November 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

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