December 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Public comment period "Registry Services" is open until December 28, 2003.
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 24, 2003

Dec. 24, 2003

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] REMINDER: The public comment period is open until December 28, 2003. http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry (8 December 2003 - 28 December 2003) Thank you in advance for the time you take to comment. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Details on March 2004 ICANN Meeting
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 24, 2003

Dec. 24, 2003

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN has made this announcement about the ROME meeting: Details on March 2004 ICANN Meeting to be Held in Rome, Italy Marina del Rey, California, USA (23 December 2003) -- ICANN's next round of meetings will be held 2-6 March 2004 in Rome, Italy. The meetings are free to attend and open to any interested person. ICANN encourages broad participation in its bottom-up, consensus development process. The meetings will be hosted by Register.it and The Institute of Informatics and Telematics of the Italian National Council of Research. They will be held at the Melia Roma Aurelia Antica Hotel in Rome, Italy. Please note that Melia Roma Aurelia Antica Hotel is offering a special ICANN conference room rate for bookings before 31 December 2003. The special rates are 170 Euros for a standard double room for a single use and 190 Euros for a standard double room (breakfast and taxes included for both rates). After 31 December 2003, rooms will still be available, but will return to the regular rates which start at 184 Euros. Pre-registration for attendees is available by filling out the form at <http://register.icann.org>. Information relating to the meeting agenda and schedule is available on the ICANN website. The meeting website created by the local host has information about accomodations, the Rome area, meeting rooms, visa/customs procedures, sponsorship opportunities, and social events. Please review the visa requirements for Italy - it may take up to 60 days to obtain a visa if one is required for your travel. Press inquiries about the meeting should be directed to John Jeffrey <press(a)icann.org>. Further details of the meeting will be announced as arrangements are finalized. If you have questions regarding the meeting please feel free to contact us by e-mail at <meeting(a)icann.org>. ====================================================================== To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to <webmaster(a)icann.org> with "Unsubscribe icann-announce" in the subject line.

1 0

Re: [council] TR: Task Force 3 Proposed Schedule
by Elisabeth Porteneuve Dec. 19, 2003

Dec. 19, 2003

Dear Bruce, Dear Brian, This short note to confirm you what I said on the GNSO Council call of 18 December. The next CENTR GA in mid-February 2004 in Salzbourg will deal with WHOIS and WHOIS-related services. The CENTR Secretariat is about starting the research and and a survey will take place. If the GNSO Council or Whois TF 3 have specific questions on Whois data accuracy, please let us know - we will be happy to include them in CENTR survey. The collected information/result will be available for Salzbourg meeting. The CENTR plans to start our survey probably 16 January (*) and close it two weeks later. An additional two weeks are necessary to write the report. Kind regards, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Joyeux Noel, Bonne et Heureuse Annee, Wesolych Swiat Bozego Narodzenia i Szczesliwego Nowego Roku, Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Liaison to the GNSO Council (*) According to CENTR rules, our Secretariat is closed between 24 December and 5 January. ===================================================================== From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> To: "council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] TR: Task Force 3 Proposed Schedule Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:49:19 +0100 [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] WHOIS TASK FORCE 3 SCHEDULE forwarded by Brian Darville, task force 3 chair: De : Brian Darville: Envoye : jeudi 18 decembre 2003 00:10 Task Force 3 proposes the following schedule for the completion of its work: December 24, 2003 - Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS Workshop materials related to Task Force 3's milestones and tasks; December 31, 2003 - Prepare list of contacts for data verification practices December 31, 2003 - Prepare draft of questions for contacts December 31, 2003 - ICANN Staff to provide (available) data verification data and protocols from ccTLDs December 31, 2003 - Prepare questions for Registrars regarding current practices January 5, 2003 - Send questions to Registrars January 5, 2003 - Finalize list of contacts for data verification practices January 5, 2003 - Finalize questions for contacts and begin survey January 15, 2003 - Analyze responses from Registrars January 26, 2003 - Conclude survey of contacts February 2, 2003 - Prepare interim report on survey of Registrars and outside sources February 23, 2003 - Constituency statements due March 16, 2003 - Prepare Preliminary Report including constituency statements and policy recommendations March 17, 2003 - Open public comment period for 20 days April 6, 2003 - Public Comment Period Closes April 20, 2003 - Prepare Final report for GNSO Council Regards, Brian Darville Chair, Task Force 3 Oblon, Spivak (703) 412-6426 bdarville(a)oblon.com GNSO Secretariat --

1 0

Protocol for participation in Council calls
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 19, 2003

Dec. 19, 2003

Hello All, Given we have some new council members, and some new participants from the ICANN staff and GAC, I would like to state some of the "unwritten" protocol rules that have been built up over time on the GNSO Council that make it easy to participate on a call with a large number of participants. My basic approach to a call is for each agenda item: - introduce the agenda item - provide some brief background to the issue, or ask a person to present a report or motion - form a queue of speakers to talk on agenda item If you wish to comment on a topic, please say: "It's <your name>. Please add me to the queue." I will normally collect a list of names for the queue and announce the queue order. E.g " I have Ken Stubbs, Marilyn Cade, and Jordyn in the queue - anyone else like to join?". This helps you know when it is your turn to speak. It is often polite for frequent speakers, to allow less frequent speakers to speak first. E.g "It's <your name>. Please put me at the end of the queue, as I would like to hear the views of the other speakers first". Please don't assume that I or other participants can determine who you are based on the sound of your voice. This may work for calls with a small amount of people that know each other well, but it does not scale to calls involving a wide range of people that often sound similar based on their particular regional "version" of English :-) Ie don't just say "Add ME to the queue", as often it is hard to hear who "me" is. If you wish to comment immediately on a statement made by a speaker while a queue is in place please say: "Its <your name>, may I comment?" or "<your name>. May I respond?" At this point I will either say "Yes, go ahead <name>." or "I will add you to the queue, after <name of another council member>". I am more likely to give the option to speak immediately to those that are infrequent speakers. If you are expecting to give a long response to an individual's statement, I would prefer that you join the queue rather than immediately respond, to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to speak, and we don't end up forming a back-and-forth dialog between two individuals on the call. Please do not just jump in and speak. This means that some that have been waiting patiently to speak don't get a chance, and it is also hard to determine who you are purely on the basis of your voice (particularly if you do not speak regularly). This may sound cumbersome, but it is surprisingly efficient and ensures that at any point in time the council knows who is speaking and who gets to speak next. It is also a standing unwritten rule that everyone is entitled to a particular view, and if you want to change their view, this should be done by addressing the particular view and not the credibility or motivation of the person expressing the view. Ie personal insults or criticisms such as "I am more intelligent than you, so how would you know?", or "You are only saying that because you are a secret agent for company x" are not appropriate. As chair, I always welcome suggestions for improving the running of meetings either on the list or by private communication. I hope you all have an enjoyable end of year celebration/holiday. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council.

1 0

Clarification of participation in WHOIS task force calls by alternates
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 19, 2003

Dec. 19, 2003

Hello All, At its meeting on 20 Nov, the GNSO Council decided: "That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views." Following initial meetings of the WHOIS task forces, clarification was sought on when it would be appropriate for constituency representatives, attending a teleconference or physical meeting as alternates to the primary constituency representative, to speak. Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following approach: "We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational interest. The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and analyzing information. Many of the alternates, some of whom have significant ICANN experience and historical knowledge, can contribute significantly in furthering the Task Force's work by simply providing historical information or indicating the availability of other information germane to the issues the Task Force is addressing. Of course, under no circumstances will any alternate be allowed to represent the views of the constituency or provide the vote of any constituency (unless the designated representative is absent on the call)." The GNSO Council discussed this issue during its meeting on 18 Dec 2003. It was recognised that alternates play a valuable role in task force work in using their own network of contacts and resources to collect data together for the task force. Normally alternates would provide their work through the primary constituency representative on the task force. It was noted however that during a particular call or physical meeting an alternate may have some useful "factual" information to provide that is relevant to the discussion. Note that ICANN staff members and the GAC liaison have typically operated in that mode during GNSO council calls. It was noted that a balance needs to be struck between alternates offering information that might be strongly related to a particular constituency viewpoint (e.g isolated events, anecdotal information, or a reference to a Web blog or an academic paper expressing a particular opinion) as opposed to factual information (e.g a reference to an existing ICANN policy, or a reference to a previous statistical survey, or ICANN workshop). The Council recommended that the chair of each task force be given the discretion to take advantage of the availability of alternate members for the purposes of providing factual information, whilst ensuring that each constituency expresses their particular opinion/viewpoint on the policy issue under consideration through a single representative during any single call or physical meeting. If a particular constituency believes that the intent of the motion of 20 Nov (which ensures fair participation by all constituencies regardless of their size and resources) is not being met, this should be raised with the chair of the task force, through their representative on the task force. If a consituency is unable to resolve the issue with the task force chair, then the constituency can request guidance from the GNSO Council, through their representatives on the GNSO Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference December 18 MP3 recording
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2003

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on December 18, 2003 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20031218.mp3 Happy listening! GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Conference call now
by Christopher.Wilkinson＠cec.eu.int Dec. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2003

Got it. CW -----Original Message----- From: WILKINSON Christopher (INFSO) Sent: jeudi 18 décembre 2003 13:16 To: 'gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org'; council Subject: Conference call now Sorry to bother you, but I cannot find the call-in number etc. for the conference call. Can anyone help? CW

1 0

Conference call now
by Christopher.Wilkinson＠cec.eu.int Dec. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2003

Sorry to bother you, but I cannot find the call-in number etc. for the conference call. Can anyone help? CW

1 0

TR: Task Force 3 Proposed Schedule
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2003

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] WHOIS TASK FORCE 3 SCHEDULE forwarded by Brian Darville, task force 3 chair: De : Brian Darville: Envoye : jeudi 18 decembre 2003 00:10 Task Force 3 proposes the following schedule for the completion of its work: December 24, 2003 - Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS Workshop materials related to Task Force 3's milestones and tasks; December 31, 2003 - Prepare list of contacts for data verification practices December 31, 2003 - Prepare draft of questions for contacts December 31, 2003 - ICANN Staff to provide (available) data verification data and protocols from ccTLDs December 31, 2003 - Prepare questions for Registrars regarding current practices January 5, 2003 - Send questions to Registrars January 5, 2003 - Finalize list of contacts for data verification practices January 5, 2003 - Finalize questions for contacts and begin survey January 15, 2003 - Analyze responses from Registrars January 26, 2003 - Conclude survey of contacts February 2, 2003 - Prepare interim report on survey of Registrars and outside sources February 23, 2003 - Constituency statements due March 16, 2003 - Prepare Preliminary Report including constituency statements and policy recommendations March 17, 2003 - Open public comment period for 20 days April 6, 2003 - Public Comment Period Closes April 20, 2003 - Prepare Final report for GNSO Council Regards, Brian Darville Chair, Task Force 3 Oblon, Spivak (703) 412-6426 bdarville(a)oblon.com GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Whois TF 2 Schedule
by Jordyn A. Buchanan Dec. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2003

Hello fellow council members: As requested, Whois TF 2 is providing some feedback to council as to the feasibility of Initially convened 2 Dec. Interim report on primary data and collection efforts by 15 Jan Data gathering public comment to commence in early January Public comment to end by 25 Jan Data compiled from various sources by 2 Feb Constituency statements due 23 Feb Preliminary report prepared post-Rome ICANN meeting Public comment period (20 days) Preparation of Final report (including any public comment of note) (10 days) Council consideration of Final report (10 days) Preparation of Board report (5 days) Note that the task force has not yet had the opportunity to agree to a date for the prelimary report. However, I have proposed a date of March 26, and so far have heard no objection from other task force members. Sincerely, Jordyn

1 0

FW: Task Force 3 Proposed Schedule
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Dec. 18, 2003

Dec. 18, 2003

per request of chair of TF3. >>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade(a)att.com> 12/17/03 06:23PM >>> Brian, do you want me to post this to the Council list? I can do that in the event that Glen is "off" which we hope she is, due to the time in France!!!! Marilyn S. Cade AT&T Law & Government Affairs 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N Washington, DC 20036 202-457-2106v 202-457-3051f 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Darville [mailto:BDARVILLE@oblon.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:17 PM To: Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Task Force 3 Proposed Schedule Dear Bruce: I had sent the GNSO Secretariat Task Force 3's proposed revised schedule for completion of its work. Because it is late in the day, I am sending this directly to you and Marilyn Cade who I know will also be on tomorrow's call. Task Force 3 proposes the following schedule for the completion of its work: December 24, 2003 - Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS Workshop materials related to Task Force 3's milestones and tasks; December 31, 2003 - Prepare list of contacts for data verification practices December 31, 2003 - Prepare draft of questions for contacts December 31, 2003 - ICANN Staff to provide (available) data verification data and protocols from ccTLDs December 31, 2003 - Prepare questions for Registrars regarding current practices January 5, 2003 - Send questions to Registrars January 5, 2003 - Finalize list of contacts for data verification practices January 5, 2003 - Finalize questions for contacts and begin survey January 15, 2003 - Analyze responses from Registrars January 26, 2003 - Conclude survey of contacts February 2, 2003 - Prepare interim report on survey of Registrars and outside sources February 23, 2003 - Constituency statements due March 16, 2003 - Prepare Preliminary Report including constituency statements and policy recommendations March 17, 2003 - Open public comment period for 20 days April 6, 2003 - Public Comment Period Closes April 20, 2003 - Prepare Final report for GNSO Council Regards, Brian Darville Chair, Task Force 3 Oblon, Spivak (703) 412-6426 bdarville(a)oblon.com

1 0

RE: [council] WHOIS TF 1: Question to GNSO Council regarding timelines
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Dec. 17, 2003

Dec. 17, 2003

I suggest that Barbara Roseman, as staff manager to the WHOIS TFs, should present a paper document for Council, outlining the TFs proposed timelines, so that we are looking at something written. Oral reports about calendar dates are hard to follow online....Overall, I support the need to provide extended time frames, within the steps outlined by the PDP. However, for a longer term consideration, it may at some point be necessary to modify the PDP. I am not suggesting that Council make that decision at this time, but as those responsible for policy development on gTLDs, Council may need at some point to consider modifications to the PDP. I don't mean to open that topic to discussion at this time, merely to note it to fellow Councilors. Finally, we need to ensure that the needed and expected staff support from ICANN is understood by both ICANN and by the TFs. Timely responses and turnaround on work will be critical, and we do have many, and perhaps overlapping demands for work. mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:49 AM To: council Subject: [council] WHOIS TF 1: Question to GNSO Council regarding timelines I support the proposal to extend the timeline for the PDP of WHOIS TF1 but the steps on the described TF1 timetable do not agree with the PDP. As someone involved in the drafting of the PDP text our understanding was that its timelines were guidelines that may need to be adapted by intelligent users. But its steps should be followed. . It is worth pointing out that the PDP article 7e tells us that the TF has 50 days (40+5+5) to get a report out for public comment. There is then 20+10 = 30 days to get a final report to Council. The total time = 80 days. . (It would be useful if the GNSO secretariat were to keep a record of each ACTUAL timeline of all PDPs, so that we can include the PDP deadlines in the GNSO review later this year. If we then need to change the deadlines, we can do so). Philip Find the PDP at http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-26jun03.htm#AnnexA

1 0

WHOIS TF 1: Question to GNSO Council regarding timelines
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 17, 2003

Dec. 17, 2003

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Forwarded by the GNSO Secretariat on behalf of Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq., WHOIS task force 1 chair. Dear GNSO Council, I am writing to you as the Chair of Whois Task Force 1 in regards to potential time lines to deliver our required reports. Because our task force, like the others, requires not only the drafting of reports, but also the extensive analysis of a large amount of data (some existing, some new), we are asking your advice with respect to the PDP process. Under the PDP, I believe each Task Force has only 35 days to deliver to the Council a "Final Report". However, during our call this morning, we all discussed this extremely aggressive timeline and came to the conclusion that it would be more realistic to be able to deliver to the Council a Preliminary Report at (or just before) the ICANN meeting in Rome. This would be well after the 35 day limit imposed by the PDP. Our milestones include: 1) December 23, 2003: Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS workshop materials related to our specific issues and identification of non-marketing groups that use Whois Data. 2) January 5, 2004: First draft of Notice to non-marketing groups soliciting input on Task Force issues due to the Task Force 3) January 6, 2004: First draft of "needs and justifications" chart due (compiled from pre-existing data) 4) January 12, 2004: Send out Notice to non-marketing groups on "needs and justifications" for Whois data and for soliciting comments on "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining" 5) January 26, 2004: Due date for comments from "non-marketing groups" and "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining" 6) February 1, 2004: Constituency Statements due 7) February 9, 2004: Preliminary data due from ICANN, Registries and Registrars on "changes to agreements" to implement technical measures 8) March 1, 2004: Completion of a Final Report. We have already formed subgroups to tackle these issues and are well on our way. Even with the Holidays coming up, we still believe that is an achievable timeline. As you can see there are a number of deliverables that would make the 35 day limit next to impossible to achieve. Therefore, we would ask that you consider allowing us to deliver the Preliminary Report in accordance with the schedule above. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Director, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Loudoun Tech Center 46000 Center Oak Plaza Building X Sterling, VA 20166 p: (571) 434-5772 f: (571) 434-5735 e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us

2 1

proxies for dec.18
by Carlos Afonso Dec. 16, 2003

Dec. 16, 2003

Dear people, just to make sure things are clear, I suggest the proxies in my absence be, in this order: 1. Jisuk Woo 2. Marc Schneiders This is just to to avoid any confusion if both are participating, and since Marc was my proxy in the last meeting. Thanks, Jisuk, for accepting :) fraternal regards --c.a. -- Carlos Alberto Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor http://www.rits.org.br Rua Guilhermina Guinle 272 - 6º andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil telefone +55-21-2527-5494 telefax +55-21-2527-5460

1 0

ICANN meetings Rome: revised schedule
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 15, 2003

Dec. 15, 2003

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Diane Schroeder has requested that this change be posted: The ICANN Board has requested that the meeting schedule in Rome be adjusted to include a one day Board retreat. This retreat will be held on Thursday, 5 March. This additional day will allow the Board to better apply input received at the Public Forum and other meetings in the policy development process. The schedule for the Rome meeting will be adjusted to: 6 March (Sat) Board Meeting 5 March (Fri) Board Retreat 4 March (Thurs) Public Forum 3 March (Wed) GNSO Council Meeting 2 March (Tues) Constituency Meetings For those members of the community who will stay until the Board meeting is completed, this day will provide the opportunity for further dialogue between various constituencies. If any group requires meeting space for this day, please notify me as soon as possible. We have chosen this method of communication (email) on this issue to give everyone as much notice as possible of the scheduling change. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Diane Schroeder Chief Financial Officer ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Phone - +1-310-823-9358 Fax - +1-310-823-8649 schroeder(a)icann.org GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Council teleconference - 18 Dec 2003
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 15, 2003

Dec. 15, 2003

Hello All, Below is a draft agenda for the teleconference scheduled for 18 Dec 2003. In response to requests from some Council members to rotate the time of the calls, this call will be scheduled for UTC1200. (7am Washington DC, 12 noon London, 11pm Melbourne) Item 1: Approval of minutes of last meetings - 20 Nov 2003 - 2 Dec 2003 Item 2: Update from WHOIS task forces (45 mins) - report on appointments of chairs and timelines for work program Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes - chair - Jeff Neuman Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed - chair - ? Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair - Brian Darville Item 3: Preliminary views from constituencies on the Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry [45 mins] - the intent of this discussion is to share any preliminary views from constiteuncies as they develop their constituency statements Item 4: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes December 2, 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 9, 2003

Dec. 9, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on December 2, 2003, attached in html and text version. If you would like any changes to be made, please let me know. Thank you very much, Glen GNSO Secretariat 5 December 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Greg Ruth - ISCPC - Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders Carlos Afonso- Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders Alick Wilson Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent, apologies, proxy to Demi Getschko 13 Council Members John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel and Secretary Barbara Roseman - ICANN Consultant, Issues Report author Christopher Wilkinson - Acting GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 recording Quorum present at 19 :10 UTC Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of Agenda Item 2: Approval of minutes of last meeting Marilyn Cade, seconded by Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes of 29 October, 2003 The motion was carried by a majority of council votes. Two abstention: Ross Rader and Marc Schneiders (not members of council on 29 October) Decision 1: The minutes of the GNSO meeting held in Carthage were adopted Item 3: Discussion of Terms of reference for developing a procedure for use by ICANN staff in managing contractual approvals or amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry Bruce Tonkin opening up the discussion explained that the terms of reference, had been taken from the Issues Report and would be used as the base for the policy development process. Marilyn Cade proposed striking: Many changes approved by ICANN in recent history have been minor and should have been approved in under 30 days, and in other cases changes have been more substantial, but not so substantial as to justify decision making processes running for 6 months or longer. Marilyn Cade suggested replacing "registry operators" with "registry agreements" and asked for clarification on what sponsored registry agreements required, as there was mention of unsponsored agreement requirements. Cary Karp referred to A3 in the FAQ posted to the Council: "Although portions of the policy-development authority for each sTLD are delegated to the designated sTLD sponsor, there are some situations in which an sTLD's sponsor will requests amendments to, or approvals under, the sponsorship agreement it has with ICANN. Although approval and amendment requests are much more common in the case of unsponsored TLDs than for sTLDs, the overall goals (e.g., predictability, timeliness, transparency) of the procedures for handling gTLD and sTLD requests are similar, even though there are differences in the provisions of the underlying agreements that must be observed. It therefore is appropriate to develop a recommended policy to guide the establishment of the procedures under which ICANN handles requests for approvals and amendments under ICANN's agreements for both gTLDs and sTLDs. It should be noted that the sponsorship agreements for the current three sTLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) delegate to the sponsors the responsibility to select and enter agreements with those sTLDs' registry operators. The sTLD sponsors are responsible for establishing the procedures they use to handle requests made by registry operators under the agreements between the sTLD sponsors and their operators. Although PDP would not be directly concerned with such requests, sTLD sponsors may find the recommendations resulting from the PDP to be useful in developing their procedures. " Bruce Tonkin proposed incorporating the FAQ text into the terms of reference clarifying sponsored and unsponsored requirements, and pointed out that the FAQ did not change the substance of the terms of reference. Cary Karp suggested deferring any decision during the meeting so that the salient features in the FAQ could be incorporated into the terms of reference before a vote was taken. Jordyn Buchanan asked for clarification on the formal relationship between the Staff Manager's Issues Report, the FAQ and the Terms of Reference. Bruce Tonkin explained that the Issues report, from a policy development process point of view, described issues, gave background and information on the topic, while the scope of the work was defined by the GNSO Council. Ken Stubbs suggested that there be a procedure to assure the confidentiality of submissions and that experts used by ICANN be subject to confidentiality agreements as well. In addition ICANN should be able to use experts in the "quick look" process. Philip Sheppard spoke out in favour of moving forward on the terms of reference and leaving in depth discussion to the working group. Jordyn Buchanan stated that the Registry Constituency was uncomfortable with the broad terms of reference as they stood and had not yet come up with concrete terms of reference that were more constraining. Security and stability concerns led to the Issues Report but the policy and development process and the proposed line of action might not necessarily be successful in improving these. Christopher Wilkinson leaves the teleconference. Marc Schneiders expressed the concern that the "user" community was left out. Bruce Tonkin suggested including the option for the GNSO to consider incorporating a process for ICANN to seek input from affected stakeholders or the general public in the terms of reference, rather than just outside experts. The language in the title phrase was modified to: "Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry, which also included a modification in the last phrase of the task force description." While Philip Sheppard and Marilyn Cade proposed proceeding forward with a vote to initiate the policy development process, the registry constituency had concerns that constrained their ability to vote favourably on the terms of reference, not out of objection but in order to fully understand the implications of the terms of reference and make some improvements before being able to fully support the process. Cary Karp, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan proposed a procedural motion: To defer the vote to initiate the policy development process for a period of 14 days for further refinement of the terms of reference. The motion failed with 21 votes against and 6 registry constituency votes in favour. Decision 2: The vote will not be deferred for a period of 14 days for further refinement of the terms of reference. Item 4: Decision required by Council to proceed with policy development on an issue detailed in the terms of reference in (3) above Philip Sheppard, seconded by Marc Schneiders, proposed: To initiate the policy development process on the issue of registry services based on the terms of reference as amended on the call The motion carried with 21 votes in favour, 4 votes against and one abstention (2) Decision 3: To initiate the policy development process on the issue of registry services based on the terms of reference as amended on the call. Item 5: If the council decides to proceed with policy development in agenda item 4, then a decision is required as to whether to form a task force and if not, how to manage the policy process at the Council level. Bruce Tonkin described the process from the ICANN bylaws when no task force was formed: 8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. 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. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report. Bruce Tonkin asked John Jeffrey whether there were any restrictions on Council forming a committee as a whole to work in the context of the policy development process? John Jeffrey replied that there were no restrictions as had been pointed out in the FAQ. Marilyn Cade, seconded by Antonio Harris proposed that: Council undertakes the policy development process as a committee as a whole and follows the policy development process with the requirements of public notice in compliance with the ICANN bylaws and procedure when no task force is formed. The motion carried with 25 votes in favour and one abstention (2) Decision 4: Council undertakes the policy development process as a committee as a whole and follows the policy development process with the requirements of public notice in compliance with the ICANN bylaws and procedure when no task force is formed. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for attending. The meeting ended: 21 :05 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday December 18, 2003 at 19:00 UTC see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

1 0

Council working List error in name
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 8, 2003

Dec. 8, 2003

[To: reg-com[at]gnso.icann.org]* Please forgive the error in the previous mail! The WORKING LIST for the GNSO Council committee is now open: reg-com[at]gnso.icann.org]* Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. The PUBLIC COMMENT list is: tor-reg[at]gnso.icann.org.* Please do not send e-mails on this subject to the GNSO Council list council[at]gsno.icann.org. Subscribers to the list include all GNSO council members, ALAC, GAC and ccTLD liaisons, ICANN General Counsel and ICANN Staff Manager. Thank you, GNSO Secretariat * replace [at] with @

1 0

Request for public comment on Regsitry Services
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 8, 2003

Dec. 8, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; announce(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Please see the request for Public comment on: Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry at: http://gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/tor-revised.shtml Draft Terms of reference Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry COMMENT PERIOD is open for 20 days and ENDS 28 DECEMBER 2003, 23:00 GMT Thank you in anticipation for the time taken to comment. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Proposed Guidelines for the PDP staff report
by Philip Sheppard Dec. 8, 2003

Dec. 8, 2003

Council, based on the experience of the last few PDPs, in discussion with the chair and some other Council members, I wondered if it may be useful for Council to give guidance to ICANN, to help the writing of future PDP issues reports. Accordingly I attach a draft of the proposed guidelines. Your comments, additions, deletions are welcome. I aim to have a final draft presented to the next council meeting for adoption and then transmission to ICANN. Philip

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes November 20, 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 8, 2003

Dec. 8, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on November 20, 2003 in text and html version. Please let me know whether you would like any changes made. Thank you very much, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat 21 November 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. absent, apologies Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD - absent, apologies, proxy to Jordyn Buchanan Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. absent, apologies, proxy to Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C. Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders Carlos Afonso- Non Commercial users C. - absent Alick Wilson - absent, apologies Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril 12 Council Members John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel and Secretary Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President of Business Operations Barbara Roseman - ICANN Consultant, Issues Report author Christopher Wilkinson - Acting GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 recording Quorum present at 19 :10 UTC Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Confirmation of current members - report from GNSO Secretariat The GNSO Secretariat confirmed that all 6 constituencies had held elections and appointed 3 representatives each to the GNSO Council. Two constituencies, Non Commercial and Commercial and Business Users constituencies had not yet specified the terms of office for the appointed representatives. Item 2: Election of GNSO Chair Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard as he was a candidate for the GNSO Chair elections. Philip Sheppard called upon the GNSO Secretary for the list of nominations who reported that Bruce Tonkin was the only person nominated. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan and Ken Stubbs, proposed the motion: to elect Bruce Tonkin as Chair of the GNSO Council for the next one year. The motion carried. All members present with proxies in favour , one abstention, Bruce Tonkin Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year, November 20, 2003 to November 20, 2004. Philip Sheppard on behalf of the GNSO Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin on his splendid work and handed the chair back to him. Item 3: Approval of minutes of last meeting Ken Stubbs proposed deferring the minutes to the next meeting as they had only been published recently. Decision 2: Defer approval of minutes to next meeting. Item 4: Update on appointment of representatives to the 3 WHOIS task forces - discuss next steps Bruce Tonkin drew the attention to a request by Niklas Lagergren, the Intellectual Property Interests constituency representative, "The IP constituency is currently looking at appropriate ways to contribute to the work of the 3 Whois task forces in an efficient manner. In this context, it is our view that nominating only one representative to each task force (TF) would result in excessive work-load for each chosen person. Therefore, I would like to invoke the last sentence in the policy development process (PDP) sec. 5(1) (i.e. "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.")" Bruce stated that there were two options open: - Council could formally request that there be more than one representative per constituency on each task force, or - Council could decide on one representative at any one time as spokesman for the constituency on the task force, but the constituency could appoint other people as members of the mailing list and who could listen in to teleconferences. Addressing the issue, Niklas Lagergren said that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency had selected more than one representative, the key issue being flexibility. Jordyn Buchanan was supportive of no formal change to the task force structure, but supported appointing additional members without changing the voting structure. Philip Sheppard proposed that the WHOIS task forces serve as a testbed for multiple representatives and that each task force chair report back on problems experienced. Marc Schneiders reported that the Non Commercial Users constituency was opposed to the proposal as extra people on the task force would have an influence on the outcome. The NCUC, who could only send one representative, felt they were most affected and would be marginalized if other constituencies could have multiple representation. Thomas Roessler argued that the workload would be more evenly spread with more than one person. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard, proposed: That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views. All Council members present with proxies voted in favour (22 votes) The motion was carried. Decision 3: That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views. Bruce Tonkin continued with the next issues: - Holding of the first meeting and for each task force to select a chair - At the GNSO Council meeting in Tunisia it was decided that each task force should identify a timeline for the work and if more than the prescribed 90 days was required, the task force should come back to Council for an extension. - The ICANN bylaws state that a staff manager will assist the policy development in each area. Kurt Pritz informed Council that Barbara Roseman would fill the role of ICANN staff manager. Action: The GNSO Secretariat would set up mailing lists, archives, call for nominations for task force chairs and set up first meeting. It was clarified that a task force chair did not necessarily have to be a member of a constituency. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Thomas Keller, proposed that: Amadeu Abril I Abril, as an independent Council member, be appointed to task force 2, on WHOIS Review of Data Collected and Displayed. The motion was carried unanimously Decision 4: Amadeu Abril I Abril, as an independent Council member, be appointed to task force 2, on WHOIS Review of Data Collected and Displayed. Philip Sheppard's concern about scheduling time conflicts that may arise with ICANN staff support was addressed by Kurt Pritz who stated that the Staff Manager would bring in other forms of ICANN support as skill and expertise were needed. As a point of clarification addressing a concern expressed by Niklas Lagergren, Bruce Tonkin stated that task force voting was not the formal voting required by the GNSO Council procedure and that with multiple representation on the task force, if the primary representative of a constituency was absent, the constituency could identify a person to fill that role. Item 5: Issues report on Registry services Bruce Tonkin proposed the following procedural process: That Council accept the Staff Manager summarizing the report, and a teleconference be scheduled in 7 days to vote on the initiation of a policy development process. Procedural proposal accepted unanimously by Council. Decision 5: That Council accept the Staff Manager summarizing the report, and a teleconference be scheduled in 7 days to vote on the initiation of a policy development process. Barbara Roseman summarized saying that the Issues report provided an overview of the issue raised by Council, how approving changes worked in the past and inconsistencies in the current process that could be addressed by elaborating a process, creating documentation, allowing for transparency, examining technical and competition harm and building in timelines to make a predictable process. Christopher Wilkinson, standing in for the GAC liaison, asked how the intellectual property sensitivity of commercial services would be handled? Barbara Roseman stated that confidentiality had been raised and there were ways to assure it up to a certain point. In addition, the party appling for a change would have the option of not going further with the evaluation which would also cover competition issues. Christopher Wilkinson noted that these were not new problems; there were standardization fora that existed and proposed reviewing how organizations like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) dealt with the problem of intellectual property issues Philip Sheppard asked why the report recommended the second mechanism for the policy development process, proceeding without a task force, in which case each constituency appointed a representative to gather constituency views and provided them to the Staff Manager for inclusion, along with other information, in a report, which would be submitted to the Council. Barbara Roseman stated that there was no strong thinking on the point, however it was felt it would facilitate meeting the time line and be easier to coordinate outside input. Bruce Tonkin drew attention to the fact that under the second model it was incumbent on Council to set terms of reference and be in charge of the process. Jordyn Buchanan expressed some of the gTLD Registry constituency concerns. Instead of raising issues, the Issues report appeared to be prescriptive, setting down a blueprint how Council ought to be proceeding rather than opening the door to look at what the process should be. A number of issues considered important in the first report have been left out in the second report, such as the concept of whether it was better, to consider registry services on their merits or to alter the registry service contracts and assure that certain services were not offered that did not meet the community interests. The assumption that ICANN was a regulatory body rather than an equal participant in the gTLD contractual relationship was disturbing. It was felt that the report did not make a distinction between unsponsored registries which need price approval from ICANN for services they wished to offer and sponsored registries that have a community they serve. The report implied that ICANN should be the arbiter regardless of the impact on the community. It was considered that the definition of a registry service and how it was determined was missing. In addition it appeared that non registry services a registry operator might offer, might be subject to this process. The registry constituency expressed that they would not support moving forward on the report. Jordyn Buchanan asked specifically what had happened to the question raised by the GNSO Council regarding an appropriate process to look at modifying registry contracts so as to exclude undesirable registry behaviour, as opposed to having what now appeared to be a convoluted approval process before introducing a service. John Jeffrey commented that in the approach taken, it was considered that a Registry could take actions that could have a contractual, security and stability impact that may not constitute Registry service changes. Thus the specific issue up front was whether the scope of the proposed policy development process only concerned Registry services under contract or whether it addressed, in a broader sense, significant changes. Bruce Tonkin clarified Jordyn Buchanan's concern that a Registry could take two courses of action as an organization with an approval process for change. If the change was seen as minor there was a fast track process, but if the change was seen as having an impact on other parties, further work would be required. John Jeffrey replied that the intent was to create a decision stream that allowed different issues to be treated and separated in different ways depending on how the impact might be seen. Bruce Tonkin said that the alternative was to have a code of conduct model, so that an issue could be dealt with as a breach of rule. Barbara Roseman added that feedback on the report indicated it was preferable to evaluate the harm before introducing the service than take actions after the fact which could lead to instability in the system. The intent was to facilitate new service introduction and create a predictable process for the Registry to reach quick conclusions. Thomas Roessler drew attention to recommendations to the GNSO Council: "A Policy development process should be initiated to develop a policy to guide the establishment of a predictable procedure for ICANN's consideration of proposals by registry operators and sponsors for changes in the architecture and operation of a gTLD registry." The latter statement and the letter from Paul Twomey would imply a process to review any changes. The report further mentions new proposals from registries to change contracts. He specifically asked: - what was meant by policy? - was the proposal to focus on a process for whenever ICANN was in the position to make an agreement on a change? Barbara Roseman replied that the intent was aimed at certain types of registry operation changes to the Domain Name System (DNS) functions, not changes in any internal registry management functions. The emerging process was focussed on what concerns the process had to address, while the detailed process itself should be left to the ICANN President to establish. Thus the GNSO should develop policy describing the essential characteristics of the process, rather than the detailed administrative process. Bruce Tonkin clarified the core issue quoting from the Issues report: "a. The issue raised for consideration is the development of a policy to guide the establishment of a predictable procedure for ICANN's consideration of proposals by registry operators and sponsors for contractual approvals or amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a TLD registry. Sub-issues to be considered are discussed under "Issues to be addressed by the PDP" above." Given that ICANN does require approval for changes in the registry contracts, a predictable procedure was needed and the policy would be more binding on ICANN than the registry operators. Marc Schneiders expressed concern about the over bureaucratic structure of the report. Ken Stubbs proposed further consultation with constituencies and a FAQ format on the ICANN/GNSO website to assure interaction with the ICANN staff. Christopher Wilkinson encouraged the GNSO to avoid ideological terminology. A substantial number of governments needed to know where the regulatory authority in the Internet lay. Currently it lay in the ICANN /Government Advisory Committee (GAC) public private partnership and it was not productive to deny that ICANN held any regulatory role. Ross Rader asked where the constituency comments and submissions could be found. Barbara Roseman would check with constituencies whether these could be published and make them available. Amadeu Abril I Abril noted that registries were managing resources on behalf of the community and the core issue was if and whether registry services that arose were needed and how the services demanded by the community through ICANN would be accommodated in the registry contracts. Christopher Wilkinson leaves the teleconference. Philip Sheppard proposed that the GNSO Council as a whole should proceed with the policy development process. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Antonio Harris proposed: that the GNSO Council as a whole go ahead with the policy development process. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the motion be voted on at the next GNSO Council meeting Bruce Tonkin proposed using a similar procedure to the WHOIS task forces: - identifying terms of reference from the Issues report - determining how to conduct the policy development (task force or otherwise). Bruce Tonkin noted that both a task force or the GNSO Council as a whole group proceeding on the issue were within the ICANN bylaws. Barbara Roseman asked for questions to be sent as early as possible. Bruce Tonkin proposed scheduling the next GNSO Council meeting within 7 days Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for attending. The meeting ended: 20 :45 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference: Tuesday December 2, 2003 at 19:00 UTC see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

1 0

Constituency statements by 12 Jan 2003
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 7, 2003

Dec. 7, 2003

Hello All, An extension until 12 Jan 2003 seems sensible for the constituency statements given the time of year. Regards, Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] > Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2003 12:38 AM > To: Marc Schneiders; Bruce Tonkin > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Constituency representatives required > by 15 Dec 2003 > > > As I understand the role, the representative mentioned is > responsible for the interface into the constituency itself > and helping the constituency to better understand the issues. > I do think that we need to try to move this topic ahead, and > so do support the need to begin the development of the > constituency statements even over the holiday period. I am > sympathetic to the challenge that Marc notes. It might be > feasible to support a one week extension to the submission of > the constituency reports -- to Jan 12. > > > > > > Marilyn S. Cade > 202-255-7348c > mcade(a)att.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@schneiders.org] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:33 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: Re: [council] Constituency representatives required > by 15 Dec 2003 > > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, at 17:08 [=GMT+1100], Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > > I recommend that each constituency endeavour to appoint their > > representative by Monday 15 Dec 2003, and provide the constituency > > statement to the ICANN staff manager by 5 January 2004. Given the > > proximity to the holiday period around end of > December/early January > > in many countries, the sooner this work can commence the better. > > Given the importance of the topic, I propose to add a week to > the final date of January 5. Many people will be off email at > the end of this month. When they come back there will be > other things to take care of first. If we want good input > from the constituencies we need to give them a fair chance to > make up their mind and respond. > > Marc Schneiders > >

1 0

New ICANN website launched
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 5, 2003

Dec. 5, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: announce(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Take a look at the new ICANN website, http://www.icann.org launched some minutes ago! GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] Constituency representatives required by 15 Dec 2003
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Dec. 5, 2003

Dec. 5, 2003

As I understand the role, the representative mentioned is responsible for the interface into the constituency itself and helping the constituency to better understand the issues. I do think that we need to try to move this topic ahead, and so do support the need to begin the development of the constituency statements even over the holiday period. I am sympathetic to the challenge that Marc notes. It might be feasible to support a one week extension to the submission of the constituency reports -- to Jan 12. Marilyn S. Cade 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@schneiders.org] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:33 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Constituency representatives required by 15 Dec 2003 On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, at 17:08 [=GMT+1100], Bruce Tonkin wrote: > I recommend that each constituency endeavour to appoint their > representative by Monday 15 Dec 2003, and provide the constituency > statement to the ICANN staff manager by 5 January 2004. Given the > proximity to the holiday period around end of December/early January in > many countries, the sooner this work can commence the better. Given the importance of the topic, I propose to add a week to the final date of January 5. Many people will be off email at the end of this month. When they come back there will be other things to take care of first. If we want good input from the constituencies we need to give them a fair chance to make up their mind and respond. Marc Schneiders

1 0

Constituency representatives required by 15 Dec 2003
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 5, 2003

Dec. 5, 2003

Hello All, As an outcome of the decisions made at the Council meeting today, under section 8(a) of the Policy Development Process (see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA) "a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP." Thus each constituency must select a representative to gather the constituency's views on the procedure for use by ICANN when ICANN is required to give consent or a contractual amendment is required to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry into a constituency statement, and provide this to the ICANN staff manager. I recommend that each constituency endeavour to appoint their representative by Monday 15 Dec 2003, and provide the constituency statement to the ICANN staff manager by 5 January 2004. Given the proximity to the holiday period around end of December/early January in many countries, the sooner this work can commence the better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1