April 2004 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN meetings in Kuala Lumpur information
by GNSO SECRETARIAT April 18, 2004

April 18, 2004

[To:council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To:liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Please see the details for the ICANN meetings in Kuala Lumpur at: http://www.icann.org/meetings/kualalumpur/index.html GNSO Secretariat

1 0

ICANN job announcements
by GNSO SECRETARIAT April 6, 2004

April 6, 2004

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Calls for Proposals to Host Meetings in 2005 and 2006 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05apr04.htm ICANN announces new staff opportunities http://www.icann.org/general/jobs.htm 03 April 2004 - ICANN has begun active recruiting for two staff positions - Webmaster and and Chief Registrar Liaision. Recruiting continues for two additional positions, Ombudsman and System Administration Engineer. Job descriptions for all four positions can be found on ICANN's website at http://www.icann.org/general/jobs.htm. ICANN seeks to build a diverse, international staff by hiring the most qualified candidates available for the staff openings. Interested individuals should send their cv/resume and a cover letter to opportunities[at]icann.org. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Questions for General Counsel's office from GNSO
by GNSO SECRETARIAT April 6, 2004

April 6, 2004

Posted as requested by Barbara Roseman, ICANN Staff Manager GNSO Secretariat John and Dan, The GNSO Council working as the task force on the Approval Process for New or Changed Registry Services has developed a process flow that outlines the key decisions and processes involved in evaluating proposed changes to Registry services. These can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/approval-process-24mar04.pdf, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/quick-look-24mar04.pdf, and http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/detailed-review-24mar04.pdf. These are some of the questions that the task force has developed in their discussions. They fall into a few broad categories: 1) Approval of change requirements a) Do all changes that require approval require Board approval? b) If there are situations that do not require Board approval, are those clearly defined? 2) Criteria of evaluation a) Which of the broad criteria identified by the task force fall within ICANN's purview as determined by ICANN's Mission, Bylaws, and relevant contracts? b) How can these broad criteria be most usefully defined for ICANN staff to use in the approval process? (Bruce has suggested that I prepare a draft of how staff would like to see these criteria applied as elements of the "quick look" and "detailed look" processes. This is being prepared.) The list of criteria broadly outlined by the taskforce includes: Adherence to standards: - Does it comply with Internet standards or de-facto standards - Does it require open or closed standards to use - Consistency with the end-to-end Internet protocol principle (= de-facto nature) - Does it require users to use a closed standard software Security and stability - Does it disrupt the Internet - Does it affect other protocols - Does it cause cost at the edge - Could it be offered closer to the edge of the Internet - Are the effects to the users at large acceptable - Do overall benefits to the community outweigh any negative impact - Predictability, do we understand how it will affect applications and users, and how it affects stability - Reliability - Is the change reversible, what is the cost of reversing Impact on third parties - Consequences of third party reaction - Does it affect rights of stakeholders - e.g privacy, competition rights - Does it affect all users without choice - Does it change expectations of users - Does it only affect the registrant of the stld versus users of the stld - Could it harm legitimate interests (e.g intellectual property) - What is the cost of failure to third parties (impacted stakeholders) - Does it cause legal conflicts (e.g with local laws relating to disclosure of personal information) Degree of community support - Whether the service has been approved by sponsors community Market forces - Can the market measure whether good/bad idea, is there choice - Does size matter (market power) - competition analysis 3) Appeals process a) Are the existing appeals processes defined in the Bylaws sufficient to address the issues likely to arise during appeals related to the approval process (Reconsideration, IRP)? In which instances (as outlined in the process flow) would an appellant use Reconsideration as opposed to the IRP? b) In Reconsideration (Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2) while there is a defined period for determining whether to proceed with Reconsideration (30 days), there is no defined time for the work of the Reconsideration Committee once they have taken up an issue for review. Would it be possible to write specific timelines into either the Reconsideration process or the Approval process for Reconsideration appeals relating to the approval of new/changed registry services to facilitate timely evaluation of proposals? c) If the existing review processes are not appropriate for use in relation to the approval process, how should a new appeals process be developed?

1 0

Constituency statements and Preliminary report deadlines extended, April 16,May 6
by GNSO SECRETARIAT April 2, 2004

April 2, 2004

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To DOW1tf[at]gnso.icann.org;DOW2tf[at]gnso.icann.org;DOW3tf[at]gnso.icann.org; At the GNSO Council teleconference, held on April 1/2, 2004 a motion was approved extending the deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces to APRIL 16 and extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to MAY 6. The constituency statements should ideally be consistent with the ICANN bylaws - GNSO Policy-Development Process. http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-26jun03.htm#AnnexA Section 7, d. Collection of Information. 1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference 1/2 April, MP3 recording
by GNSO SECRETARIAT April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on April 1/2, 2004 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20040401.mp3 Happy listening! GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org

1 0

Appointment of Marie Zitkova as Chair of the Registry Constituency; Jeff Neuman as Alternate Chair
by Philip Colebrook April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

Dear Council Members, I would like to inform you that Marie Zitkova (.aero) was yesterday (31 March 2004) appointed Chair of the Registry Constituency. Jeff Neuman (.biz) was appointed Alternate Chair. Regards, Philip Colebrook Legal and Compliance Officer The Global Name Registry, Limited 240 East India Dock House East India Dock Road London E14 9YY Land: +44 (0)20 7531 4880 Cell: +44 (0)77 3966 3383 Fax: +44 (0)20 7519 6199 philip(a)colebrook.name www.name ============================================================ Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary Information and is made available to you because of your interest in or affiliation with our company. This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for disclosure to other parties.

1 0

Update on ICANN staff implementation of Transfers Policy
by Bruce Tonkin April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

Hello All, Note the update on the work of ICANN to implement the transfer policy approved by the ICANN Board in April 2003. See: http://www.icann.org/transfers/index.html There is a also a recent letter referenced from that page from Network Solutions (an ICANN accredited registrar) speaking against the implementation of the policy. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

ICANN Report on Whois Data Problem Report System
by Bruce Tonkin April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

Hello All, The following report provided by ICANN may be useful with respect to the WHOIS policy development work: http://www.icann.org/whois/WDPRS-report-final.pdf Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Letter from Paul Verhoef to GNSO Council with request for policy work on .net
by Bruce Tonkin April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

Hello All, Attached in PDF format is a letter from Paul Verhoef, Vice President, Policy Development Support of ICANN to the GNSO Council with a formal request for guidance from the GNSO concerning the criteria for designating a successor operator for .net. There is also a request for a timeline for completing this work. I have requested that ICANN staff be available for answering any questions in relation to this letter during our call in 20 hours time. See below for plain text version of the letter. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Bruce Tonkin, Chair ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization Council Re: Policy Advice Concerning the Designation of a Successor Operator for .net Dear Bruce, At its meeting in Rome, Italy, on 6 March 2004, ICANN's Board of Directors adopted the following resolution numbered 04.18: ".net Registry Agreement Expiration Date and Initial Procedure for Designating Successor Registry Operator Whereas, Section 5.1 of the .net Registry Agreement entered into between ICANN and VeriSign on 25 May 2001 provides that the agreement will expire no later than 30 June 2005 <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-net-25may01.htm>; Whereas, Section 5.2 of the .net Registry Agreement obligates ICANN to adopt an open, transparent procedure for designating a successor Registry Operator by no later than one year prior to the end of the agreement, which would be 30 June 2004; Resolved, [04.18] that in order to prepare for the designation of a transparent procedure by 30 June 2004, the Board authorizes the President to take steps to initiate the process as specified in Section 5.2 of the .net Registry Agreement for designating a successor operator for the .net registry, including referrals and requests for advice to the GNSO and other relevant committees and organizations as appropriate." As indicated in the text of the resolution, ICANN is taking steps to initiate the process for designating a successor operator for the .net registry. This letter is a formal request for guidance from the GNSO concerning the criteria for designating a successor operator for .net. Specifically, §5.2.4 of the .net Registry Agreement (below) identifies certain criteria to be taken into account in the selection of a successor. That paragraph also calls for the establishment of a consensus policy regarding the identification and definition of these criteria. Accordingly, the GNSO Council is requested to issue a consensus statement defining criteria and conditions to be applied in the selection of a successor registry operator. In developing the scope of its recommendations, the GNSO should be guided by the example criteria listed in para. 5.2.4, below, e.g. a balancing of: stability of the Internet, promotion of competition, consumer choice, functional capabilities, performance specifications, commercial terms, relevant experience, and the demonstrated capability to manage similar databases at the required scale. For your reference, the following is the complete text of §5.2 of the current .net Registry Agreement, which specifies the "procedure for subsequent agreement": "5.2 Procedure for Subsequent Agreement. 5.2.1 Not later than one year prior to the end of the term of this Agreement, ICANN shall, in accordance with Section 2.1, adopt an open, transparent procedure for designating a successor Registry Operator. The requirement that this procedure be opened one year prior to the end of the Agreement shall be waived in the event that the Agreement is terminated prior to its expiration. 5.2.2 Registry Operator or its assignee shall be eligible to serve as the successor Registry Operator and neither the procedure established in accordance with subsection 5.2.1 nor the fact that Registry Operator is the incumbent shall disadvantage Registry Operator in comparison to other entities seeking to serve as the successor Registry. 5.2.3 If Registry Operator or its assignee is not designated as the successor Registry Operator, Registry Operator or its assignee shall cooperate with ICANN and with the successor Registry Operator in order to facilitate the smooth transition of operation of the registry to successor Registry Operator. Such cooperation shall include the timely transfer to the successor Registry Operator of an electronic copy of the Registry Database and of a full specification of the format of the data. 5.2.4 ICANN shall select as the successor Registry Operator the eligible party that it reasonably determines is best qualified to perform the registry function under terms and conditions developed pursuant to Subsection 4.3 of this Agreement, taking into account all factors relevant to the stability of the Internet, promotion of competition, and maximization of consumer choice, including without limitation: functional capabilities and performance specifications proposed by the eligible party for its operation of the registry, the price at which registry services are proposed to be provided by the party, the relevant experience of the party, and the demonstrated ability of the party to manage domain name or similar databases at the required scale. 5.2.5 In the event that a party other than Registry Operator or its assignee is designated as the successor Registry Operator, Registry Operator shall have the right to challenge the reasonableness of ICANN's failure to designate Registry Operator or its assignee as the successor Registry Operator pursuant to Section 5.9 below. Any such challenge must be filed within 10 business days following any such designation, and shall be decided on a schedule that will produce a final decision no later than 60 days following any such challenge." As an additional reference point, the GNSO may want to consider the work of the DNSO with respect to the reassignment of the .org registry. On 4 June 2001, at its meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, ICANN's Board referred to the Names Council for its consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the operation of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity. The DNSO Council responded by forming a task force to study the issue and prepare a report. On 17 January 2002, the DNSO Council adopted the "Report of the Dot Org Task Force", which ICANN used as the basis for the procedure for designating a successor operator for .org adopted at the 14 March 2002 Board meeting in Accra, Ghana <http://www.icann.org/accra/org-topic.htm>. Additional background on the .org reassignment (to Public Interest Registry) is available at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/>. I have noted that the Council has already taken the proactive step of placing this issue on its agenda for its next meeting (1 April 2004). In order to facilitate further planning for the procedure for designating the successor operator, I would very much appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience regarding your tentative timeline for the completion of your policy process on this issue. Thank you very much for your anticipated further cooperation in this matter. Best regards, Paul Verhoef Vice President, Policy Development Support ICANN

1 0