August 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Aug. 13, 2003

Aug. 13, 2003

[To: Council(a)dnso.org] At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO Council list mercredi 13 août 2003 16:57 À : 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

1 0

Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds
by Elisabeth Porteneuve Aug. 11, 2003

Aug. 11, 2003

Dear Milton, GNSO Council Members, In continuing with "corporate memory", let me keep the ccTLD record straight. The pieces of memory I have from time new ccTLD were put live indicates - no surprise - that the number of domain names created by new ccTLDs were very slow in those years, and that it has strictly nothing to do with today gTLDs. The audatious ccTLDs, almost all not for profit, were foreseeing 100 domain names recorded the first year, and perhaps 500 in two years. I do not know much about initial business plans of 7 new gTLDs from November 2000: .info, .biz, .museum, .aero, .pro, .coop, .name but I guess those were based on more than 100 domain names per annum. Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD liaison to GNSO -- > From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller(a)syr.edu> > To: <Amadeu(a)abril.info>, <Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us> > Cc: <council(a)dnso.org> > Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds > > >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr> > >1990 11 47 > >1991 22 69 > >1992 17 86 > >1993 23 109 > >1994 22 131 > >1995 29 160 > >1996 31 191 > >1997 47 238 > > Gosh, I hope adding all those TLDs didn't harm the Internet's stability! > I sure hope that New TLD Evaluation and Planning Task Force takes a long, hard look at the effects of adding those country codes. > > ;-) > >

1 0

RE: [council] Revised Final Statement
by Neuman, Jeff Aug. 10, 2003

Aug. 10, 2003

Mea Culpa....Here is the final version without the word "however" in the first paragraph. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 10:58 PM To: 'council(a)dnso.org'; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: [council] Revised Final Statement All, Here is the final paper for consideration on Support for the new TLDs. I have eliminated the introduction, in response to the comments. However, the substance of the paper remains unchanged. I would appreciate your comments on this matter which is of the utmost importance towards a unified root and universal resolvability. I have also submitted this as a comment to the new TLDs RFP (since the original statement was included therein), I agree that action needs to be taken, and I look forward to discussing this on the Council call. An action and outreach plan is needed as soon as possible. We appreciate your help. 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 <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail message and any attachments hereto in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1 0

Revised Final Statement
by Neuman, Jeff Aug. 10, 2003

Aug. 10, 2003

All, Here is the final paper for consideration on Support for the new TLDs. I have eliminated the introduction, in response to the comments. However, the substance of the paper remains unchanged. I would appreciate your comments on this matter which is of the utmost importance towards a unified root and universal resolvability. I have also submitted this as a comment to the new TLDs RFP (since the original statement was included therein), I agree that action needs to be taken, and I look forward to discussing this on the Council call. An action and outreach plan is needed as soon as possible. We appreciate your help. 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 <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail message and any attachments hereto in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1 0

RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Aug. 10, 2003

Aug. 10, 2003

Jeff, and other fellow councilors As we have all discussed, it's a more complex problem than merely ISPs, and will involve a much needed communications initiative, which we can all either complain about, or simply make happen. :-) I vote for "simply make happen". Since the call hasn't been scheduled yet, I suggest that we work on that as a priority. I too, thought the call could have taken place by now. I guess we were all waiting for someone else. :-) I was. It has been a holiday season for many both in the US and now in Europe. I'm not much better. I'm off next week to be with my father who is having surgery, so a call the following week to work on this would be preferred. IF it can only take place this week, I can possibly do a call Wednesday p.m. or Friday p.m. I really don't think that taking up much time on the Council call is productive. The parties who can play a role in this are a very few of the BC members, who I am happy to represent and communicate with, the ISPCP, and probably the high ed community, who Mark Luker, Educause, will undoubtedly be willing to forward any information to. When I was on the Evaluation of the new gTLD task force, I suggested then that an education effort was needed and didn't get much receptivity from Stuart Lynn. That was early days of this problem. We can address this through an informal, and formal awareness and outreach notice. I'm pretty sure that ISPs and connectivity providers -- and large corporations who operate resolvers and routers -- don't want to lose traffic. Let me speak for AT&T. We don't. :-) MC -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 3:51 PM To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Milton Mueller; Amadeu(a)abril.info; Neuman, Jeff Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds I was hoping to get some more substantive responses to the paper that was presented. The registries will revise the introduction of the paper so that it reflects that there were other ccTLDs added in the past 10-15 years. However, the substance of the paper (the failure of many ISPs, application providers and e-commerce websites, to recognize a number of the new gTLDs) deserves serious consideration. I look forward to discussing this at the next meeting. Thanks. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:09 PM To: Milton Mueller; Amadeu(a)abril.info; Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds Milton, I can attest that the Evaluation of the new gTLDs Task Force included highly qualified technical folks. And, yes, for myself at least, as a member of the TF, I am fully aware of the addition of new ccTLDs to the Internet over the past few years. :-) Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:32 PM To: Amadeu(a)abril.info; Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr> >1990 11 47 >1991 22 69 >1992 17 86 >1993 23 109 >1994 22 131 >1995 29 160 >1996 31 191 >1997 47 238 Gosh, I hope adding all those TLDs didn't harm the Internet's stability! I sure hope that New TLD Evaluation and Planning Task Force takes a long, hard look at the effects of adding those country codes. ;-)

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council - proposed agenda - Thursday 14 Augus t 2003
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Aug. 10, 2003

Aug. 10, 2003

Jeff Unfortunately your follow up request reached members of the ISPCP during the middle of a period of an extended summer vacation, but Mark McFadden will be picking this up as soon as he returns next week. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: 05 August 2003 14:28 To: 'gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org'; council Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council - proposed agenda - Thursday 14 August 2003 Can we please add a follow up discussion on the following issues that were discussed at the last meeting on Montreal: 1) Advisory regarding adoption and support of new TLDs -- was formerly known as "ISP Filtering" and 2) Methods of improved communication with the Board (i.e., Board liaison to Council) I do not want to see these issues fall in the cracks. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:52 AM To: council Subject: [council] GNSO Council - proposed agenda - Thursday 14 Ausgust 2003 [To: council(a)dnso.org; announce(a)dnso.org] [To: ga(a)dnso.org; liaison6c(a)dnso.org] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda - Thursday , August 14 2003 http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 - see below for local times Bruce Tonkin will be chairing the GNSO Council teleconference. Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins. Dial-in number sent individually to each Council member. 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Summary of last meetings 3. Update on ICANN President's working group on WIPO-II recommendations [15 mins] 4. Discussion of Staff Managers report on UDRP [30mins] http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group [30 mins] 6. Discussion on council structure [15 mins] - 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 7. Budget committee report [15 mins] 8. Any other business (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 14:00 Paris, 21:00 Japan/Korea, 22:00 Melbourne) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between April and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA UTC-8+1DST 5:00 Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+1DST 7:00 Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 8:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 9:00 London, United Kingdom UTC+0+1DST 13:00 Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00 Jerusalem, Israel UTC+2+1DST 15:00 Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Melbourne, Australia UTC+10+0DST 22:00 Auckland, Wellington, New Zealand UTC+12+0DST 24:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2003, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Information from: (c) GNSO Council

1 0

RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds
by Neuman, Jeff Aug. 10, 2003

Aug. 10, 2003

I was hoping to get some more substantive responses to the paper that was presented. The registries will revise the introduction of the paper so that it reflects that there were other ccTLDs added in the past 10-15 years. However, the substance of the paper (the failure of many ISPs, application providers and e-commerce websites, to recognize a number of the new gTLDs) deserves serious consideration. I look forward to discussing this at the next meeting. Thanks. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:09 PM To: Milton Mueller; Amadeu(a)abril.info; Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds Milton, I can attest that the Evaluation of the new gTLDs Task Force included highly qualified technical folks. And, yes, for myself at least, as a member of the TF, I am fully aware of the addition of new ccTLDs to the Internet over the past few years. :-) Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:32 PM To: Amadeu(a)abril.info; Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr> >1990 11 47 >1991 22 69 >1992 17 86 >1993 23 109 >1994 22 131 >1995 29 160 >1996 31 191 >1997 47 238 Gosh, I hope adding all those TLDs didn't harm the Internet's stability! I sure hope that New TLD Evaluation and Planning Task Force takes a long, hard look at the effects of adding those country codes. ;-)

1 0

RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Aug. 8, 2003

Aug. 8, 2003

Milton, I can attest that the Evaluation of the new gTLDs Task Force included highly qualified technical folks. And, yes, for myself at least, as a member of the TF, I am fully aware of the addition of new ccTLDs to the Internet over the past few years. :-) Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:32 PM To: Amadeu(a)abril.info; Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr> >1990 11 47 >1991 22 69 >1992 17 86 >1993 23 109 >1994 22 131 >1995 29 160 >1996 31 191 >1997 47 238 Gosh, I hope adding all those TLDs didn't harm the Internet's stability! I sure hope that New TLD Evaluation and Planning Task Force takes a long, hard look at the effects of adding those country codes. ;-)

1 0

Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds
by Milton Mueller Aug. 8, 2003

Aug. 8, 2003

>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr> >1990 11 47 >1991 22 69 >1992 17 86 >1993 23 109 >1994 22 131 >1995 29 160 >1996 31 191 >1997 47 238 Gosh, I hope adding all those TLDs didn't harm the Internet's stability! I sure hope that New TLD Evaluation and Planning Task Force takes a long, hard look at the effects of adding those country codes. ;-)

1 0

RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds
by Neuman, Jeff Aug. 7, 2003

Aug. 7, 2003

Thanks, I agree with your added recommendation. -----Original Message----- From: Amadeu Abril i Abril [mailto:Amadeu@abril.info] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:09 PM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: council(a)dnso.org Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds Jeff, I think that this revised version is much better, since it mentions application provide3rs along ISPs (in my experience, the former are more responsible of communication failures attached to new TLDs thatn the latter). It also helps that it does not sound anymore as "pointing the finger" to a given constituency... A couple of suggestions: * in the recommendation section, I think that we could/should add an action item for other consituencies, such as distributing a sort of "revised DNS primer" or just a remidner of what the statement says to ISPs but also applicati9on providers and e-commerce site operators, so as to bring their attention to this point. * the follwoing paragraph confuses me: "Prior to November 2000, the list of valid TLDs very seldom changed, and only a few ccTLDs were added to the list, including Palestine (.ps) and Afghanistan (.af)." In fact, prior to November 2000 the list changed much more than after that date... even if it was quite stable since late 1997. The reference to .af is in any misleading, as it was created in 1997, among many, many others. In fact, as far as I can remember, the only ccTLD effectively added duing ICANN existance is .ps (with .eu in the pipeline, but not yet active, as .tl which should replace .tp, but which is apparently in a limbo somewhere between ISO and IANA....). .af had a difficult life, including disappearences and redelgations, but it was created well before 2000. Amadeu

1 0