undertaking the identification of its TF members. Thank you for the timely reminder. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:19 AM To: council Subject: [council] Reminder about WHOIS task force participation: [To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.iacnn.org] Reminder to the GNSO Constituencies and to GNSO liaisons to the GNSO Council, to appoint representatives to the 3 WHOIS task forces voted on at the GNSO Council meeting in Carthage, by Friday 14 November, 2003. Participants: - 1 representative from each constituency - ALAC liaison - GAC liaison - ccNSO liaison - SECSAC liaison - liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces - up to three outside advisors The ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#AnnexA 5. Composition and Selection of Task Forces a. Upon voting to appoint a task force, the Council shall invite each of the constituencies of the GNSO to appoint one individual to participate in the task force. Additionally, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. (Each task force member is referred to in this Annex as a "Representative" and collectively, the "Representatives"). The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate. b. Any constituency wishing to appoint a Representative to the task force must submit the name of the constituency designee to the Staff Manager within ten (10) calendar days after such request in order to be included on the task force. Such designee need not be a member of the Council, but must be an individual who has an interest, and ideally knowledge and expertise, in the area to be developed, coupled with the ability to devote a substantial amount of time to task force activities. c. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. The Descriptions of Work for the 3 task Forces: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor.shtml Title: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor2.shtml Title: Review of data collected and displayed http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor3.shtml Title: Improving Accuracy of collected data Please inform the GNSO secretariat with the full contact details for the representatives. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] NCUC WHOIS task force participation:
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

Hello Milton, Thanks for the prompt appointment of representatives to the task forces. The registrars constituency has 3-4 candidates for each task force, and will shortly be holding an election to determine who will represent the registrars constituency on each task force. There is obviously strong interest from registrars in each task force. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars Representative > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, 7 November 2003 7:17 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > These nominations have been submitted to and approved by our > constituency: > > Task Force 1: Data Mining > Milton Mueller > > Task Force 2: Data Collection and Privacy Kathy Kleiman > > Task Force 3: Data Accuracy > Fran Wellings, EPIC > > > > >

1 0

NCUC WHOIS task force participation:
by Milton Mueller Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

These nominations have been submitted to and approved by our constituency: Task Force 1: Data Mining Milton Mueller Task Force 2: Data Collection and Privacy Kathy Kleiman Task Force 3: Data Accuracy Fran Wellings, EPIC

1 0

Reminder about WHOIS task force participation:
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.iacnn.org] Reminder to the GNSO Constituencies and to GNSO liaisons to the GNSO Council, to appoint representatives to the 3 WHOIS task forces voted on at the GNSO Council meeting in Carthage, by Friday 14 November, 2003. Participants: - 1 representative from each constituency - ALAC liaison - GAC liaison - ccNSO liaison - SECSAC liaison - liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces - up to three outside advisors The ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#AnnexA 5. Composition and Selection of Task Forces a. Upon voting to appoint a task force, the Council shall invite each of the constituencies of the GNSO to appoint one individual to participate in the task force. Additionally, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. (Each task force member is referred to in this Annex as a "Representative" and collectively, the "Representatives"). The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate. b. Any constituency wishing to appoint a Representative to the task force must submit the name of the constituency designee to the Staff Manager within ten (10) calendar days after such request in order to be included on the task force. Such designee need not be a member of the Council, but must be an individual who has an interest, and ideally knowledge and expertise, in the area to be developed, coupled with the ability to devote a substantial amount of time to task force activities. c. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. The Descriptions of Work for the 3 task Forces: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor.shtml Title: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor2.shtml Title: Review of data collected and displayed http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor3.shtml Title: Improving Accuracy of collected data Please inform the GNSO secretariat with the full contact details for the representatives. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS PDPs -- initial public comment period?
by Thomas Roessler Nov. 6, 2003

Nov. 6, 2003

Hello, in reviewing the PDP in annex A to the bylaws, I wonder how closely we plan to follow the process outlined there when it comes to the WHOIS Task Forces kicked off in Carthage. It seems unrealistic to follow the 90 day time line, but I do believe that at least the public comment periods suggested in the PDP should be reflected in the process that is axctually used by the GNSO; possibly with some additional comment periods added when milestones are reached. At the present stage of the process, this would mean that ICANN should be posting a notice about the initiated PDP(s) to its web page, and should be soliciting public comments for 20 days. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org>

1 0

Registrars: Inter- Registrar Transfers Policy Information
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 6, 2003

Nov. 6, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] For your information: http://www.icann.org/transfers/ GNSO Secretariat

1 0

New gtld process
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 6, 2003

Nov. 6, 2003

Hello All, I note from the ICANN Board meeting that: (1) ICANN is going ahead with the limited round of sponsored TLDs (2) ICANN is commencing the development of a new strategy for new TLDs (see resolution below) At the council meeting in Carthage we delayed considering the motion to call for an issues report on new TLDs. It would seem to me sensible for this to occur after ICANN receives the following information: - a full assessment of technical standards to support multilingual TLD's by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - an assessment of the introduction of competition into the TLD market and other similar markets, allocation mechanisms and possible appropriate business models for the TLD manager-ICANN relationship to be provided by an international economics organization - a review and report on intellectual property issues involved in the introduction of a new TLD shall be requested from the World Intellectual Property Organization - reports regarding the technical stability issues related to the introduction of new TLDs including contingency planning to ensure continuity of registry services from the IAB and ICANN's Security and Stability Committee (SECSAC) - an independent review of consumer protection issues from a consumer protection body will be requested It note there was no mention of the GNSO in the ICANN Board resolution describing the development of the policy My personal view is: (1) ICANN staff should assist in collecting together the various reports and produce an issues rpeort (2) GNSO initiate policy development to create the policy for new TLDs (3) Board to approve policy (4) ICANN staff to manage the implementation of the policy I will seek to clarify the timing and involvement of the GNSO in the ICANN process as laid out in the Board resolution with the ICANN President, so that we can schedule our work appropriately for 2004. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars rep on the GNSO Council From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm Whereas the development of an appropriate process and policy for the creation of new gTLDs has been a topic of Board and community debate since the creation of ICANN. Whereas there is a fundamental need for a comprehensive process to move from the proof of concept test commenced with the 2000 round to the liberalization of the gTLD market. Whereas ICANN needs to deliver this comprehensive approach to new gtlds not only in response to community demand, but also toward completion of a task agreed under ICANN's new MoU with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Whereas ICANN has committed to deliver, by September 2004, a comprehensive evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new gtlds on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions; c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. Whereas ICANN is also committed to define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new gtlds using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (development of strategy is to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Whereas ICANN also needs to consider technical and operational means by which the operation of a TLD could be undertaken by another party in the event that any incident causes a particular TLD to become inoperable. Whereas the Board recognizes that in order for ICANN to meet these timelines, the evaluation must commence almost immediately, and will require a significant proportion of ICANN resources. Whereas the Board believes the development of this long-term policy should begin immediately in November 2003, with the timing of the presentation of reports and receipt of various inputs to occur between ICANN's October 2003 meeting in Carthage, and March 2004 meeting in Rome. Whereas the areas to be covered in the development of policy on TLDs include completion of the formal review of the TLDs created in the new-TLD proof of concept initiated in 2000, obtaining advice and analysis on issues pertinent to long-term policy for TLDs from expert sources, receipt and review of community input, consideration and commencement if deemed appropriate of a targeted Policy-Development Process within the Generic Names Supporting Organization, and consultation with ICANN's Advisory Committees and other Supporting Organizations. Whereas the final report on the success to date, and issues faced by, the TLDs created in 2000 is expected to be delivered at ICANN's March 2004 meeting in Rome. Whereas ICANN is aware that the TLDs selected in 2000 have faced significant acceptance problems, which should be considered and addressed, if possible. These include compatibility problems with installed software (DNS resolvers, provisioning software and end-user applications) of ISPs, corporate network operators and application providers, as well as other distribution and acceptance issues, such as registrars interested in providing domain name services with respect to a new gtld. Whereas expert advice is expected to be sought from areas including: an international economics organization on the introduction of competition into the TLD market and other similar markets, allocation mechanisms and possible appropriate business models for the TLD manager-ICANN relationship; a review and report on intellectual property issues involved in the introduction of new gtld to be provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization; consumer protection issues, potentially from a consumer protection agency; reports from the Internet Architecture Board and ICANN's Security and Stability Committee on technical stability issues related to the introduction of new gtlds, including planning for registry failures; assessment of the Internet Architecture Board on the need for additional technical standards to support multilingual TLDs. Whereas the Board will be considering, and seeking views from experts and the community on the appropriate balance between corporate/sponsor control of a gTLD and "management on behalf of the Internet community" and with regard to clarifying and better delineating the appropriate structure and scope of the relationship between TLD operators and ICANN. Resolved [03.166] that the Board directs the President to begin an expeditious and targeted development of strategy and policy leading to a streamlined process for the introduction of new gtlds, and Resolved [03.167] that the Board directs the President to begin to seek community input into development of this strategy and process immediately following this meeting in Carthage, and to establish a public forum for comments on new gtld policy at <tldpolicy-comments(a)icann.org>. Resolved [03.168] that the Board has requested that a report on the new gtld policy should be completed by September 30, 2004 and the implementation of the new gtld policy shall commence before December 31, 2004.

2 1

Staff Manager's Issues report: New registry Services
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 6, 2003

Nov. 6, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Clarifying statement from Barbara Roseman, the author of the Draft Version of the Staff Managers Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services 31 October 2003 http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/draft-registry-svcs-report-31oct03.h tm Due to some questions that have come my way regarding the constituency statements for the Issues Report, I wanted to offer some clarification. If you have already prepared something, please don't feel you have to change that statement. I only offer this to the constituencies that may be having difficulty focusing their comments. I respect that the constituencies have been given a vast number of specific issues to review, but there will be additional time in the period after the Issues Report is published to delve into the particulars of each concern. The perspective that would be most useful to me, and that I'm most lacking at this time, is how your constituency will be affected by there being in place a process for the introduction of new registry services. I'm seeking your constituency's collective views on how the process should ideally be shaped to most adequately reflect your concerns. Please let me know if I can offer any other assistance or clarification. Barbara Roseman roseman(a)icann.org FRIDAY 7, November Deadline for comments to be sent to: pdp-reports(a)icann.org REMINDER: The editor of the Staff Manager's Issues Report on the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services, is available this week 4-10 November 15:00-23:00 GMT. and next week, 11-15 November, 07:00-10:00 and 17:00-23:00 GMT. for possible tleconferences with the constituencies. Please inform the GNSO Secretariat of your contact details to coordinate possible teleconferences. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

Issues Report on New Registry services - possible teleconferences
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 5, 2003

Nov. 5, 2003

[To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] The editor of the Staff Manager's Issues Report on the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services, is available this week 4-10 November 15:00-23:00 GMT. and next week, 11-15 November, 07:00-10:00 and 17:00-23:00 GMT. for possible tleconferences with the constituencies. Please inform the GNSO Secretariat of your contact details to coordinate possible teleconferences. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

Request for statements from constituencies on New Registry services Issues report.
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 4, 2003

Nov. 4, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Message from the Editor of the Staff Manager's report on New Registry Services. As the editor of the Staff Manager's Issues Report on the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services, I would like to include a statement from each constituency regarding how you believe the issues affect your constituency. This will be included in the Stakeholder Groups and Their Apparent Positions section of the report, which is due to be published Friday, 7 November. This is a follow-on to the request made of the constituencies in the GNSO Council meeting of 16 October. Please use the email: pdp-reports(a)icann.org to submit your statements. Regards, Barbara Roseman Please note the tight time line, Friday, 7 November 2003! GNSO Secretariat

1 0

ncuc elections
by Milton Mueller Nov. 4, 2003

Nov. 4, 2003

Thanks, A., but the elections are organized, have been for some time. Ballots are going out today; voting will be completed Nov. 11. Our original plan was to have them in October, but we wanted it to be independently administered because several of the current officers were also candidates in the new election. For independent admin we asked Glen (GNSO Secretariat), who graciously agreed, but there was no way she could do this during or immediately prior to the Tunisia meeting. >>> Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu(a)abril.info> 11/04/03 01:59AM >>> En/na Milton Mueller ha escrit: > Whilst I remain on the Council list, Milton, Gabriel (?!?) and Chun, As Ip'v said in Carthage, I thin that you should stay in the list and be invited to attend Council meetings as observers (voice but no vote) until NCUCX manages to organize its elections. BTW, I think your is not the only Constituency in this strange situation as of today. Bruce, perhaps we whould formalize the current list of voting members, liaisons and non-voting observers, if my suggestion is accepted. Aamdeu

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 4, 2003

Nov. 4, 2003

Hello Amadeu, > > Bruce, perhaps we whould formalize the current list of voting > members, liaisons and non-voting observers, if my suggestion > is accepted. > The GNSO Secretariat is maintaining the current information on members at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml You will note in some cases information has not yet been supplied on whether members are serving 2 year or one year terms. The long term goal is to hold elections every year for at least some of the members to ensure a balance between continuity and new members to Council. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin
by Milton Mueller Nov. 4, 2003

Nov. 4, 2003

Whilst I remain on the Council list, let me join the others in offering effusive expressions of support for Chairman Bruce. Evenhandedness, patience, organization were his hallmarks.

2 1

Re: [council] New gtld process
by Milton Mueller Nov. 4, 2003

Nov. 4, 2003

Great! I stand corrected. >>> "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jbuchanan(a)registrypro.pro> 11/03/03 05:14PM >>> Actually, I don't think that I'm going out on a limb to say that the registries are generally supportive of the idea of new TLDs.

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Nov. 4, 2003

Nov. 4, 2003

I also support Bruce's nomination. Great job, Bruce, and so, we want you back for more... Marilyn S. Cade mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: ROESCH, LYNDA [mailto:LROESCH@dinslaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:47 AM To: Ellen Shankman; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin I concur. Lynda E. Roesch DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 1900 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8139 (Direct Dial) (513) 977-8141 (Fax) lynda.roesch(a)dinslaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Ellen Shankman [mailto:ellen@ellenshankman.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:41 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin Hey -- I also want to chime in on the encouragement!!! E Ellen B. Shankman, Adv. Ellen Shankman & Associates 13 Weizmann Street Rehovot 76280 Israel tel: +972-54979026 fax: +972-89364241 e-mail:ellen@ellenshankman.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:27 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin Thank you Amadeu, Tony and Demi. I accept your nomination, and thanks for the words of encouragement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Demi Getschko [mailto:demi@agestado.com.br] > Sent: Monday, 3 November 2003 8:17 AM > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Bruce Tonkin > > I second the nomination. > > Demi Getschko > > ========= > Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I hereby nominate Brtuce Toninkin as GNSO Council Chair candidate. > > > > he is been doing a terrfic job, and improving it voer time. > > > > Amadeu > > > ***************************************************************** This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477) or by electronic mail (netadmin(a)dinslaw.com) immediately. *****************************************************************

1 0