January 2004 - council - lists.icann.org

Private initiative and regulatory bodies and the feeling of being scr*
by Marc Schneiders Jan. 9, 2004

Jan. 9, 2004

I just read a message to some other list (tucows registrar resellers) that says that NetSol (the registrar) will also delete IDN names as of February 28, 2004. (I guess they missed out on the extra day February has this year.) It seems this is about .com and .net names. One has to transfer them to another registrar, they say, or they die. Welcome to Oklahoma. I am now very mad. It is time ICANN acts up or it will lose goodwill altogether. Can individual registrars do this? ICANN accredited? Does that mean anything? You can read the message I refer to below. I am not sure it is proper to attach it, but I see no other way to give you the information. The archives require a password, I think. Marc Schneiders --- NCUC council member --- Another one concerning Multilingual Domains. "On February 28, 2004, Network Solutions, LLC will no longer offer or support Multilingual Domain Name registrations (MDNs). A list of your domain name registration(s) affected by this change is provided below. In order to keep your .COM and .NET MDNs registered to you, you must transfer them to another provider before February 28, 2004. If these MDNs are not transferred, they will be deleted from our database which will make them available for registration by anyone. Your MDNs will continue to be listed in your Network Solutions(R) account until you complete the transfer process or until we delete them on February 28, 2004. You do not need to renew your MDNs in order to process your transfer. Please be assured that these changes only apply to Multilingual Domain Names. Network Solutions will continue to support your other domain name registrations and services. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Support at mailto:customerservice@networksolutions.com. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Network Solutions(R) Customer Support Multilingual Domain Names with Network Solutions as of December 30, 2003: BQ--....COM ___________________________________________________________________ Please do not respond to this message. For inquiries, contact Customer Service at mailto:customerservice@networksolutions.com. (C) Copyright 2004 Network Solutions, LLC. All rights reserved." The Domain is still listed in race code in the nestol control panel but does not appear anymore in whois in race code. The whois output directly from netsol for the domain name in puny code looks like that (no owner info): Domain Name: XN--....COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.TOTALCHOICEHOSTING.COM Name Server: NS2.TOTALCHOICEHOSTING.COM Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Updated Date: 14-dec-2003 Creation Date: ..-aug-2003 Expiration Date: ..-aug-2005

2 2

Call for TOR change
by Grant Forsyth Jan. 9, 2004

Jan. 9, 2004

Dear Bruce , fellow Councillors and Barbara RE: Terms of Reference for Task Force on: Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. While we, the elected representatives of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC), recognise that the Draft TOR were agreed by Council on 2 December 2003 and have been put out for public consideration and that submissions closed on 28 December 2003, due to the holiday period the job of developing the BC initial position on the matter has only now brought to light an undesirable "narrowness" of the TOR. Specifically we consider that two of of the three aspects recommended to be considered "Out of Scope" should be included in the PDP consideration, namely: A) Changes to the nature of the agreements between ICANN and the registry operators B) Additional obligations on registry operators or gTLD sponsors beyond what is already specified in their existing agreements We would note that the PDP under consideration is not focused on any particular registry service, action, change in architecture or operation, but rather on developing a procedure for consideration of any such change. For such a procedure to have maximum usefulness it: - should not embody any issue specific constraint (such as potential changes that might also be considered in the future policy development associated with the review of new gTLDs (out of scope A); and - must be flexible and forward looking such that the procedure can deal with changes in circumstances, markets or technology innovation not previously foreseen and explicitly captured in wording of existing contracts (out of scope B) We do not envisage the removal of these current "Out-of-scope" constraints to have any great impact on the PDP process, the complexity of response to the identified four main tasks or the final overall policy recommendation. In fact, seeking to embody the current out-of-scope constraints is likely to lead to a more convoluted procedure. Hence, we seek an amendment to the current draft of the TOR by the removal of the first two "Out-of-scope" constraints. AND We erquest that this matter be included on the agenda of the next GNSO call, scheduled for 22 January. Sincerely Elected representatives of the BC Grant Forsyth Marilyn Cade Philip Sheppard

3 2

RE: Call for TOR change
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 8, 2004

Jan. 8, 2004

Hello Grant, I will include discussion of this proposed change in the terms of reference at the beginning of item 4 on the agenda for the meeting on 22 Jan 2004. Regards, Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 7:28 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; GNSO SECRETARIAT; council(a)gnso.icann.org; 'roseman(a)icann.org' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Marilyn Cade AT&T' Subject: Call for TOR change Dear Bruce , fellow Councillors and Barbara RE: Terms of Reference for Task Force on: Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. While we, the elected representatives of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC), recognise that the Draft TOR were agreed by Council on 2 December 2003 and have been put out for public consideration and that submissions closed on 28 December 2003, due to the holiday period the job of developing the BC initial position on the matter has only now brought to light an undesirable "narrowness" of the TOR. Specifically we consider that two of of the three aspects recommended to be considered "Out of Scope" should be included in the PDP consideration, namely: A) Changes to the nature of the agreements between ICANN and the registry operators B) Additional obligations on registry operators or gTLD sponsors beyond what is already specified in their existing agreements We would note that the PDP under consideration is not focused on any particular registry service, action, change in architecture or operation, but rather on developing a procedure for consideration of any such change. For such a procedure to have maximum usefulness it: - should not embody any issue specific constraint (such as potential changes that might also be considered in the future policy development associated with the review of new gTLDs (out of scope A); and - must be flexible and forward looking such that the procedure can deal with changes in circumstances, markets or technology innovation not previously foreseen and explicitly captured in wording of existing contracts (out of scope B) We do not envisage the removal of these current "Out-of-scope" constraints to have any great impact on the PDP process, the complexity of response to the identified four main tasks or the final overall policy recommendation. In fact, seeking to embody the current out-of-scope constraints is likely to lead to a more convoluted procedure. Hence, we seek an amendment to the current draft of the TOR by the removal of the first two "Out-of-scope" constraints. AND We erquest that this matter be included on the agenda of the next GNSO call, scheduled for 22 January. Sincerely Elected representatives of the BC Grant Forsyth Marilyn Cade Philip Sheppard

1 0

PIR and stability and consumer protection?
by Marc Schneiders Jan. 8, 2004

Jan. 8, 2004

Perhaps more than a footnote to the present discussion of "Approval process for gtld service changes": PIR is going to delete all multilingual domains (also called IDN) on February 2004. I learned about this through the newsletter of a German registrar (quote below). I have protested earlier about the silent end to resolution (working DNS) of these domains in March 2003. PIR was not very responsive, to put it mildly. Now again there will be a secret change to these domains. They will quietly disappear. I see no message about it on the PIR website. I am of the opinion that this is unacceptable in several respects: 1. Registrants are not notified. I have such a domain and I heard nothing. 2. It is done in a most intransparent, even secret manner. 3. It is related to the redelegation of a TLD. Will the same thing happen in 2005 with .NET? 4. Multilingual domains were a private initiative of Verisign, not approved by ICANN, but neither did ICANN tell Verisign not to do it. In this context it is most relevant for the "approval process" topic. 5. PIR kills .ORG multilinguals for technical reasons, it says (well the German text below does). At the same time Afilias (which runs .ORG technically) is introducing multilingual .INFO domains. Can anyone explain this to me, please? >From newsletter of dd24.net: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIR wird multilinguale .ORG Domains nun doch löschen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nach einer anders lautenden Meldung im November hat uns das kürzlich ernannte Zentralregister für .ORG Domains, Public Interest Registry (PIR), jetzt darüber informiert, dass die Registrierungen der nach dem ehemaligen "RACE-Verfahren" eingetragenen multilingualen .ORG Domains (also Domains mit Umlauten bzw. Sonderzeichen) doch nicht länger kostenlos verlängert werden. Stattdessen hat sich PIR für eine Löschung aller multilingualen .ORG Domains zum 1. Februar 2004 entschieden. Gründe für diese Entscheidung sind insbesondere die technischen Schwierigkeiten und Unsicherheiten der zukünftigen Umwandlung der bereits registrierten Domains in das neue "Punycode-Verfahren". Nun muss zunächst einmal geklärt werden, auf welche Weise eine Neueinführung multilingualer .ORG Domains gemäß des allgemeinen Standarts zukünftig überhaupt durchgeführt werden soll. Wir sind gespannt... Quelle: PIR

1 0

REMINDER CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS due on 12 JANUARY 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Jan. 7, 2004

Jan. 7, 2004

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] REMINDER CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS due on 12 JANUARY 2004 Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry ("Approval process for gtld service changes") http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/tor-revised.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-02dec03.shtml The GNSO Council at the December 2 teleconference took the decision to undertake the policy development process as a committee as a whole and follow the policy development process with the requirements of public notice in compliance with the ICANN bylaws and procedure when no task force is formed. The Public Comment Period closed on December 28 2003. Comments received: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/tor-reg/msg00002.html http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/tor-reg/msg00003.html Please submit your statements to the ICANN Staff Manager, Barbara Roseman: roseman(a)icann.org as soon as possible. Thank you very much. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Draft agenda for Council meeting on 22 Jan 2004
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2004

Jan. 6, 2004

Hello All, Below is a draft agenda for the teleconference scheduled for 22 Jan 2004. This call will be scheduled for UTC 1900. (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes of last meeting - 18 Dec 2003 - Actions arising Item 2: Approve timelines for WHOIS task forces (30 mins) Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs: Brian Darville, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan Approve timelines for: Submission of constituency statements Distribute Preliminary Task Force Report Publish Task Force Report (Initial Report) Publish Final Report Item 3: Discuss constituency statements on the Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry [45 mins] - the intent of this discussion is to provide intput ot he Staff Manager to allow production of a Preliminary Report. Item 4: Planning for ICANN meeting in Rome [20 mins] - proposed four PDP workshops - Council breakfast and invitation to Board - Council meeting and invitation to Board Item 5: WSIS [15 mins] - Marilyn Cade to report on outcomes of WSIS and any recommendations for action by ICANN Item 6: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

GNSO Council draft minutes December 18, 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Jan. 5, 2004

Jan. 5, 2004

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find attached and in text version the GNSO Council draft minutes of the teleconference held on December 18, 2003. If you would like any changes made please let me know. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat 18 December 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Antonio Harris Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Antonio Harris Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent, Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C.- absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk Woo Alick Wilson Demi Getschko - absent Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent 12 Council Members Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President of Business Operations Barbara Roseman - Staff Manager Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call. Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 recording Quorum present at 12:15 UTC, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda Item 2: Summary of last meetings: November 20, 2003 December 2, 2003 Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the November 20, 2003 minutes. The motion was carried. Alick Wilson and Marilyn Cade abstained (absent at the meeting) Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the December 2, 2003 minutes. The motion was carried. Tom Keller abstained. (absent at the meeting) Decision 1: Minutes of the November 20 and December 2 meetings adopted. Item 3: Update from WHOIS task forces - report on appointments of chairs and timelines for work program Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes - chair - Jeff Neuman Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed - chair - Jordyn Buchanan Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair - Brian Darville Jeff Neuman, WHOIS Task Force 1 chair, reported that the task was to collect information on the needs and justifications for non-marketing uses of WHOIS information and to look at the measures that are already in place or being developed to prevent data mining. In order to do this information, already available from the WHOIS workshops, surveys and former studies was being collected by the ICANN staff. A further task was the identification of "non-marketing groups" and soliciting their input on the needs and justification for the non-marketing uses of WHOIS data. Jeff Neuman requested that the GNSO Council accept the proposed time line stating that it was particularly aggressive to keep within the policy development process timelines and complete a Final Report. by March 1, 2004 for the ICANN Meeting in Rome.: 1) December 23, 2003: Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS workshop materials related to our specific issues and identification of non-marketing groups that use Whois Data. 2) January 5, 2004: First draft of Notice to non-marketing groups soliciting input on Task Force issues due to the Task Force 3) January 6, 2004: First draft of "needs and justifications" chart due (compiled from pre-existing data) 4) January 12, 2004: Send out Notice to non-marketing groups on "needs and justifications" for Whois data and for soliciting comments on "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining" 5) January 26, 2004: Due date for comments from "non-marketing groups" and "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining" 6) February 1, 2004: Constituency Statements due 7) February 9, 2004: Preliminary data due from ICANN, Registries and Registrars on "changes to agreements" to implement technical measures 8) March 1, 2004: Completion of a Final Report. The ICANN Rome meeting being the deadline for the preliminary report. Bruce Tonkin asked for clarification on "preliminary report", defined in the policy development process as the collection of constituency statements, information and public comments which were then discussed and later formed the task force report that was put out for public comment for a period of 20 days. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the timeline for the WHOIS task force I, which was an extension from the policy development process timeline be presented to the ICANN Board for approval. Ken Stubbs commented that time lines were too aggressive with the holiday period. Brian Darville, WHOIS Task Force 3 chair, reported that task force 3 was looking at current techniques that registrars are using to verify their WHOIS data. Questions would be sent to the Registrars on January 5 and they would have till January 15 to respond as that information would be a driver for other information needed. A preliminary report was planned for March 16, just after the ICANN Rome meeting. Kurt Pritz commented that additional data gathering time would be required to receive all the registrar responses. Bruce Tonkin suggested a two pronged approach for gathering the registrar's data, sending question to individual registrars and to the registrar's constituency. Kurt Pritz asked whether a statistical sample of data gathering was possible, to which Bruce Tonkin, from a registrars point of view, responded that it would depend on the questions asked. Marilyn Cade commented that there would be multiple and overlapping requests for data to ccTLDs, and third parties and as far as possible these should be coordinated. Bruce Tonkin made the distinction between collecting opinions and data collection and commented that the policy development process did not make provision for data collection. Past practice proved that opinions were better informed if they were based on shared data. Bruce Tonkin proposed working with the GNSO Secretariat and ICANN staff to produce a spreadsheet of the policy development process based on the milestones in the ICANN bylaws and draw a comparison with the dates that were proposed by the 3 task forces. It would indicate where activities needed to be synchronized and would serve to make a joint statement to the ICANN Board where extra time was needed in the ICANN community. Bruce Tonkin explained that the GNSO Council would formally have to vote on the recommendation for an extension of time and the ICANN Board would have to approve it as is specified in the ICANN bylaws: Section 7, Task Forces (b) 2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to extend the timeline; Marilyn Cade commented on a resource issue that affected the timing and suggested that appointing an expert within the task force or retaining a neutral person to do data gathering could be very helpful to the task force process. Bottlenecks could be created in the timing as too much work would depend on one person. The task forces should come up with a relatively consistent timeframe, as the GNSO council would still have to unify policy changes after the task force work was completed. Kurt Pritz responded that the subject of hiring experts had been discussed and would be approached when statements of work were specifically set out. Tom Keller expressed concern that appointing such a person could lead to subjective data gathering. Jordyn Buchanan remarked that given the alignment in dates for task force 2 and 3 there could be an increased burden on ICANN staff and constituencies towards the phase of the final report. Bruce Tonkin commented that a preliminary or draft report, should be completed by the ICANN Rome meeting. He suggested deferring the signing off date on a set of time lines for the 3 task forces until the GNSO Council meeting in January when the Council decision could be forwarded to the Board for approval In the mean time, in consultation with the task forces, the GNSO Secretariat and the ICANN staff he suggested doing a reiteration of timeframes that looked at sufficient time for data collection, ensuring input at the Rome meeting, and coordinating the questionnaire distribution. Bruce Tonkin stated that clarification had been sought on the role of alternates in participation on task force calls. At its meeting on 20 November, the GNSO Council decided: "That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views." Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following approach: "We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational interest. The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and analyzing information. Many of the alternates, some of whom have significant ICANN experience and historical knowledge, can contribute significantly in furthering the Task Force's work by simply providing historical information or indicating the availability of other information germane to the issues the Task Force is addressing. Of course, under no circumstances will any alternate be allowed to represent the views of the constituency or provide the vote of any constituency (unless the designated representative is absent on the call)." Philip Sheppard suggested that any constituency with more than one representative could decide for a particular call to designate the alternative as spokesman if that person had particular expertise to offer. It could be left to the discretion of the task force chair to decide which information should be accepted and to stop abuse of multiple interventions. Marilyn Cade added that in previous task forces, the Transfers and WHOIS, where there had been several representatives from one constituency, different people could contribute to the work of the task force but only one person was allowed to speak on a constituency view point and only one person was allowed to vote. Jeff Neuman suggested that a directive from the GNSO Council would be useful for the future. Bruce Tonkin proposed posting a directive to Council and the task forces making the distinction between an opinion, where there should be only one per constituency and factual information where the task force chair exercises discretion. . There was general agreement to this approach. Marc Schneiders commented that fact and opinion were not always clearly defined. Bruce Tonkin responded that if a constituency had an issue with participation by another constituency they could raise it with the chair of the task force, and if the issue could not be resolved, the constituency could raise the issue with the Council. Elisabeth Porteneuve, as a liaison from the ccTLD group, announced that WHOIS and WHOIS-related services would be dealt with at the next CENTR General Assembly, in mid-February 2004 in Salzbourg. The CENTR Secretariat was about to start the research and a survey would take place. If the GNSO Council or Whois TF 3 had specific questions on Whois data accuracy, they should be sent to the secretariat who would be happy to include them in CENTR survey. The CENTR plans to start the survey probably by 16 January, and close it two weeks later. An additional two weeks are necessary to write the report. The collected information/results will be available for the Salzburg meeting. Item 4: Preliminary views from constituencies on the Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry - the intent of this discussion is to share any preliminary views from constituencies as they develop their constituency statements Item The GNSO secretariat gave an update on the person for each constituency coordinating the constituency statements: Grant Forsyth - for the Commercial & Business users constituency. Antonio Harris for the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency Jordyn Buchanan for the gTLD registries constituency J. Scott Evans for Intellectual Property Interests constituency Marc Schneiders for the Non Commercial users constituency Registrars constituency - not certain All constituencies reported that it was probable the deadline of 12 January would be met for constituency statements. The constituency statements would then be collated into a single document. Bruce Tonkin proposed calling a GNSO Council meeting toward the end of January to conclude an initial report. Barbara Roseman commented that information should be solicited from other supporting organizations or advisory committees, to which Marilyn Cade added the ccNSO. Bruce Tonkin, as the GNSO Council chair, proposed formally requesting input from the Security Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization, and the At Large Advisory Committee and the ccNSO. Item 5 Any Other Business Philip Sheppard raised the need, especially for communication purposes, to have a short title for: The Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. Barbara Roseman proposed working on a short title for communications. Philip Sheppard, who had been involved in preparing the original policy development process, proposed a guide for future Issues Reports in the light of experience that had been gained along the process. Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report -version 1 Background The staff manager's issue report is the precursor to the GNSO policy development process (PDP). The PDP is relatively new and there has been a high degree of variation in the quality, length and usefulness of the issues reports so far. This is not surprising since Council and staff are still developing procedures. Therefore, Council proposes guidelines to provide structure for future staff manager issue reports. The goal is to ensure that the materials are directly useful to the work of the Council. Objective An issue report has three objectives: - Relevance: to confirm an issue is within ICANN's mission, - Description: to explain what the issue is, who it affects, what support there is to address the issue, - Recommendation: to recommend whether or not the GNSO should start a PDP. The by-laws lay down a structure as to how the above objectives may be met. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA What SHOULD NOT be in the issues report The report has a short time frame (15 calendar days). This tells us that it is NOT intended to contain: - options for solutions, - options for how the Council may proceed, - responses to a formal consultation of constituencies (this comes later if the PDP goes ahead), - nor should it be necessary to supplement it with documents such as FAQs. What SHOULD the issues report look like? It should be the primary document needed for the Council to make a decision whether to proceed or not with a PDP. It should include links to existing documents that provide directly relevant background. The report must be clear in its recommendation to Council. Past reports have not had this clarity and the GNSO chairman has been obliged to draft terms of reference for a Council WG in an attempt to provide such clarity. It would be more appropriate if the report itself proposed such terms of reference (recognising that Council may choose to modify them). Therefore all future issues reports should contain: - proposed terms of reference for a Council working group drafted in a practical and manageable way and reflecting a possible priority of sub-issues. The length of an issues report will be guided by the topic. Some issues reports may be very short; others may be lengthier but none need be long. Summary of guidelines The issue report should: 1. Describe an issue but NOT explore options. 2. Provide directly relevant background and links. 3. Recommend whether to proceed or not. 4. Propose terms of reference for a Council WG. 5. Be provided to Council within the 15 day time frame laid out in the by- Bruce Tonkin thanked Philip Sheppard for the contribution and suggested that Council members read the document which would be discussed at a later GNSO Council meeting. Marilyn Cade commented to Kurt Pritz on the change in the schedule for the Rome meeting which could present an imposition on the community that would like to be there during the whole process. Kurt Pritz responded that there had been much discussion on the issue and that community feedback was useful. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending and wished everyone a happy holiday season. The meeting ended: 13:23 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference: TBD see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

1 0

RE: [council] Rome meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 5, 2004

Jan. 5, 2004

Hello Marilyn, > > 1. As we are beginning to plan for the Rome ICANN meeting, > I'd like to suggest that Council consider the time frame for > our meeting and our working agenda and adjust, IF needed, to > ensure that we have time to address in detail the issues on > our agenda. At our last meeting in Carthage, we had a number > of issues to discuss and needed to extend our meeting > accordingly. Fortunately, we were able to do so. However, we > may not always be so fortunate with availability of rooms, > staff, bridge, remote participants availability. I see from the preliminary planning for the ICANN meeting that 2 March 2004 is for constituency meetings 3 March 2004 is for the GNSO Council 4 March 2004 is for the public forum I suggest we project manage the whole day on 3 March 2004 as follows: Morning - 4 parallel sessions on the 4 PDPs (main policy work) - these will be public workshops managed by each task force/council - the objective will be to gain public input as well as seek to reach consensus positions Afternoon - Council meeting (mostly administrative) I am tempted to devote the whole day of 3 March on the policy workshops, and delay the council meeting until the morning of 4 March 2004. I can't think of too many issues before the Board at present that would justify a day long public forum, and I think the Council could benefit from having more time prior to the actual meeting workshopping some of the policy issues. Regards, Bruce

1 0

GNSO Council meeting dates
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 5, 2004

Jan. 5, 2004

Hello Glen, Lets set up some basic dates for GNSO teleconferences for 2004 as follows: 22 Jan 2004 5 Feb 2004 19 Feb 2004 3 March 2004 (Rome) Regards, Bruce

1 0

Policy development timelines for task forces
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 5, 2004

Jan. 5, 2004

Hello All, We are currently running 4 PDPs in parallel. Attached is a table in Microsoft Excel format that sets out: (1) The PDP milestones obtained from the bylaws (2) The dates required in the bylaws referenced to the date when the council requested an issues report for each PDP (3) Revised dates (either relative to when various reports have actually been complete, or as approved by Council) (4) Actual dates The table will be useful in assessing how realistic the timelines in the bylaws actually are based on experience, and also in scheduling the activities of the Council. I would like each task force chair to update the "revised" dates for the major PDP milestones, and fill in their own milestones to assist cooperation between the task forces. I have attempted to fill out the table for task force 1 based on their list of milestones. This will then allow the council to reach agreement on the timelines for the task forces at the next Council meeting and then subsequently present this to the ICANN Board for their endorsement. The key dates that need to be approved by Council and if necessary by the Board are: Submission of constituency statements Distribute Preliminary Task Force Report Publish Task Force Report (Initial Report) Publish Final Report My recommendation for each PDP is to attempt to create at least a "Preliminary Task Force Report" containing the constituency statements, initial public comments, and other information that has been collected at least 7 days prior to the Rome meeting (2 March 2004). This report need not contain the actual policy recommendations, but will form a useful basis to run focussed workshops during the Rome meeting to attempt to reach a consensus to create a task force report. This also means that all constituency statements and data collection should be complete by mid February 04. We should cordinate with ICANN staff to ensure that we can schedule open workshops with meeting rooms for each of the PDPs during the Rome meeting. I expect that a significant amount of time will be needed between the publication of the preliminary task force report documenting the postiions, and the actual policy recommendations. Overall for each of the PDP activities we should aim for the Council to approval new policies by the end of May, well in advance of the ICANN meeting in early July 2004. This will allow the Board sufficient time to review and approve the policy recommendations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0