August 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council teleconference August 14, 2003, draft minutes
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Aug. 28, 2003

Aug. 28, 2003

[To: council(a)dnso.org] Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes, in text and html version, for the GNSO Council teleconference on August 14, 2003. If you would like any changes made, please let me know. Thank you very much. Glen GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- 15 August 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 Antonio Harris/Greg Ruth Thomas Keller- Registrars Ken Stubbs - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Jeff Neuman - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton Mueller Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent Alick Wilson Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril 17 Council Members Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison - absent, apologies Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison Roger Cochetti, Budget committee chair attended for item 7 on the agenda. Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Quorum present at 14:07 CET MP3 recording http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20030814.mp3 Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of last meeting Philip Sheppard/Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Marilyn Cade. The Council approved the adoption of the minutes, with Amadeu Abril l Abril abstaining Decision 1: Motion adopted. Matters arising from the minutes: 1. The GNSO chair was asked to liaise with the president of ICANN in connection with GNSO Council communication with the ICANN Board. Bruce Tonkin did not discuss this but posted a suggestion to Council explaining that the aim was to meet quarterly, via teleconference with the ICANN Board, to brief it on policy work undertaken and address any issues with regard to processes and procedures. 2. Liaise with the ICANN President on WIPO II recommendations - Item 3 on the agenda. 3. Discussion about new gTLDs as raised by Jeff Newman to be addresses in Item 8 Any Other Business Item 3: Update on ICANN President's working group on WIPO-II recommendations Bruce Tonkin reported that the ICANN President had invited 6 members from the Government Advisory Committee to participate in the working group and asked the GNSO Council to nominate 6 participants. Bruce recommended that each constituency should nominate one person so that the GNSO Council representatives on the President's working group would represent a broad cross section of interests. In response to a question from Jeff Neuman as to the purpose of the group, Bruce Tonkin referred to: A discussion by the Board regarding the appropriate next steps for consideration of the WIPO recommendations Whereas, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) sent ICANN a letter dated 21 February 2003 providing information about two decisions, concerning recommendations about the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations and about the names of countries, which WIPO member states requested be transmitted to ICANN; Whereas, in resolution 03.22 the Board requested the President to inform the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the other Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from WIPO and to invite their comments; Whereas, advice and comments were received from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the GNSO Council, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Intellectual Property Interests and the Commercial and Business Users Constituencies of the GNSO; Whereas, the Board has considered the advice and comments received, as well as the discussion and analysis in the 1 June 2003 General Counsel's Briefing Concerning Policy-Development Process on WIPO-2 Recommendations; Resolved [03.83] that the President is directed to form, in consultation with the chairs of the GNSO Council, the ALAC, and the GAC, a working group including participants in the GNSO, the ALAC, and the GAC as well as Board members, for the purpose of analyzing the practical and technical aspects of implementing the WIPO recommendations, and notably the implications for the UDRP; and Further resolved [03.84] that the President and General Counsel are directed to investigate and analyze legal aspects of the relationship between ICANN's mission and the recommendations conveyed by the 12 February 2003 letter from WIPO, and to report to the Board and to the working group formed under resolution 03.83 on the result of that investigation and analysis. Among topics to be considered should be whether implementation of the WIPO recommendations would require ICANN to prescribe adherence to normative rules, not based on established laws, for the resolution of competing third-party claims to rights to register names. Amadeu Abril l Abril clarified that the purpose of the ICANN President's working group was not to look at implementation but to study the implications, how, if and what, and to map out the question. Difficult legal questions arise where protection is sought for matters which are not protected under law at a national level. Six participants from the GNSO are preferable to one, and at least some of those participants should have a legal background in international law. Marilyn Cade drew attention to the way WIPO l and WIPO ll had come about. The former was a request for a fast track study with broad participation followed by a process in ICANN to determine what outcome should be related to the UDRP. The latter was a study of the implications of the recommendations that came from within WIPO itself. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Milton Mueller, proposed: that the GNSO Council requires each constituency to nominate one person to represent the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the WIPO ll recommendations. The Council unanimously approved the motion. Decision 2. Each constituency is required to nominate one person to represent the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the WIPO ll recommendations. Item 4. Discussion of Staff Managers report on UDRP Bruce Tonkin summarized saying that the report was divided into procedural and substantive issues. The Acting General Counsel of ICANN considered that most of the substantive issues and some of the procedural issues would extend beyond ICANN's mission. Procedural Issues: 01. Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions 02. Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available 03. Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings? 04. Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest? 05. Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? 06. Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted? 07. Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be mandatory and standardized? 08. Should the notice requirements be amended? 09. Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended? 10.Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? Substantive Issues: 11. Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders? 12. Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for non-registered marks? 13. Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the interpretation of "confusing similarity"? 14. Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration and registrant? 15. Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"? 16. Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith? 17. Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? 18. Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses? 19. Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect? 20. Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration allowing subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy? Bruce Tonkin supported by Marilyn Cade, proposed that each constituency prioritize five issues from the total and then the GNSO Council would ask if they were in ICANN's scope in an answer to Council members who did not agree with the delimitation considered by ICANN that most of the substantive issues would extend beyond ICANN's mission and that some of the issues could be possible changes but in fact were not solicited by anyone. Bruce Tonkin also proposed that after the elements were identified, there should be a discussion with ICANN General Counsel as to the scope of the issues within ICANN's mission. Thomas Roessler, ALAC Liaison, said that ICANN should certainly not extend the UDRP to take up complex cases better dealt with in court, but that -- on the other hand -- it is certainly within ICANN's mission to either cut back or fix policy where it has already invaded realms better left to courts. On outreach done by the ALAC, it was felt that there was too little time for thorough outreach on these complex issues, but that ALAC had some expertise available on UDRP, and would be interested in continuing to participate in the discussion. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Milton Mueller, proposed: That the GNSO requests each constituency to review the list of issues presented in the Staff Manager's report on UDRP and identify the top five issues from the report that the constituency believes has the highest priority for policy development. This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25. The Council unanimously approved the motion. Decision 3 : Each constituency is requested to review the list of issues presented in the Staff Manager's report on UDRP and identify the top five issues from the report that the constituency believes has the highest priority for policy development. This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25. Item 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group Bruce Tonkin, acting chair of the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee, reported that during the teleconference held on 7/8 August, each member had been asked to identify five top issues in the Staff Manager's report on WHOIS privacy issues. 1. Two issues in general received the majority of votes: 5. Are the current requirements that registrars make disclosures to, and obtain consent by, registrants concerning the uses of collected data adequate and appropriate? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.4 to 3.7.7.6.) 10. Are the current means of query-based access appropriate? Should both web-based access and port-43 access be required? (RAA § 3.3.1.) 2. The chair, requested as outcome of the streering group, that each constituency should formally review the top five issues and report back their positions to the GNSO Secretariat so that the issues could be collated and developed as the terms of reference for one or more task forces. 3. Related to the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee work, the ICANN President, Paul Twomey informally chairs a group that coordinates representatives from GAC, RIRs, IETF to identify what issues raised in the WHOIS workshop are appropriate for further analysis. The topics discussed included status of the IETF CRISP work, documenting uses for each data element collected at the time of registration, possibility of classifying types of registrants, and different approaches taken by cctld operators. 4. Work is going on in Internet Engineering Task Force on new registry data access protocol. John Klensin, the IETF liaison on the ICANN Board requested input from each GNSO constituency on the requirements of this protocol. 5. Alick Wilson recommended, that each constituency review the data that must be collected by registrars currently, identify which elements should be mandatory and, in addition, identify for each of these elements the consequences if the data element was not available. 6. The information gathered is to be shared with the other ICANN Groups. Item 6. Discussion on council structure - The ICANN nominating committee appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council in June 2003 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm - the ICANN by-laws require each constituency to appoint 2 representatives to the GNSO to take up office at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003 http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X - the ICANN by-laws require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following the adoption of the ICANN by-laws (15 Dec 2002) http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV Bruce Tonkin summarized saying that the ICANN bylaws provide for the appointment of two, and no longer three, constituency representatives on the GNSO council after the ICANN general meeting in 2003. The bylaws further require a review of the GNSO to be initiated no later than 15 December 2003 and to be completed in time for Board consideration at ICANN's annual meeting in 2004. Members of the Council requested a change as stated in the motion below. Philip Sheppard, one of the originators of the motion, along with Ken Stubbs, Ellen Shankman and Antonio Harris, stated that the essence of the motion was a change in timetable, which called for the review first and then an examination whether the change from 3 to 2 representatives per constituency was necessary. Philip Sheppard accepted the motion as amended by Jeff Neuman to Council: Proposed language by Marilyn Cade 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004, WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE AMONG OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA, A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY. was amended by Jeff Neuman to read: 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. Amadeu Abril l Abril, stated that he would not vote on the resolution as he had been a Board member at the time of the Reform and had voted for 2 representatives. Milton Mueller supported two representatives and said that with possible new constituencies being added in the future, three representatives would make the structure unwieldy. Marilyn Cade supported maintaining 3 representatives and an assessment from within the Council rather than an outside review process. Antonio Harris supported 3 representatives to lessen the work load of representatives and to ensure geographical diversity Bruce Tonkin, from an engineering point of view, found advantages in assessing the impact after one year, of the first change made by the three representatives from the nominating committee. Philip Sheppard proposed the motion, as amended by Jeff Neuman: Whereas, the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three representatives per Constituency on the GNSO Council". Whereas, ICANN core value 2.4 is: - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making". Whereas, ICANN core value 2.7 is: - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process." Whereas, by-law article XX.5.8 states: "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003." The GNSO council resolves that: Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core value 2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency as the majority of ICANN regions are represented. . Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core value 2.7 on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that three representatives improves the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and to more effectively communicate with multiple regions. And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its review timetable: 1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. The Council approved the motion by a vote: - 21 in favour( proxy votes for Tony Holmes, Lynda Roesch, Ellen Shankman) - 1 Against (Milton Mueller) - 4 Abstentions (Amadeu Abril lAbril, Alick Wilson, Demi Getschko, proxy vote carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi) During the teleconference the following message was received from Chun Eung Hwi and only read after the teleconference. GNSO Secretariat I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three representatives per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to Milton Mueller. Decision 4: - Schedule a joint teleconference with ICANN Board - Formally submit the motion as a request for an amendment to the Bylaws: And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its review timetable: 1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. - GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin to liaise with ICANN President, Paul Twomey on joint ICANN Board teleconference on the topic Philip Sheppard leaves the call, hands proxy to Grant Forsyth Item 7: Budget committee report Bruce Tonkin stated that the items to be discussed were: - the current state of the budget - the transition costs of the GNSO website from AFNIC to ICANN management Roger Cochetti, GNSO Budget committee chair, joins call. Roger Cochetti reminded Council that the GNSO budget for 2003 was for six months as ICANN planned to cover the costs for the GNSO after July. The Constituency dues assessments were based on 6 months spending. On June 30, 2003, the Budget committee met, and by the end of June there were no arrangements in place to cover the costs of FISAT Inc. the Secretariat's firm, and AFNIC, the website operator. The budget committee agreed to cover the costs for FISAT Inc. and AFNIC for the month of July if these were not met by ICANN. With routine spending the current balance amounts to approximately $26 700.00.. The original plan after July was to close off the books and the balance of funds would go to the GNSO for administrative expenses. Budget Committee recommendations on larger issues: Closing out old account - constituency debts over years. Constituency debt was never forgiven so no constituency ever officially subsidized another constituency. Council was never supportive of debt forgiveness. The budget committee recommends a compromise between debt forgiveness and permanent carrying debts on the ICANN Books Once all the expenses for June and July are fully paid, the DNSO/GNSO books would be closed and a new account established for administrative miscellaneous expenses. The new account would be funded by the balance from the old to the new account. The new account would be handled by another form of administration. The debt would not be officially forgiven but would be irrelevant and the books closed. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Greg Ruth, proposed: 1. When all payments had been made the DNSO/GNSO account should be closed. 2. With the closure of the account, the Council budget committee would be disbanded 3. Balance of funds transferred to new GNSO administration miscellaneous account. 4. Procedure be established for management of the new account. The Council members unanimously approved the motion Bruce Tonkin summarized the DNSO/GNSO website transition saying that the expectations were for ICANN to take over the management of the DNSO/GNSO website by June, 2003. The GNSO secretariat notified the GNSO chair that the end of June timetable would not be feasible. Bruce Tonkin spoke to Paul Twomey in Montreal and suggested that the current provider, AFNIC continue services till the end of the transition in July, 2003. The GNSO Secretariat was instructed to verbally speak to the director of AFNIC and verbally received the assurance that the services would continue until the end of the transition period. Bruce Tonkin has since spoken to the ICANN President who confirmed that the expense had not been budgeted for by ICANN and ICANN did not formally engage the French provider during July. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed the following recommendation: That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred by AFNIC for the transition of the DNSO/GNSO website to ICANN administration. The Council members unanimously approved the motion Decision 5: That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred by AFNIC. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Amadeu Abril l Abril, on behalf of the GNSO Council proposed a motion of thanks to Roger Cochetti for his efforts as budget committee chair in the first half of the year, and for chairing the committee for two years on a voluntary basis. The Council members unanimously approved the motion Item 8: Any Other Business Bruce Tonkin stated that Jeff Neuman had raised a problem relating to new gTLDs Bruce Tonkin mentioned that it was a software problem that required upgrading and education of the public which should be undertaken as soon as possible. It was suggested that ICANN send out an advisory note and that the Internet Engineering Task Force, (IETF) should also be asked to send out an advisory note as well. Bruce Tonkin proposed to finalize the document and use all possible council contacts to propagate the message Jeff Neuman proposed; - Forming a group to do outreach as soon as possible. - That each constituency send one representative to the group. - To coordinate with the Security committee and the GNSO Council Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for attending. The meeting ended: 16:10 CET, 14:10 UTC, 00:10, 15 August, Melbourne. Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday September 25, 2003 at 12:00 UTC see:http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/

1 0

RE: [council] new gtld problem statement
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Aug. 23, 2003

Aug. 23, 2003

Bruce, thanks for the edited version. We are definately on a better more fact based track with this redraft; I have sent this to my internal DNS/architecture team for comment before providing my comments back. I'll try to get a response by CoB Tuesday, if folks are around. Lots of vacations going on. Thanks for your extensive editing. Sorry that we have put so much of this on the Council Chair. I know it is a burden to take drafting of all the work of Council on, as well as your role as chair, and your efforts are much appreciated. I hope we will soon see progress on hiring ICANN staff, who can take on much of the drafting responsibilities. MC -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 2:20 AM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: [council] new gtld problem statement Hello All, Following the discussions in the last GNSO Council teleconference I have revised the draft produced by Jeff Neuman to more generally state the problem associated with software being used in the Internet that is not compatible with new gtlds. See attached marked up copy. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

new gtld problem statement
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 23, 2003

Aug. 23, 2003

Hello All, Following the discussions in the last GNSO Council teleconference I have revised the draft produced by Jeff Neuman to more generally state the problem associated with software being used in the Internet that is not compatible with new gtlds. See attached marked up copy. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

TR: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Aug. 19, 2003

Aug. 19, 2003

Message received during GNSO Council teleconference, 14 August, and only read after the teleconference. GNSO Secretariat -----Message d'origine----- De : Chun Eung Hwi [mailto:ehchun@peacenet.or.kr] Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 14:31 À : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE To all, I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three representatives per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to Milton Mueller. Regards, Chun Eung Hwi On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:55 +0200, GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> wrote: > [To: Council(a)dnso.org] > > At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO > Council > list > > mercredi 13 ao占�2003 16:57 > 占� gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; owner-council(a)dnso.org > Objet : RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > > > Bruce, > > I would like to present the following resolution > to be discussed in the teleconference: > > Proposed Council resolution on Constituency representation to meet ICANN > requirements on geographical diversity and informed decision-making > Proposed by, in alphabetical order, > Antonio Harris > Ellen Shankman, > Philip Sheppard > Ken Stubbs > > Whereas, > the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three > representatives > per Constituency on the GNSO Council". > > Whereas, > ICANN core value 2.4 is: > - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the > functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all > levels > of policy development and decision-making". > > Whereas, > ICANN core value 2.7 is: > - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that > (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) > ensure > that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development > process." > > Whereas, > by-law article XX.5.8 states: > "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each > of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO > Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003." > > > The GNSO council resolves that: > > Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core > value 2.4 > on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency. With three > representatives per constituency, the majority of ICANN regions ARE > represented. > With two, the majority of ICANN regions are NOT represented. > > . > Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core > value 2.7 > on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that three > representatives > improves the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council > member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and to > more effectively communicate with multiple regions. > . > There is no evidence of increased effectiveness with two representatives > rather than three. > . > And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes > in its review timetable: > 1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per > constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual > meeting > 2004; > 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004. > > Regards > > Tony Harris > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2216 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun(a)peacenet.or.kr ---------------------------------------------------------------

5 4

List of UDRP issues
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 19, 2003

Aug. 19, 2003

Hello All, Here is a numbered list of the UDRP issues extracted from the staff managers report (there are 20 issues). I have numbered them in the eorder in which they appear in the report. As agreed in the last Council meeting, each constituency should review the list and identify the top 5 issues of most important to the constituency to help guide the prioritisation of further policy development in the area of UDRP. Regards, Bruce Tonkin (1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions? (2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available? (3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings? (4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest? (5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? (6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted? (7) Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be mandatory and standardized? (8) Should the notice requirements be amended? (9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended? (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? (11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders? (12) Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for non-registered marks? (13) Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the interpretation of "confusing similarity"? (14) Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration and registrant? (15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"? (16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith? (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? (18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses? (19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect? (20) Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy?

1 0

RE: vote on GNSO council composition...
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 19, 2003

Aug. 19, 2003

Hello Ken, As the vote was on a specific motion that was amended during the teleconference, I will record the vote as stated during the teleconference with Milton abstaining on behalf of Chun in the absence of receiving specific instructions. I will record in the minutes associated with the vote that Chun emailed the following statement to the GNSO Secretariat during the call: "I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three representatives per constituency." I will convey the result of the motion, and the minutes associated with the motion, to the ICANN Secretary for consideration by the ICANN Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 9:19 PM > To: council; Bruce Tonkin > Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: re: vote on GNSO council composition... > > > Mr Chairman... > > because this message was received while the council was still > in conference, i would hope that the vote can amended to > reflect chungs e-mail. > > if the council vote cannot be amended to reflect this then i > would hope that chung's message be communicated along with > the vote results > > Thank you for your consideration > > Ken Stubbs > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > To: "council" <council(a)dnso.org> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:39 AM > Subject: TR: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > > > > Message received during GNSO Council teleconference, 14 August, and > > only > read after the teleconference. > > GNSO Secretariat > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Chun Eung Hwi [mailto:ehchun@peacenet.or.kr] > > Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 14:31 > > À : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > Objet : Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > > > > > > To all, > > > > I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three > > representatives per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I > > will give my proxy to Milton Mueller. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Chun Eung Hwi > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:55 +0200, GNSO SECRETARIAT > > <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> wrote: > > > > > [To: Council(a)dnso.org] > > > > > > At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded > to the GNSO > > > Council list > > > > > > mercredi 13 ao占 2003 16:57 > > > 占 gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; > owner-council(a)dnso.org Objet : > > > RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > > > > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > > > I would like to present the following resolution > > > to be discussed in the teleconference: > > > > > > Proposed Council resolution on Constituency > representation to meet ICANN > > > requirements on geographical diversity and informed > decision-making > > > Proposed by, in alphabetical order, > > > Antonio Harris > > > Ellen Shankman, > > > Philip Sheppard > > > Ken Stubbs > > > > > > Whereas, > > > the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three > > > representatives per Constituency on the GNSO Council". > > > > > > Whereas, > > > ICANN core value 2.4 is: > > > - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation > reflecting > > > the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the > Internet > > > at all levels of policy development and decision-making". > > > > > > Whereas, > > > ICANN core value 2.7 is: > > > - "Employing open and transparent policy development > mechanisms that > > > (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert > advice, and (ii) > > > ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy > > > development process." > > > > > > Whereas, > > > by-law article XX.5.8 states: > > > "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, > > > each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two > representatives to > > > the GNSO Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003." > > > > > > > > > The GNSO council resolves that: > > > > > > Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with > ICANN core > > > value 2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the > > > constituency. With three representatives per constituency, the > > > majority of ICANN regions ARE represented. > > > With two, the majority of ICANN regions are NOT represented. > > > > > > . > > > Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with > ICANN core > > > value 2.7 on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown > > > that three representatives > > > improves the constituencies ability to share the workload > of a council > > > member, to be able to participate in task forces of the > council, and to > > > more effectively communicate with multiple regions. > > > . > > > There is no evidence of increased effectiveness with two > representatives > > > rather than three. > > > . > > > And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make > two changes > > > in its review timetable: > > > 1. To change the transition article to allow three > representatives per > > > constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual > > > meeting > > > 2004; > > > 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Tony Harris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Chun Eung Hwi > > General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2216 > > Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 > > Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun(a)peacenet.or.kr > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] re: vote on GNSO council composition...
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Aug. 19, 2003

Aug. 19, 2003

It appears that Chung's email, with instruction on how to vote made clear and the appropriate deletation of proxy, would have been recorded... if received adn opened during the call. I can't tell whether it was received before the vote, but of course, we can't predict delays in the Internet with any accuracy. :-) Ken's suggestions offer reasonable approaches to ensure that Chung's intent is recorded. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:42 AM To: Ken Stubbs; council; Bruce Tonkin Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] re: vote on GNSO council composition... I second Ken's suggestion. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs(a)digitel.net> To: "council" <council(a)dnso.org>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Cc: <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: [council] re: vote on GNSO council composition... Mr Chairman... because this message was received while the council was still in conference, i would hope that the vote can amended to reflect chungs e-mail. if the council vote cannot be amended to reflect this then i would hope that chung's message be communicated along with the vote results Thank you for your consideration Ken Stubbs ----- Original Message ----- From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> To: "council" <council(a)dnso.org> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:39 AM Subject: TR: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > Message received during GNSO Council teleconference, 14 August, and only read after the teleconference. > GNSO Secretariat > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Chun Eung Hwi [mailto:ehchun@peacenet.or.kr] > Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 14:31 > À : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > Objet : Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > > > To all, > > I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three > representatives per constituency. > If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to Milton Mueller. > > > Regards, > > Chun Eung Hwi > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:55 +0200, GNSO SECRETARIAT > <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> wrote: > > > [To: Council(a)dnso.org] > > > > At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO > > Council > > list > > > > mercredi 13 ao占�2003 16:57 > > 占� gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; owner-council(a)dnso.org > > Objet : RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > I would like to present the following resolution > > to be discussed in the teleconference: > > > > Proposed Council resolution on Constituency representation to meet ICANN > > requirements on geographical diversity and informed decision-making > > Proposed by, in alphabetical order, > > Antonio Harris > > Ellen Shankman, > > Philip Sheppard > > Ken Stubbs > > > > Whereas, > > the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three > > representatives > > per Constituency on the GNSO Council". > > > > Whereas, > > ICANN core value 2.4 is: > > - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the > > functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all > > levels > > of policy development and decision-making". > > > > Whereas, > > ICANN core value 2.7 is: > > - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that > > (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) > > ensure > > that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development > > process." > > > > Whereas, > > by-law article XX.5.8 states: > > "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each > > of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO > > Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003." > > > > > > The GNSO council resolves that: > > > > Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core > > value 2.4 > > on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency. With three > > representatives per constituency, the majority of ICANN regions ARE > > represented. > > With two, the majority of ICANN regions are NOT represented. > > > > . > > Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core > > value 2.7 > > on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that three > > representatives > > improves the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council > > member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and to > > more effectively communicate with multiple regions. > > . > > There is no evidence of increased effectiveness with two representatives > > rather than three. > > . > > And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes > > in its review timetable: > > 1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per > > constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual > > meeting > > 2004; > > 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004. > > > > Regards > > > > Tony Harris > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Chun Eung Hwi > General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2216 > Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 > Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun(a)peacenet.or.kr > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >

1 0

WHOIS Steering Committee: select 5 top issues
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Aug. 18, 2003

Aug. 18, 2003

[To: council(a)dnso.org] [To: liaison6c(a)dnso.org] [To: whois-sc(a)dnso.org] Whois Steering committee, teleconference August 7/8, 2003 At the Whois Steering committee, teleconference August 7/8, 2003, the Acting Chair, Bruce Tonkin noted that as the GNSO needs to prioritize its work program, each constituency should formally review the draft table attached and after discussion amongst the members please provide input to help select 5 top issues for further consideration in one or more task forces. Where two representatives from the same constituency had slightly differing priorities during the teleconference, the table reflects a best estimate of the combined position, subject to the constituency finalising their top 5. Item 6 Next Steps: The GNSO Secretariat will prepare a draft table of the top 5 issues from each GNSO Constituency based on the discussions above prior to the next meeting of the Steering Group. Each Constituency should discuss amongst its members to reach a consensus on the top 5 issues and report these to the GNSO Secretariat to create a final version of the table. (see full minutes attached below) Kindly provide me with your input no later than Thursday, September 4, 2003, at COB. Thank you very much. GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Montreal meeting minutes, 24 June, 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Aug. 15, 2003

Aug. 15, 2003

[To: announce(a)dnso.org; council(a)dnso.org] [To: ga(a)dnso.org; liaison6c(a)dnso.org] Please find the minutes, text and html version, of the GNSO Council meeting held in Montreal, 24 June, 2003 and approved at the GNSO Council teleconference, 14 August, 2003. http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml GNSO Secretariat 1 July 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html 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 - Thomas Keller- Registrars Ken Stubbs - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Jeff Neuman - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton Mueller Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee Demi Getschko - Nominating Committee Amadeu Abril I Abril - Nominating Committee - not yet seated as still a Board member 16 Council Members Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Web casting Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Montreal, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of last meeting http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Jeff Neuman. The motion was carried unanimously. Decision 1: Motion adopted. Item 3: Welcome to the three new council members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee Bruce Tonkin welcomed: Demi Getschko from Brazil, Alick Wilson from New Zealand, and Amadeu Abril I Abril, currently seated on ICANN Board, who would join the GNSO Council following the Board meeting. Item 4. Ratify e-mail vote on GNSO Council chair Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard for this agenda item. Philip Sheppard reported that the current chairman was renominated, accepted the nomination, duly stood for nomination and the results of the votes which were an electorate of 18 persons were: 22 votes in favour of Bruce Tonkin, one abstention, (Bruce Tonkin, with 2 votes) total 24 votes. Philip Sheppard called for ratification of the vote therefore electing Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. Vote: 23 votes in favour, Bruce Tonkin abstained, (with 2 votes). The motion carried. Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin who thanked Council for their support. Item 5. Deletes Task Force recommendations - approve recommendations as consensus policy http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows: A draft report was presented to Council at the teleconference on April 17 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html ICANN Staff provided input suggesting that the implementation issues of the recommendations needed to looked into further. Subsequently an implementation committee was formed with representation from registries, registrars as well as representation from the Deletes task force membership to deal with the concerns. The Deletes implementation committee completed its report, the Deletes Task Force, revised its recommendations. Jordyn Buchanan, chair of the Deletes Task Force, presented the Deletes task force recommendations, reminding Council of the 4 areas it was charted to discuss. 1. Uniform delete practice, after domain name expiry by registrars. All recommendations were made with regard to this issue. 2. The deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. 3. Registry delete process. Interest was expressed by the task force for further exploration and it was recommended that Council pursue the issue in a new task force, as a result could not be produced in the time frame and scope of the present one. 4. Reversal of renewal transactions While this was an issue of concern, it was proposed that it be dealt with in a technical fora to add the capability rather than in a policy fora. Recommendations: 3.1 Uniform deletion practice after domain name expiry by registrars 3.1.1 Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been received by the registrar from the registrant or someone acting on the registrants behalf by the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period (generally forty-five days after the domain's initial expiration). As a mechanism for enforcing this requirement, registries may elect to delete names for which an explicit renew command has not been received prior to the expiration of the grace period. 3.1.2 Domain names must be deleted within 45 days of the expiration of the registration agreement between the registrar and registrant, unless the agreement is renewed. 3.1.3 These requirements retroactively apply to all existing domain name registrations beginning 180 days after the adoption of the policy. 3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy, as well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at the time of registration. This policy should include the expected time at which non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to the domain's expiration date, or a date range not to exceed ten days in length. 3.1.5 Registrars must provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies in a conspicuous place on their websites. 3.1.6 Registrars should provide, both at the time of registration and in a conspicuous place on their website, the fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. 3.2 Registrar deletion practice after domain name expiry for domain names subject to a pending UDRP dispute 3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider. 3.2.2 In such an event, the complainant will have the option to pay for a one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing rate for renewals. 3.2.3 In the event that the complainant paid the renewal fee prior to the domain names expiration, the original registrant will have up to thirty days after the end of the relevant registrys Auto-renew Grace Period in which to pay for the renewal of the domain name. If neither the complainant or the original registrant pay for the renewal of domain name, it will be subject to deletion no later than the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period. 3.2.4 In the event that both the registrant and the complainant pay for the renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original registrant in accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any renewal fee paid by the complainant will be refunded and shall not effect this provision. 3.2.5 In the event that only the complainant pays for the renewal of the domain name, prior to the expiration of the Auto-renew Grace Period the registrar will: 3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS. 3.2.5.2 Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific registration information for the Whois record. 3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated prior to a panel decision being rendered, but after the domain name reaches this state, the domain name will be deleted. 3.2.6 Where only the complainant paid the renewal fee for a domain name the subject of a UDRP action and the complainants UDRP case fails, if the relevant registrys normal renewal grace period has expired, the domain name will be deleted. 3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome of the UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies. 3.3 Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy 3.3.1 The Redemption Grace Period will apply to names deleted due to a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. However, prior to allowing the redemption in such a case, the registrar must update the registration with verified WHOIS data and provide a statement indicating that the data has been verified in conjunction with the request for the names redemption. The same rules that apply to verification of WHOIS data for regular domain names following a complaint will apply to deleted names. Jordyn Buchanan proposed adding the supermajority task force vote: In favour: Intellectual Properly Interests constituency, Internet service and Connectivity Providers constituency, Non commercial Users constituency, Commercial and Business Users constituency, Registrars and gTLD Registries constituencies. Vote Against: ccTLD representative No Vote registered: General Assembly representative did not vote to the Final Deletes report before sending it to the ICANN Board for approval. During discussion, Louis Touton remarked on the language of : 3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider. and suggested it should read "In the event that a domain name which is the subject of a UDRP dispute is deleted or expires during the course of the dispute.... " Bruce Tonkin called for the policy recommendations to be put to the vote, ( According to the Policy Development Process, each person should vote individually.) Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 3: The Deletes Task Force final report was recorded as a consensus recommendation to be forwarded to the ICANN Board with the appropriate changes in paragraph 3.2.1. Bruce Tonkin, joined by Jeff Neuman, thanked the Deletes Task Force and its chair, Jordyn Buchanan, for the good work done. Item 6. Discussion of ICANN Staff Manager's Issue Report on UDRP - decide whether to implement policy development process on UDRP Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton, as Staff Manager or General Counsel to comment. Louis Touton commented as General Counsel and apologised that the Issue report on UDRP which was requested by the Council in Rio de Janeiro was not complete due to pressure of work. Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton to provide an update on the status of the WHOIS and Transfers task force recommendations the Board accepted. Louis Touton reported that the WHOIS recommendations forwarded by the Council to the Board in February, were accepted by the Board at the ICANN Rio de Janeiro meeting at the end of March. 1. The implementation process has begun and notification has been posted on the ICANN website setting forth the second consensus policy ever, called the WDRP, standing for the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, regarding the first recommendation relating to registrars notifying their customers and reminding them to update the WHOIS data on record . (see: http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.html) It is planned is to phase the policy in from October 31,2003 to October 31, 2004, so that reminders would occur at the renewal or anniversary dates of registration creations. 2. Circumstances or handling of names that are deleted due to inaccurate WHOIS data and if they go into the redemption grace period, they can be restored by the registrant but cannot become activated, taken off registrar hold until the data is rectified. This policy is due to be implemented and was held up waiting the outcome of the Deletes Task Force report. 3 & 4. Relate to the prohibition of marketing Bulk WHOIS data and will be implemented within the next three to four weeks. Transfer recommendations, some aspects require further community or task force consultation such as the form of a standard notice for authorization of a transfer. This is being undertaken in consultation with a group of providers. A word of caution was given to Council and to staff, that when things are done, they should be done right which requires prioritization of the limited resources. Item 7: Update on ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations Bruce Tonkin stated that the Board asked the Council to provide advice. Council provided the advice that the recommendations needed further analysis and that the President consider creating a policy development process before voting or recommendations could be considered. Subsequently the Board did meet and stated that the President would contact the GNSO, ALAC, GAC chairs to form a working group. Item 8: gTLDs committee report on new gTLDs - approve report associated with the GNSO Council resolution of 22 May 2003: (Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria to be met in any future expansion. The development of this set of objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together with the responses of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be forwarded to the Board in June.) Document: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.html Bruce Tonkin stated that that the ICANN board had requested the advice of the GNSO Council on whether the new gTLDs should be structured in such a way that perhaps there was a predefined list of names and that entities could potentially be proposed to operate one of those names or alternately, organizations that wished to create a new TLD could propose one of their own. The recommendation was that the namespace should be market driven and that organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use to DNS users. Philip Sheppard, chair of the gTLD Council committee reported that the final report before Council divided up: - Objectives in expansion of the namespace which summarized previous statements of the then Names Council or the Board and what would be subject to a future policy development process - List of possible criteria - Statement with regard to continuity in the event of business failure - Criteria relating to technical and financial competence? Editorial changes and suggestions were made. The report was a complement to the resolution adopted: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Louis Touton commented that the report was one of the many inputs to a process of evaluation on gTLDs and the alternatives for handling them in the future. Cary Karp asked what the relation was to the RFP that had been posted: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm Louis Touton responded that the document posted was further work on moving forward on the RFP based on the criteria that were discussed at the Rio de Janeiro meeting and in writing subsequently. The study of the various items that the new TLD evaluation process recommended would be supplemented by other inputs to reach consensus in the community about how best to deal with the introduction of new top level domains. Bruce Tonkin called for a vote to approve the report to be given to the ICANN Board by the GNSO Council. Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 4: The GNSO council concludes: Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria to be met in any future expansion. The development of this set of objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together with the responses of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be forwarded to the Board in June. Item 9: Discussion on improving communication between the ICANN Board and the GNSO. Bruce Tonkin, referring to a Council communication by Jeff Neuman http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00001.html reported that there was discussion on the Council list about ICANN Board members participating in GNSO Council discussions and suggested that Board members could be invited to speak to Council where a briefing on a topic of concern or the Council could seek clarification from the Board regarding its process or consideration or what advice it was seeking from the Council. Louis Touton responded to the message to Council stating that it started from a false premise that the Council had representatives on the Board. Two members were selected by the GNSO Council that sit in parallel with all other Board members that have a duty to the Internet community and ICANN. He was of the opinion that there would be no objection periodically requesting interactions with Board members. Jeff Neuman clarified that what he meant was a liaison function. Bruce Tonkin proposed the following motion: The GNSO Council requests the Chair to communicate with the ICANN President to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board and the GNSO Council. Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 5: The GNSO Council Chair will communicate with the ICANN President to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board and the GNSO Council. Item 9: Any Other Business 9. a. WHOIS privacy steering Group Bruce Tonkin announced that two Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO Council agreed to join the WHOIS Privacy steering group and that the group was scheduled to meet during the Montreal meeting. 9. b. ccNSO Marilyn Cade reported on the Country Code Naming Supporting Organization (ccNSO) saying that many of the constituencies were supportive of the creation of the ccNSO. Open dialogue between the Government Advisory Committee and the Board was attended by several Council members as well open meetings between the ccNSO and the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC). Many of the differences that were in existence between the ERC and the Country Codes were broadly and narrowly addressed which indicated broad support for the formation of a ccNSO with a large number of Country Code members who would be coming into the Supporting Organization. A Country Code Name Supporting Organization would probably be seated by the next ICANN meeting in Carthage. 9.c. RFP relating to new gTLDs Jeff Neuman raised the topic of the RFP. http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm saying that the comment period was short and asked whether the GNSO Council would want to make a joint comment, or whether individuals could respond. Louis Touton commented that comments should be made as soon as possible and that there would be a possibility for discussion during the Public Forum. Bruce Tonkin suggested that individual constituencies put forward coordinated comments. 9. d. The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00012.html Jeff Neuman stated that the gTLD Registry constituency put forth a paper called; The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS which had been sent to Council: Subsequently notice was given that the paper had been included in the RPF. Response to the paper was encouraged. There had been response to the word "filtering" that would probably be substituted by "support" or "supporting of top-level domains. Further more it was believed that it was not only an ISP problem but an application problem that affected the businesses not just of the sponsored TLDs but also several of the unsponsored TLDs. A proposal for moving forward would be advantageous. Tony Holmes commented that the word "filtering" had been misleading and led the ISPs to investigate the problem. The issue was the way the new domain names are looked at within the resolves and the way that the action was taken. Mark Mc Fadden, the ISPCPC secretary commented from the floor that 15 ISPs in North America and 5 ISPs in Europe had been surveyed and no instances of filtering were found. It has been made an item for discussion in the ISPCPC. Louis Touton commented on process saying that the sTLD RPF http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm had been posted in draft form, exhibit E was the paper provided by the gTLD registries constituency. The purpose for including it was to alert possible applicants to the reality that getting a TLD in the root does not necessarily work for end users, giving a measure of fairness to the applicants in assessing how to proceed. If the gTLD registry wished to amend the paper by removing the word "filtering" they should do so quickly. Bruce Tonkin said the action to be taken from the meeting was to mention during the Public Forum - that a technical issue had been identified. That there had been some problems with resolving some of the new TLDs, just as there would be problems in the rollout of IDNs as well. Consideration should be given to improving and increasing awareness among the different parties as technical changes at the core of the DNS which affects the viability of some of the new registries. - that something should be coming out of the evaluation of the new TLD process. - that it should be remembered that the seven new TLDs were created as an initial experiment, and that the issue is an example of a problem that has arisen in the process which could not be foreseen initially and should be taken into consideration when creating new TLDs. 9. d. Resolution thanking Louis Touton Bruce Tonkin proposed a final resolution: To thank Louis Touton as General Counsel of ICANN, who had announced that he would be leaving ICANN, for the enormous support that he had provided both the Names Council and the GNSO Council. That he was available at 5:00 am for some of the GNSO teleconferences as well as available on Sundays. He made himself available to the Council well beyond the average call of duty for any individual and the GNSO Council formally thanked him for his dedication and the work that he put into ICANN. The GNSO Council unanimously supported the resolution with a standing ovation. Louis Touton reciprocated by thanking Council for the good healthy dialogue, engagement and working together to solve problems to help people on the Internet and felt gratified having been able to work with the DNSO/GNSO Council since 1999. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody for attending, at 3:45 local time. The meeting ended: 15:45 local time Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday July 17, 2003 at 12:00 UTC see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

1 0

Regarding ICANN President's working group on WIPO-II recommendations
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 15, 2003

Aug. 15, 2003

Hello All, As the Council agreed 14 hours ago, each constituency is asked to nominate one person to join the President's working group on the WIPO-II recommendations on behalf of the GNSO. Please aim to nominate this person within the next 14 to 30 days, and notify the GNSO Secretariat. The background behind the request (complete with whereas clauses) is attached below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02jun03.htm Whereas, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) sent ICANN a letter dated 21 February 2003 providing information about two decisions, concerning recommendations about the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations and about the names of countries, which WIPO member states requested be transmitted to ICANN; Whereas, in resolution 03.22 the Board requested the President to inform the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the other Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from WIPO and to invite their comments; Whereas, advice and comments were received from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the GNSO Council, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Intellectual Property Interests and the Commercial and Business Users Constituencies of the GNSO; Whereas, the Board has considered the advice and comments received, as well as the discussion and analysis in the 1 June 2003 General Counsel's Briefing Concerning Policy-Development Process on WIPO-2 Recommendations; Resolved [03.83] that the President is directed to form, in consultation with the chairs of the GNSO Council, the ALAC, and the GAC, a working group including participants in the GNSO, the ALAC, and the GAC as well as Board members, for the purpose of analyzing the practical and technical aspects of implementing the WIPO recommendations, and notably the implications for the UDRP; and Further resolved [03.84] that the President and General Counsel are directed to investigate and analyze legal aspects of the relationship between ICANN's mission and the recommendations conveyed by the 12 February 2003 letter from WIPO, and to report to the Board and to the working group formed under resolution 03.83 on the result of that investigation and analysis. Among topics to be considered should be whether implementation of the WIPO recommendations would require ICANN to prescribe adherence to normative rules, not based on established laws, for the resolution of competing third-party claims to rights to register names.

1 0