May 2004 - council - lists.icann.org

Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004?
by Bruce Tonkin May 31, 2004

May 31, 2004

Hello All, The next Council meeting was scheduled for 10 June 2004. I will not be available for the next 2 weeks, so I would like to request that the meeting be re-scheduled for Wednesday 16 June 2004: 5:00 am LA, 8:00 am Washington, 12:00 UTC, 10:00 pm Melbourne Thanks, Bruce Tonkin

6 5

Whois Task Forces 1, 2 & 3 Preliminary reports: Public Comment period open till 17 JUNE
by GNSO SECRETARIAT May 30, 2004

May 30, 2004

[To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org; announce(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org] GNSO Council Whois Task Forces 1, 2 & 3 have issued Preliminary reports and invited public comment on them: First 20-day Public Comment Period begins on 28 May 2004, ends on 17 June 2004 at 00:00 UTC. Whois Task Force 1 Preliminary report can be viewed here. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois%20TF%201%20-%20Preliminary% 20Report%20V2.%201.0.pdf Comments for the Whois Task Force 1 Preliminary Report can be submitted to: whois-tf1-report-comments(a)gnso.icann.org. The archive of comments for this report is available at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf1-report-comments. Whois Task Force 2 Preliminary report can be viewed here. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF2%20Initial%20Report3.pdf Comments for the Whois Task Force 2 Preliminary Report can be submitted to: whois-tf2-report-comments(a)gnso.icann.org. The archive of comments for this report is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf2-report-comments. Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary report can be viewed here. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF3PreliminaryWithRCMR1.pdf Comments for the Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary Report can be submitted to: whois-tf3-report-comments(a)gnso.icann.org. The archive of comments for this report is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf3-report-comments. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

.net Draft Report open for 20-day Public Comment
by GNSO SECRETARIAT May 30, 2004

May 30, 2004

[To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org; announce(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org] Draft Criteria for .net First 20-day Public Comment Period begins on 28 May 2004 ends on 18 June 2004 at 00:00 UTC The initial draft report from the GNSO subcommittee can be viewed here. http://www.icann.org/tlds/dotnet-reassignment/Dot%20net%20committee%20v6.pdf Please send comments to: dotnet-criteria(a)icann.org comment archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/dotnet-criteria/ GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004?
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com May 29, 2004

May 29, 2004

Bruce I will not be able to make this meeting as I'm due to be flying to Nice at that time. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 28 May 2004 10:31 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004? Hello All, The next Council meeting was scheduled for 10 June 2004. I will not be available for the next 2 weeks, so I would like to request that the meeting be re-scheduled for Wednesday 16 June 2004: 5:00 am LA, 8:00 am Washington, 12:00 UTC, 10:00 pm Melbourne Thanks, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004?
by Niklas_Lagergren＠mpaa.org May 28, 2004

May 28, 2004

16 June works for me. Cheers - Niklas > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] > Sent: vendredi 28 mai 2004 11:31 > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004? > > > Hello All, > > The next Council meeting was scheduled for 10 June 2004. > > I will not be available for the next 2 weeks, so I would like > to request > that the meeting be re-scheduled for Wednesday 16 June 2004: > 5:00 am LA, 8:00 am Washington, 12:00 UTC, 10:00 pm Melbourne > > Thanks, > Bruce Tonkin > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Voting rules for Task forces
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP May 28, 2004

May 28, 2004

Thanks, Bruce, for undertaking working with ICANN staff to pull together this clarification of voting rules. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 4:46 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: dow3tf(a)gnso.icann.org; dow2tf(a)gnso.icann.org; dow1tf(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Voting rules for Task forces Hello All, I have consulted with the ICANN General Counsel, in response to questions about who can vote and how votes are counted for the task forces. >From Annex A: section 5 (a): http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA "Upon voting to appoint a task force, the Council shall invite each of the constituencies of the GNSO to appoint one individual to participate in the task force. Additionally, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. (Each task force member is referred to in this Annex as a "Representative" and collectively, the "Representatives"). The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate." With respect to voting on a task force, each of the constituencies and each of the appointed outside advisors may vote on any issue. Note that with respect to the WHOIS task forces, the 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." With respect to WHOIS task force 2, Amadeu Abril I Abril was appointed by Council in the meeting of 20 November 2002 as an outside advisor. See minutes: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml Thus WHOIS task force 2 has a total of 7 votes. Amadeu has one vote, and each of the constituencies has one vote. With respect to the other task forces, there are a total of 6 votes (one per constituency). A task force may use discretion as to when to hold votes on an issue - and in many cases such votes can be used to indicate support for/against a particular proposal as part of the process of developing a consensus position. These votes are often called "straw" votes in other forums. The final task force report should contain a clear statement of any supermajority vote position of the task force on any issue. When a supermajority vote is not reached, a clear statement of all constituency positions espoused by task force members should be included. Note that with respect to advice from an outside advisor in a final report - the advice should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' qualifications and relevant experience and potential conflicts of interest. Liaisons from advisory committees such as ALAC, GAC, and Security and Stability, that may attend task force meetings and participate on mailing lists, do not have a vote. The liaisons may report on the work being undertaken within those committees that is relevant to the task force, and back to the committees on the work being undertaken in the task force (ie the role is liaising between the two independent groups) . The Advisory Committees report their feedback with respect to a new GNSO policy, directly to the Board (presumably as part of the public comment process prior to the ICANN Board meeting to consider the new policy). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004?
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP May 28, 2004

May 28, 2004

I can participate on 6/16. Marilyn S. Cade AT&T Law & Government Affairs 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N Washington, DC 20036 202-457-2106v 281-664-9731 e-fax 202-360-1196 c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:31 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Date/time of next Council meeting - 16 June 2004? Hello All, The next Council meeting was scheduled for 10 June 2004. I will not be available for the next 2 weeks, so I would like to request that the meeting be re-scheduled for Wednesday 16 June 2004: 5:00 am LA, 8:00 am Washington, 12:00 UTC, 10:00 pm Melbourne Thanks, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Next steps in process for developing the criteria for selection of the .net registry operator
by Bruce Tonkin May 28, 2004

May 28, 2004

Hello All, I have reviewed our process for developing the criteria for the selection of the .net registry operator with the ICANN General Counsel. The Council in its meeting of 1 April responded to ICANN's formal request for guidance concerning the criteria for designating a successor operator for .net, by forming a subcommittee of Council to develop recommendations regarding criteria. The subcommittee has already done significant work in developing a set of draft criteria for consideration by Council. As it is a requirement that the criteria be developed by a consensus process, it would be appropriate to ensure that we gain maximum input from the constituencies and wider community. This may take a little longer than first anticipated, but will still meet the timelines required by ICANN. With reference to Annex A of the bylaws, I suggest the following next steps in the process. (1) Request that ICANN formally notify the public on its website that the GNSO has commenced work on providing the Board with guidance on criteria for designating a successor operator for .net. The notification should reference the current draft of the work of the subcommittee (http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/dotnet/dotnet-draft-reportv51.pdf - 28 May 2004 (2) Open up a 20 day public comment period on the current draft of the report. >From 28 May 2004 to 18 June 2004 (3) Seek comment from each of the GNSO constituencies to the current draft during the public comment period. (4) Incorporate the public comment and any further constituency comments into a "Initial Report" Publish Initial report: 25 June 2004 (5) Commence a final 20 day public comment period on the "Initial Report" Public comment from 25 June 2004 to 15 July 2004 (6) Complete final report for consideration by the GNSO Council 16 July 2004 (7) Council to vote on final recommendations at its meeting in Kuala Lumpur 20 July 2004 Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Voting rules for Task forces
by Bruce Tonkin May 28, 2004

May 28, 2004

Hello All, I have consulted with the ICANN General Counsel, in response to questions about who can vote and how votes are counted for the task forces. >From Annex A: section 5 (a): http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA "Upon voting to appoint a task force, the Council shall invite each of the constituencies of the GNSO to appoint one individual to participate in the task force. Additionally, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. (Each task force member is referred to in this Annex as a "Representative" and collectively, the "Representatives"). The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate." With respect to voting on a task force, each of the constituencies and each of the appointed outside advisors may vote on any issue. Note that with respect to the WHOIS task forces, the 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." With respect to WHOIS task force 2, Amadeu Abril I Abril was appointed by Council in the meeting of 20 November 2002 as an outside advisor. See minutes: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml Thus WHOIS task force 2 has a total of 7 votes. Amadeu has one vote, and each of the constituencies has one vote. With respect to the other task forces, there are a total of 6 votes (one per constituency). A task force may use discretion as to when to hold votes on an issue - and in many cases such votes can be used to indicate support for/against a particular proposal as part of the process of developing a consensus position. These votes are often called "straw" votes in other forums. The final task force report should contain a clear statement of any supermajority vote position of the task force on any issue. When a supermajority vote is not reached, a clear statement of all constituency positions espoused by task force members should be included. Note that with respect to advice from an outside advisor in a final report - the advice should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' qualifications and relevant experience and potential conflicts of interest. Liaisons from advisory committees such as ALAC, GAC, and Security and Stability, that may attend task force meetings and participate on mailing lists, do not have a vote. The liaisons may report on the work being undertaken within those committees that is relevant to the task force, and back to the committees on the work being undertaken in the task force (ie the role is liaising between the two independent groups) . The Advisory Committees report their feedback with respect to a new GNSO policy, directly to the Board (presumably as part of the public comment process prior to the ICANN Board meeting to consider the new policy). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Separation of policy and implementation in task force reports
by Bruce Tonkin May 26, 2004

May 26, 2004

Hello All, I have had a few questions related to whether a particular part of a task force report is specifying a "policy" versus a "specific implementation of the policy". The GNSO is "responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains." In general, with reference to the ICANN core value: "Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.", the implementation of ICANN policies should be left to the competitive market. We need to ensure that the outcomes of a policy are clearly measurable, and therefore can be enforced. However part of a GNSO report on a policy recommendation needs to: (a) Include "An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;" and (b) include "An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;" Probably the best way to be able to provide an analysis of how a new policy recommendation will affect each constituency, the financial impact of the recommendation, and the time need to implement the recommendation, is to consider a "reference" implementation of the policy. The reference implementation should convince the community that the new policy will not negatively impact a constituency, and that the benefits of a new policy will clearly outweigh any additional cost to implement the policy. The reference implementation is only one of many possible ways to implement a policy, and the market in general will be able to implement the policy in a range of different ways. For example, see the reference implementation of the new transfers policy at: http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-exha-12feb03.htm To give a specific example. (1) New policy: "At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the current WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of false WHOIS information can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name registration. Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any corrections." (2) Reference implementation: For domains that are renewed each year, a registrar could remind the registrant, when they login to a website to renew a domain name, of the need to provide accurate WHOIS information, prior to renewing the name. (3) Other implementations: - a registrar could send an email once a year, with a copy of the current WHOIS information and requiring the registrant to update this information each year. (4) Measurement: - the registrar should keep a log of the reminders sent to each registrant and be able to report to ICANN on request. Task forces need to be careful to focus on what "new" polices are required, rather than waste time on discussing different implementations of existing policies. In some cases a task force may find that an existing policy principle is adequate, but that the policy does not seem to be applied in practice. This may need a new policy element to make it easier for ICANN to measure the adherence to a policy. When recommending new policies, task forces should give consideration to how the impact of a new change can be measured (e.g as part of a review process) and enforced. It would be useful to establish a benchmark of the current situation, and thus be able to evaluate whether the new policy is successful in say 12 months time against that benchmark. This was not done in any of the recent policy recommendations from the GNSO. The generic issue of ICANN carrying out compliance monitoring and enforcement often seems to be related to ICANN resources to perform this function. It would be timely for constituencies to raise any issues associated with compliance monitoring and enforcement through the budget committee as part of the current budget process. The GNSO does not directly have a role in setting the ICANN budget. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1