September 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Security and Advisory Committee response to Verisign service
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 23, 2003

Sept. 23, 2003

From: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/secsac-to-board-22sep03.htm Message from Security and Stability Advisory Committee to ICANN Board 22 September 2003 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Recommendations Regarding VeriSign's Introduction of Wild Card Response to Uninstantiated Domains within COM and NET ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee BACKGROUND On September 15, 2003, VeriSign changed the way its COM and NET name servers respond when presented with a query for a COM or NET domain name for when no name server record exists [1]. This change was reported on September 5, 2003 [2] and September 9, 2003 [3], but the implications of the change were not broadly recognized until it was deployed. Previously, such queries returned RCODE 3 ("name error"), the negative response defined in the official DNS protocol specification, RFC1035 [4]. VeriSign now returns an IP address for a special server, thereby creating the appearance the requested domain name exists. The special server handles the subsequent requests for application level services, e.g. web, email, etc. This special server is currently listening on port 80 for HTTP (web) and port 25 for SMTP (email) transactions. The web server returns a page indicating the domain name is not registered and offers search and/or registration services. The email server originally bounced all email with a 550 error code, which indicates a permanent failure and would result in the message being bounced back to the sender. Its precise behavior is still subject to change in response to community feedback, substantially changing the way email is queued, routed, and responded to in the COM and NET domains. Applications or protocols which previously relied on an RCODE 3 response for a non-existing domain have suffered by this change in behavior for COM and NET. Workarounds at the routing and DNS level have been deployed to stop the effect of these wildcards, and these workarounds are an additional source of potential instability. SECURITY AND STABILITY ISSUES The Security and Stability Advisory Committee is examining the situation from several viewpoints. * Conformance with the protocol specifications as defined by the engineering community. * Conformance with accepted best practices and operational procedures as defined by the engineering and operational communities. * Consideration of the technical stability and security of the domain name system and the Internet as a whole in light of the both the change introduced by VeriSign and the corresponding changes being introduced by others. * Current procedural and governance controls to assure review and analysis of changes to the critical components of the Internet. * Public confidence in the stability and reliable operation of the Internet. Security and stability is not limited to a narrow interpretation of the technical specifications of the protocol documents; it also includes engineering, operational, business, and policy issues. To gather information on security and stability implications, we invite inputs from all interested parties. Send inputs to: secsac-comments(a)icann.org Further, we will meet publicly in the Washington, D.C. area on October 7, 2003, for interested parties to present factual information relevant to the security and stability of the Internet. Details will be available shortly. Although we continue to gather inputs, there is already enough information to support the following opinions and recommendations. OPINIONS VeriSign's change appears to have considerably weakened the stability of the Internet, introduced ambiguous and inaccurate responses in the DNS, and has caused an escalating chain reaction of measures and countermeasures that contribute to further instability. VeriSign's change has substantially interfered with some number of existing services which depend on the accurate, stable, and reliable operation of the domain name system. * Many email configuration errors or temporary outages which were benign have become fatal now that the wildcards exist. * Anti-spam services relied on the RCODE 3 response to identify forged email originators. * In some environments the DNS is one of a sequence of lookup services. If one service fails the lookup application moves to the next service in search of the desired information. With this change the DNS lookup never fails and the desired information is never found. VeriSign's action has resulted in a wide variety of responses from ISPs, software vendors, and other interested parties, all intended to mitigate the effects of the change. The end result of such a series of changes and counterchanges adds complexity and reduces stability in the overall domain name system and the applications that use it. This sequence leads in exactly the wrong direction. Whenever possible, a system should be kept simple and easy to understand, with its architectural layers cleanly separated. We note that some networks and applications were performing similar services prior to VeriSign's change. In fact, some user applications and services worked differently depending on the network the user was using. However, VeriSign's change pushes this service to a much lower layer in the protocol stack and a much deeper place in the Internet's global infrastructure, which prevents the user from choosing what services to use and how to proceed when a query is made to a non-existent domain. RECOMMENDATIONS Recognizing the concerns about the wildcard service, we call on VeriSign to voluntarily suspend the service and participate in the various review processes now underway. We call on ICANN to examine the procedures for changes in service, including provisions to protect users from abrupt changes in service. We call on the IAB, the IETF, and the operational community to examine the specifications for the domain name system and consider whether additional specifications could improve the stability of the overall system. Most urgently, we ask for definitive recommendations regarding the use and operation of wildcard DNS names in TLDs and the root domain, so that actions and expectations can become universal. With respect to the broader architectural issues, we call on the technical community to clarify the role of error responses and on the separation of architectural layers, particularly and their interaction with security and stability. [1] Announcement of VeriSign change [2] Wall Street Journal report of VeriSign change [3] New York Times report of VeriSign change [4] RFC1035, Domain Names - Implementation and Specification

1 0

RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?
by Milton Mueller Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

Sounds like an acceptable plan. >>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> 09/21/03 08:50PM >>> I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed.

1 0

WHOIS Privacy Steering Group web page
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

[To: council(a)dnso.org] [To: liaison(a)dnso.org] The WHOIS Privacy Steering Group information to be on: http://www.gnso.icann.org at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/index.shtml GNSO Secretariat

1 0

ICANN Announcement; : Advisory Concerning VeriSign's Deployment of DNS Wildcard Service
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

[To: council(a)dnso.org] Please note the Posting ICANN made concerning the implementation of the wildcard service. http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Reminder: UDRP Top 5 issues
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

[To: council(a)dnso.org] REMINDER: As agreed in the last Council meeting August 14, 2003, each constituency should review the list and identify the top 5 issues of most importantance to the constituency to help guide the prioritisation of further policy development in the area of UDRP. The next GNSO Council meeting is on Thursday, 25 September. If possible could each constituency please let me have their top 5 on Wednesday midday. Thank you very much. GNSO Secretariat http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm (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: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

I am not sure why all the attack, but, as I said during the debate (in which I agreed with the Council to have 3 reps), I do not believe that the Board was arbitrary in deciding to have 2 members rather than 3. Remember, that is why we got rid of the Whereas clauses that were drafted for the resolution. Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, I did support the resolution. You and many others may disagree with what the Board did. That does not make what it did arbitrary. And it does not mean we should ignore the Bylaws because we disagree. I understand that it may be difficult, but these are the Bylaws we have to live by for the time being. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:32 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Jeff, this is interesting but not really helpful in addressing the concern which the consensus of the Council represents. Why are we not challenging the arbitrary nature of changing the bylaws in this nature, without a bottom up consensus from the affected party -- the Council? By law changes have to be challengeable as well...:-) The constituencies, other than the gTLD constituency are large and need the broad based representation which 3 reps provide. That may be the case in the future for the gTLD registries in the future. But, in any case, the consensus of the Council is clear, and I would think that you would want to support it. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:17 PM To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Actually, I believe Bruce's approach is the way we should approach this. Just because the Board has not responded to our resolution, does not mean (and call me optimistic) that the Board was ignoring us. As much as we may want the Bylaws to change, although we pass a resolution requesting a change, there is no requirement that the ICANN Board actually respond to such a resolution. On what basis would we have to file a reconsideration request. If I am correct, we would have to show that the Board's action of refusing our recommendation to change the Bylaws, was itself a violation of the current bylaws. In other words, I believe we would have to demonstrate that the Board, under the current bylaws, cannot refuse a request from us to change the Bylaws. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no way we can actually succeed in such a reconsideration request. I believe the way to proceed is to act as if the Bylaws are not going to change in accordance with our request. If they do, great, we will have our reserve. If the Board does not amend the bylaws, then we will have to accept that outcome and move on with our substantive business. In the meantime, I will alert my constituency and begin election proceedings. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:17 PM To: Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Bruce and fellow Councilors I disagree with this approach, which seems to be to say that it is acceptable for the Board to ignore the request from Council. Council should request that the Board acknowledge our resolution, and give an affirmative agreement to the extension which we requested to extend the change until after there is a assessment by Council, after a year of operation as the gNSO. What is the status of our resolution to the Board which laid out the Council's views? Finally, IF the board refuses to accept our recommendation, I believe that we should file a reconsideration request. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:50 PM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Hello Jeff, Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting. Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws: Article XX, section 5, clause 8: "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, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term." The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable. I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM To: 'council(a)dnso.org' Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? All, I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm) That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2 representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia meeting? In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council members. In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe the bylaws call for all new elections. Please advise. 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 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.

2 1

RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

Jeff, this is interesting but not really helpful in addressing the concern which the consensus of the Council represents. Why are we not challenging the arbitrary nature of changing the bylaws in this nature, without a bottom up consensus from the affected party -- the Council? By law changes have to be challengeable as well...:-) The constituencies, other than the gTLD constituency are large and need the broad based representation which 3 reps provide. That may be the case in the future for the gTLD registries in the future. But, in any case, the consensus of the Council is clear, and I would think that you would want to support it. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:17 PM To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Actually, I believe Bruce's approach is the way we should approach this. Just because the Board has not responded to our resolution, does not mean (and call me optimistic) that the Board was ignoring us. As much as we may want the Bylaws to change, although we pass a resolution requesting a change, there is no requirement that the ICANN Board actually respond to such a resolution. On what basis would we have to file a reconsideration request. If I am correct, we would have to show that the Board's action of refusing our recommendation to change the Bylaws, was itself a violation of the current bylaws. In other words, I believe we would have to demonstrate that the Board, under the current bylaws, cannot refuse a request from us to change the Bylaws. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no way we can actually succeed in such a reconsideration request. I believe the way to proceed is to act as if the Bylaws are not going to change in accordance with our request. If they do, great, we will have our reserve. If the Board does not amend the bylaws, then we will have to accept that outcome and move on with our substantive business. In the meantime, I will alert my constituency and begin election proceedings. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:17 PM To: Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Bruce and fellow Councilors I disagree with this approach, which seems to be to say that it is acceptable for the Board to ignore the request from Council. Council should request that the Board acknowledge our resolution, and give an affirmative agreement to the extension which we requested to extend the change until after there is a assessment by Council, after a year of operation as the gNSO. What is the status of our resolution to the Board which laid out the Council's views? Finally, IF the board refuses to accept our recommendation, I believe that we should file a reconsideration request. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:50 PM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Hello Jeff, Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting. Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws: Article XX, section 5, clause 8: "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, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term." The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable. I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM To: 'council(a)dnso.org' Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? All, I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm) That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2 representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia meeting? In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council members. In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe the bylaws call for all new elections. Please advise. 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 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] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

Actually, I believe Bruce's approach is the way we should approach this. Just because the Board has not responded to our resolution, does not mean (and call me optimistic) that the Board was ignoring us. As much as we may want the Bylaws to change, although we pass a resolution requesting a change, there is no requirement that the ICANN Board actually respond to such a resolution. On what basis would we have to file a reconsideration request. If I am correct, we would have to show that the Board's action of refusing our recommendation to change the Bylaws, was itself a violation of the current bylaws. In other words, I believe we would have to demonstrate that the Board, under the current bylaws, cannot refuse a request from us to change the Bylaws. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no way we can actually succeed in such a reconsideration request. I believe the way to proceed is to act as if the Bylaws are not going to change in accordance with our request. If they do, great, we will have our reserve. If the Board does not amend the bylaws, then we will have to accept that outcome and move on with our substantive business. In the meantime, I will alert my constituency and begin election proceedings. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:17 PM To: Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Bruce and fellow Councilors I disagree with this approach, which seems to be to say that it is acceptable for the Board to ignore the request from Council. Council should request that the Board acknowledge our resolution, and give an affirmative agreement to the extension which we requested to extend the change until after there is a assessment by Council, after a year of operation as the gNSO. What is the status of our resolution to the Board which laid out the Council's views? Finally, IF the board refuses to accept our recommendation, I believe that we should file a reconsideration request. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:50 PM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Hello Jeff, Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting. Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws: Article XX, section 5, clause 8: "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, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term." The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable. I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM To: 'council(a)dnso.org' Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? All, I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm) That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2 representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia meeting? In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council members. In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe the bylaws call for all new elections. Please advise. 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 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] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

Bruce and fellow Councilors I disagree with this approach, which seems to be to say that it is acceptable for the Board to ignore the request from Council. Council should request that the Board acknowledge our resolution, and give an affirmative agreement to the extension which we requested to extend the change until after there is a assessment by Council, after a year of operation as the gNSO. What is the status of our resolution to the Board which laid out the Council's views? Finally, IF the board refuses to accept our recommendation, I believe that we should file a reconsideration request. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:50 PM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Hello Jeff, Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting. Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws: Article XX, section 5, clause 8: "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, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term." The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable. I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM To: 'council(a)dnso.org' Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? All, I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm) That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2 representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia meeting? In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council members. In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe the bylaws call for all new elections. Please advise. 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 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] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

Hello Jeff, Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting. Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws: Article XX, section 5, clause 8: "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, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term." The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable. I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM To: 'council(a)dnso.org' Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? All, I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm) That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2 representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia meeting? In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council members. In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe the bylaws call for all new elections. Please advise. 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 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