December 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

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