September 2004 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Update on the initial report on approval process for changes to registry agreements
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Sept. 28, 2004

Sept. 28, 2004

Good news. Does this include then the legal review /contract implications review that we were asking for? I assume so, since Dan is involved. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 4:58 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Barbara Roseman Subject: [council] Update on the initial report on approval process for changes to registry agreements Hello All, Barbara Roseman has informed me that she has been working on the next draft of the report with Tina Dam and Dan Halloran. The next draft of the report is nearly complete, and should be available in the next day or so for review by the Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Update on the initial report on approval process for changes to registry agreements
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 28, 2004

Sept. 28, 2004

Hello All, Barbara Roseman has informed me that she has been working on the next draft of the report with Tina Dam and Dan Halloran. The next draft of the report is nearly complete, and should be available in the next day or so for review by the Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes 9 Septemeber 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 28, 2004

Sept. 28, 2004

Dear All, Please find a text and html version of the draft minutes for the GNSO Council teleconference held on 9 September 2004. If you would like any changes made, please let me know. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat ********************************************* 9 September 2004 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. Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Colebrook/Cary Karp Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc Schneiders/Jisuk Woo Alick Wilson Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril 16 Council Members Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat - absent - apologies Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Jeff Neuman - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair - absent, apologies Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair - absent Brian Darville - Task Force 3 Chair - absent Michael Palage - ICANN Board (GNSO seat 14) - observer Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 Recording Quorum present at 12:09 UTC, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of Agenda Agenda approved Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 19 August 2004 Tony Holmes moved the adoption of the Minutes of 19 August 2004. The motion carried. Abstentions noted: Niklas Lagergren, Alick Wilson, Amadeu Abril l Abril, Marc Schneiders. Decision 1: The Minutes of 19 August 2004 were adopted Item 3: Draft Initial Report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. As an action arising from the GNSO teleconference on August 19 2004, a meeting took place with the registry constituency, Kurt Pritz, and Bruce Tonkin to identify and improve timelines. Philip Colebrook reported that the registry constituency needed more timeline specificity from a business point of view. Bruce Tonkin referring to the approval timelines sent to the reg-com mailing list, summarized the timelines for the Quick Look Process: the first step in the quick look process, would be ICANN's General Counsel determining whether approval would be required: estimated time 7 days. If approval were required, ICANN would commence the Quick Look Process, part of which would be ICANN staff assessing the impact of the change with regard to security, stability and competition and obtaining expert outside advice: estimated time 14 days. Then ICANN would draft a report to which the Registry operator would have 7 days to correct inaccuracies and respond followed by 7 days for ICANN to produce the final assessment. Thus ICANN's total assessment period would be 30 days. If Board approval were required because of a material change to the contract, it would follow the normal Board processes: publication on the ICANN website in advance of the Board meeting, public comment on the proposal and Board decision: estimated time that 45 days. Total period of 80 days. If a Board decision were required, part of the information could be provided to the public and overlap with the public comment period. Kurt Pritz pointed out that the 30 and 45 day periods ran in parallel. In addition he emphasized that the aim was to create a partnership between ICANN and the registries to facilitate the development or implementation of such services and foster competition rather than the mechanics of creating a worst case timeline which could be met with regularity. He suggested that appropriate language should explain that the process could start early on in the development of new services and ICANN could keep proprietary information proprietary while working towards getting approval of the process. It was suggested that the registrar notice periods could start from the beginning of the public comment periods when the registry operator announced the intent to offer a new service. In response to the question, under what circumstances would the Board decide to place hold action following a reconsideration request it was suggested that case histories be built up to assess the issue as there was no previous evidence of similar situations. The registry would be in control of when the public comment period would commence because ICANN approval could be an incentive for the registry to publicize the service as early as possible. Bruce Tonkin commented that the focus had been on the Quick Look Process under the expectations that if the registry operator were working closely with ICANN in the early stages of discussing a potential change, the change would be constructed in such a way that it was likely to get approved rather than require a detailed review. The detailed review process was longer due to more extensive public comment periods. The Registry constituency raised the issue that the criteria were fairly loose for making a decision. Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be difficult for the Council as a committee to reach consensus on detail at this stage. Discussion in Rome suggested criteria that have been incorporated and more detail could overly constrain both ICANN and the registry operator in moving the service forward. Barbara Roseman gave feedback from multiple ICANN staff discussions: 1. Stressing ICANN's cooperation and partnership to get new services established rather than trying to stop new services and initiatives. 2. Consider language in the report to clearly differentiate between obligations and best practices with regard to ICANN and the registry . 3. Steps 1 & 2 in the Quick Look Process should be clearly stated in the Detailed Review Section where they are presently omitted. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Lucy Nichols proposed that: The ICANN staff will prepare a revised draft of the report that addresses the issues discussed during the teleconference on September 9, 2004 and the revised draft would be produced by the 24 September 2004. The revised draft will be posted for review by the Council members and if there are no substantial objections to that draft, the aim would be to publish the revised draft of the initial report on Monday, 4 October 2004. The motion was unanimously approved by the GNSO Council. Decision 2: The ICANN staff will prepare a revised draft of the report that addresses the issues discussed during the teleconference on September 9, 2004 and the revised draft would be produced by the 24 September 2004. The revised draft will be posted for review by the Council members and if there are no substantial objections to that draft, the aim would be to publish the revised draft of the initial report on Monday, 4 October 2004. Item 4: Update on process for new gtlds Paul Verhoef reported that the issue was advancing, there were deadlines to meet and it was becoming clear from internal discussions that it was a heavy item on the joint agendas as it involved a large part of the community including the GNSO, ccNSO, Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and others. Everybody should agree on what should be done. Currently a document, calling for proposals for a process to be taken as the strategy for determining the selection procedures for the new gTLDs, was being finalized to meet the September 31, 2004 deadline. The parameters/dimensions included: 1. What were the issues? New TLDs but what type of gTLD s, How to select an allocation mechanism, What criteria for evaluating proposals, 2 Analysis of reports 3. Precise steps for community involvement: what stage, policy development process or public consultations, possible policy development process run in parallel with the ccNSO. 4. Timelines as set forth in the in the Memorandum of Understanding, a realistic process with sufficient time for discussion, including Board approvals. Paul Verhoef suggested that a useful start would be a public comment period, as soon as possible, on the two available reports: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Summit Strategies International (Miriam Shapiro) The deadline for releasing the document on the strategy implementation plan will be September 31 2004. The new strategy would not impact the 10 current proposals for new gTLDS. Further reports could be expected from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in its expert role of Intellectual Property authority and from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Marilyn Cade commented that it was important to have further consultation on timelines based on Council's experience with the unrealistic timelines built into the initial policy development process. Kurt Pritz, responding to a request from Marilyn Cade, said that it was intended to post all reports and relevant material on the gTLD process in a single area on the ICANN website. Item 5: Update on joint Whois Barbara Roseman, in the absence of the Whois task force chairs, reported that there had been no further task force meetings but that a graphic representation assignment of the work outlined in the joint Task Force discussion on August 3, 2004 had been posted to the joint Whois task force 1 and 2 list. Whois joint task force 1 and 2 have a meeting, with an agenda posted on the website, scheduled for 14 September 2004 and Whois task force 3, no agenda, scheduled for 15 September 2004 Item 6: Any Other Business Bruce Tonkin enquired from Kurt Pritz about progress with recruitment in general. ICANN would be posting positions regarding contractual compliance where a more proactive program was being implemented given the resources of the new budget and as well as other positions in lines with the initiatives that were set up in the budget documents. Barbara Roseman responded in place of Paul Verhoef who unexpectedly dropped off the call, on progress in recruiting for the GNSO policy position saying that Paul Verhoef was reviewing the applications for the different support positions, a couple of candidates had been identified and the search had been broadened internationally as it was hoped to fill some positions in Brussels and some in Marina del Rey. Bruce Tonkin repeated the request that some GNSO Council members would like to be involved in the selection process. Marilyn Cade reported that the resolution to modify the policy development process timelines would be discussed with Paul Verhoef and ICANN staff for a resolution at the next Council meeting to be considered at the ICANN Board meeting in Cape Town. Marilyn Cade asked ICANN staff what the position was with the report on the performance of the GNSO Council that Dr. Paul Twomey had retained a consultant, Dr. Liz Williams, to prepare. Marilyn requested that the report be shared with Council for purposes of its self-review and on the issue of 2 or 3 representatives per constituency, for Board consideration at ICANN's annual meeting in 2004, as required in the bylaws, section 4 paragraph 2. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 13:00 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be held on Thursday 21 October 2004 at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar

1 0

ICANN Update: Implementation of New Consensus Policies Applicable to gTLD Registrars
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 22, 2004

Sept. 22, 2004

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; ga[at]gnso.icann.org] [liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org;announce[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note ICANN's update: Implementation of New Consensus Policies Applicable to gTLD Registrars http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21sep04-2.htm 21 September 2004 This announcement is an update concerning the implementation of four new "Consensus Policies" applicable to ICANN-accredited gTLD registrars: the new Expired Domain Deletion Policy, and the previously announced Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, Whois Marketing Restriction Policy, and Restored Names Accuracy Policy. Expired Domain Deletion Policy Today ICANN announced the implementation of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy (EDDP). This consensus policy defines a uniform deletes practice that registrars must follow at the time of domain name expiry, as well as specific requirements for registrar handling of expired names that are subject to a UDRP dispute. The EDDP was developed through ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization in response to concerns in the community about registrar practices in regards to deletion of expired names. In the past, some registrars have held on to domain registrations that the original registrant did not act to renew. With the new policy in place, all ICANN-accredited registrars will be required to delete domain names by the conclusion of the 45 day auto-renewal period that follows the expiration of a domain name, unless the registrant has consented to have the domain names renewed. Names deleted by registrars at the conclusion of any registrar grace period following expiration will continue to be subject to the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). The RGP is a thirty (30) day registry "hold" period for all domain names deleted by registrars. This hold period is designed to allow registrars the ability to "restore" names that were deleted accidentally or without the intent of the registrant. The EDDP will be effective beginning 21 December 2004. The complete text of the policy is available at <http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htm>. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Implementation Update As announced previously, ICANN's new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy will become effective on 12 November 2004. Under the new transfer policy, registrants will be safer from any risk of having their domains transferred to another registrar without their consent, and will have greater freedom to transfer their domains to an ICANN-accredited registrar that offer them the best combination of service and price. Rules for Initiating Transfer Requests In the past, some registrants complained that they were lured into transferring their domains unintentionally as a result of deceptive "renewal" notices from registrars. For an example of this sort of complaint, see the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announcement dated 24 September 2003, titled "Network Solutions Settles FTC Charges -- False Solicitations Allegedly Duped Consumers to Transfer Domain Name Registrations" <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/09/networksolutions.htm>. Under the new transfer policy, gaining registrars will be required to use a clear standardized form of authorization to obtain the express consent of the registrant prior to initiating a transfer. Also, under the new policy gaining registrars will be obligated to obtain reliable evidence of the identity of the registrant or administrative contact that has requested the transfer using a digital signature, a unique code available only by e-mail to the authorized administrative contact, a notarized statement, or a valid driver license or passport. Rules for Denying Transfer Requests The new policy will prohibit registrars from denying outgoing transfers on the basis of a registrant's alleged failure to "double-confirm" the transfer. Under the old policy, some transfer requests that had already been reliably authenticated by the gaining registrar were denied by the losing registrar if technical problems, spam filters or language difficulties resulted in a registrant missing a secondary confirmation e-mail from the losing registrar. Losing registrars will still be able to send a message to a registrant that has authorized an outgoing transfer, but a clear and concise standardized form must be used, and the registrar will not be allowed to deny the transfer if a response is not received from the registrant. Registrar-Lock Functionality Registrars will still be able to use "registrar-lock" to give registrants added assurance that their domains will not be transferred or modified without their consent, but only if the registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for registrants to remove the lock if and when the registrant decides to transfer. New Mechanism for Resolution of Transfer Disputes The new transfer policy includes a robust dispute resolution policy for resolving disputes between registrars involving alleged violations of the policy. As part of this mechanism, registries will be implementing a "transfer undo" functionality in order to be able to efficiently reverse any transfers initiated in violation of the policy. Policy Details The policy was developed through ICANN's consensus-based, bottom-up policy development process. For more details, including the complete text of the policy, of the dispute resolution policy, and copies of the approved standardized forms, please visit <http://www.icann.org/transfers/>. Whois Marketing Restriction Policy Policy documentation is available at <http://www.icann.org/registrars/wmrp.htm> . Effective date is 12 November 2004. Restored Names Accuracy Policy Policy documentation is available at <http://www.icann.org/registrars/rnap.htm> . Effective date is 12 November 2004. A complete overview of all Consensus Policies applicable to gTLD registrars can be found at <http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm> . GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Request from the Chair of the Nominating Committee 2004
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 20, 2004

Sept. 20, 2004

Dear GNSO Council Member, I am addressing this mail to you in my responsibility as Chairman of the NomCom in order to comply with the rules of eligibility of the NomCom GNSO Council Nominee. The bylaws (Article V, Section 3, paragraph 5) require that "no more than one officer, director or employee of any particular corporation or other organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve on the GNSO Council at any given time." We therefore need to know what corporations and organizations (including their subsidiaries and affiliates) the on-going members of the GNSO serve as an officer, a director or an employee. To make this investigation thoroughly and in due time and fullfill our task, I would be grateful to you for sending us the relevant information concerning yourself. Please mail this information as soon as possible to the at the following e-mail address: ICANN NomCom Coordinator [nomcom.coordinator(a)icann.org] Thank you very much in advance for your kind cooperation. Jean-Jacques Damlamian Chair of the Nominating Committee 2004.

1 0

Board review of the GNSO Council
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

Hello All, Article IV, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws requires the ICANN Board to organise regular reviews of each Supporting Organisation, Council, and Advisory Committee. The relevant bylaw text is included at the end of this message. The first review is a review of the GNSO Council (rather than the whole GNSO supporting organisation). This is due to be completed before the ICANN annual general meeting in Dec 04. The review must be undertaken by an entity or entities independent of the GNSO Council. The goal of the review is: (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The criteria and standards for the review are set by the Board. I recommend that the GNSO Council carry out a "self-review" to provide a starting document for the external review. The recommend that the Council form a small sub-committee to establish the process and questions to be considered for the self-review for consideration by the whole Council. A good starting point for such a sub-committee would be to hold a teleconference amongst those that attended a meeting with the ICANN staff in Kuala Lumpur to discuss ways of improving the interaction between the Council and ICANN staff. Regards, Bruce Tonkin http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV Section 4. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ICANN STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 1. The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible no less frequently than every three years, of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The results of such reviews shall be posted on the Website for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board no later than the second scheduled meeting of the Board after such results have been posted for 30 days. The consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board. 2. The first of such reviews, to be initiated no later than 15 December 2003 and to be completed in time for Board consideration at ICANN's annual meeting in 2004, shall be of the GNSO Council and the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee. The second of such reviews, to be initiated no later than 15 November 2004 and to be completed in time for Board consideration at ICANN's annual meeting in 2005, shall be of the ccNSO, the ccNSO Council, and such other organizations as the Board may designate. 3. The Governmental Advisory Committee shall provide its own review mechanisms.

1 0

Reminder regarding terms of office
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

Hello All, Just a reminder regarding terms of office. (1) My term as chair expires on 20 Nov 2004. From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year, November 20, 2003 to November 20, 2004. So we will need to hold an election for GNSO chair. (2) The terms of many of the Council members (2 per constituency) expire at the end of ICANN's 2004 Annual General Meeting (set for 5 Dec 2004). From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml NorthA - Marilyn Cade (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthA - Ken Stubbs (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) AsiaPac - Philip Colebrook (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) LatinAC - Tony Harris (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthAm - Greg Ruth (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) AsiaPac- Jisuk Woo (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) LatinAC - Carlos Afonso (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthA - Ross Rader (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) Europe - Thomas Keller (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) LatinAC - Kiyoshi I. Tsuru A. (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthA - Lucy Nichols (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) Europe - Amadeu Abril i Abril - Term: conclusion of the Annual Meeting 2004 I recommend constituencies begin to plan elections for this year. Under the current bylaws, we will drop from 3 to 2 representatives per constituency. My understanding is that the GNSO Council desires to retain 3 representatives, but we will need to get the Board to approve a change in the bylaws to support that request. I recommend constituencies proceed on the basis of electing one member of the Council under the current bylaws, and also elect a reserve to be available to take up the additional seat should the Board approve. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

7 7

Regarding 3 versus 2 reps per constituency
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 13, 2004

Sept. 13, 2004

Hello All, Board resolutions: (1) On 31 Oct 2003: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm Response to GNSO Council Request to Maintain Three Representatives per Constituency Whereas, the GNSO Council has requested on 14 August 2003, that the change to the number of constituency representatives on the GNSO Council remain unchanged at three (3) representatives per constituency instead of two (2) representatives per constituency as is scheduled to occur at the end of this 2003 Annual Meeting. Whereas, the GNSO Council's predecessor organization DNSO Names Council requested on 1 August 2002, that the GNSO Council be made up of three (3) representatives per constituency. Whereas, Article I, Section 2 (4) sets out as a core value that: -"Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making." Whereas, Article XX, Section 5 (8), in setting out the originally proposed transition that: "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...." Whereas, the Board wishes to take action in support of the GNSO Council and in response to the GNSO Council's request. Resolved [03.164] to change the transition article (Article XX) to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; Resolved [03.165] to perform a review of the GNSO Council in or around July 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. On 15 Jan 2004: From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-15jan04.htm Item 1 -- By-Laws Changes Regarding Number of GNSO Council Representatives from Each Constituency After discussion, the Board of Directors, passed the following resolution unanimously by a 10-0 vote: Whereas, On 31 October 2003 [link to resolutions], the ICANN Board at its public meeting in Tunis, Tunisia, discussed and resolved to effect certain amendments to the ICANN Bylaws as requested by the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO"). These amendments will result in the number of GNSO Council representatives that each official GNSO Constituency may appoint remain at three (3) appointed by each Constituency following the 2003 Annual Meeting, until the 2004 Annual Meeting. Following the 2004 Annual Meeting, the number of GNSO Council representatives that each GNSO Constituency may appoint shall decrease to two (2). Whereas, a notice regarding this proposal was prepared and posted, and the General Counsel invited comments from the community on the proposal; Whereas, no comments on the proposal have been received, and the Board concludes that adoption of the amendments to the bylaws as stated in the proposal would be in the best interest of ICANN; Resolved [04.02] that the amendments to Article X, Section 3, and Article XX, Section 5 of the Bylaws are hereby adopted as proposed. The actual text of the bylaws now read: >From http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-09jan04.htm Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL 1. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws, The GNSO Council shall consist of two three representatives selected by each of the Constituencies described in Section 5 of this Article, and three persons selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee. Following the 2004 Annual Meeting, absent further action by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council shall consist of two representatives selected by each of the Constituencies. No two representatives selected by a Constituency shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. There may also be two liaisons to the GNSO Council, one appointed by each of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the At-Large Advisory Committee from time to time, who shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the GNSO Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the GNSO Council. The appointing Advisory Committee shall designate its liaison (or revoke or change the designation of its liaison) on the GNSO Council by providing written notice to the Chair of the GNSO Council and to the ICANN Secretary. The GNSO Council may also have observers as described in paragraph 9 of this Section. 2. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws, Section 5(8): (a) the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter; (b) the regular term of one representative selected by each Constituency shall begin in an even-numbered year and the regular term of the other representative selected by the Constituency shall begin in an odd-numbered year, provided, however that the regular term of two representatives selected by the Constituency shall begin following the 2003 Annual Meeting who shall serve until the conclusion of the 2005 Annual Meeting, and the regular term of one representative selected by the Constituency shall begin following the 2003 Annual Meeting and end at the conclusion of the 2004 Annual Meeting; and (c) the regular term of one of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other two of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in odd-numbered years. Each GNSO Council member shall hold office during his or her regular term and until a successor has been selected and qualified or until that member resigns or is removed in accordance with these Bylaws. [...] ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION ARTICLE Section 5. GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION 8. As of and following ICANN's 2003 Annual Meeting, each GNSO constituency shall select three (3) representatives to serve on the GNSO Council, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. One representative selected by each constituency shall serve for a one-year term, ending as of the end of the 2004 Annual Meeting, and two representatives selected shall serve for a two-year term, ending as of the 2005 Annual Meeting.

1 0

GNSO Council teleconf. September 9, 2004 MP3 recording
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 9, 2004

Sept. 9, 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 Thursday, September 9, 2004 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20040909.mp3 Happy listening! GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org

1 0

FYI - Community Experiences with the InterNIC Whois Data Problem Reports System
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 2, 2004

Sept. 2, 2004

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] FYI the following report has been published by ICANN. Community Experiences with the InterNIC Whois Data Problem Reports System http://www.icann.org/whois/wdprs-report-final-31mar04.htm Extract from the report: Introduction The following is a report summarizing ICANN's experience with the operation of the Whois Data Problem Report system at InterNIC.net <http://reports.internic.net/cgi/rpt_whois/rpt.cgi>. This report is being published pursuant to Section II.C.10.a of Amendment 6 to the ICANN/DOC Memorandum of Understanding, providing: ICANN shall publish a report no later than March 31, 2004, and annually thereafter, providing statistical and narrative information on community experiences with the InterNIC WHOIS Data Problem Reports system. The report shall include statistics on the number of WHOIS data inaccuracies reported to date, the number of unique domain names with reported inaccuracies, and registrar handling of the submitted reports. The narrative information shall include an evaluation of the impact of the WHOIS Data Problem Reports system on improved accuracy of WHOIS data. <http://www.icann.org/general/amend6-jpamou-17sep03.htm> Whois data for the generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) includes information about the registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and nameservers associated with each domain name. This information is used for a variety of important purposes, including identifying and verifying online merchants, investigations by consumer protection and other law enforcement authorities, determining whether a domain name is available for registration, identifying the source of spam e-mail, enforcement of intellectual property rights, addressing cyber-attacks, and otherwise resolving technical network issues. Whois services have been available on the Internet since the early 1980s, and continue to be broadly used. According to an online survey of over 3000 participants (businesses, governments, ISPs, registrars, individuals, and non-commercial organizations) conducted in 2001 by the ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/20020625.TFwhois-report.htm>, Internet users broadly consider accurate Whois data to be important and support measures to improve its accuracy. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

FYI - ICANN Publishes Comprehensive Evaluation of the Introduction of the .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro gTLDs
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 2, 2004

Sept. 2, 2004

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Publishes Comprehensive Evaluation of the Introduction of the .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro gTLDs http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug04.htm Prepared for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) by Summit Strategies International The full report may be viewed at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf EXECUTIVE SUMMARY http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31aug04.htm In November 2000, the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) selected seven proposals for new top-level domains (gTLDs): .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro. This was the first effort to expand the domain name system (DNS) since the 1980s, other than by adding "country code top-level domains" that correspond to particular countries or territories. Shortly before the first of the new gTLDs was launched in September 2001, the ICANN Board decided that it was important to evaluate the "proof-of-concept" under which they were introduced. The Board established the "New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force" (Task Force) to determine the scope of the evaluation. The Task Force decided that seven questions, among others, would take priority. Those questions, which are the focus of this report, address the effectiveness of intellectual property protections, compliance with registration restrictions, competition, the reasonableness of the legal framework, and regulatory issues. The new gTLD start-up periods proved generally effective at protecting the interests of trademark holders, but suffered from other problems. The lack of any screening or verification in the .info Sunrise period led to serious abuses, including an unusually high number (43%) of registrations that had to be cancelled or transferred. The intellectual property claim process that .biz established operated more smoothly, but was extremely complicated. It proved fairer than a Sunrise period because parties without registered trademarks including individuals could defend registrations by demonstrating a legitimate interest or right. The .name system of defensive registrations was complex too, and in an unrestricted TLD would not be consistent with attracting new users and uses to the DNS. Looking to the future, these experiences suggest several options: (i) a Sunrise period that verifies registrations by use of online databases and other means in a cost-effective manner; (ii) notice to prospective registrants and trademark holders of their respective claims prior to adjudication, perhaps on the basis of the familiar UDRP rather than the new "STOP" procedure .biz used; or (iii) reliance on UDRP alone, as simpler and appropriate given that trademark registrations may constitute only 2 - 3% of all registrations. The process .info and .biz used to allocate names called a "round robin" -- was criticized for enabling manipulation of the system. Some registrars kept their list of desired names short and offered coveted slots to their best customers. Others used registrars they controlled to do the same, while they opened their own lists to the general public. (Initial efforts by .biz to design an alternative distribution system for led a court to determine it would have constituted an illegal lottery.) The .name registry sought to eliminate the advantage of submitting shorter lists by using random batch processing, but that did not prevent registrants from submitting duplicate requests through multiple registrars. Admittedly, the dilemma of how best to allocate names does not have an easy solution. Other options include first-come, first-served; auctions; and reverse Dutch auctions. The most appropriate method depends to a great extent on which underlying values should be given priority. It also depends on which entity should benefit from the monetary rewards that certain names generate. Both subjects require more discussion within the ICANN community. Both the .biz and .name gTLDs are subject to restrictions that limit registrations to commercial purposes and to personal names, respectively. Random sampling indicated fewer problems than expected in .biz, with 1.8% of the registrations appearing to fail to satisfy the criteria and another 9.6% being unclear. In .name, where it was somewhat easier to estimate noncompliance, 10.6% of registrations raised questions, with another .8% unclear. While the registries are not obligated to enforce the restrictions through verification, there are simpler methods, such as random screening, or heightened scrutiny when a registrant reaches a certain number of registrations, which could help. Another solution is to recognize the difficulty of enforcing restrictions on global registries and adopt the model offered by the .com, .net and .org TLDs, which were once restricted but are no longer. The new gTLDs have introduced some competition, but how much is debatable. Examining market share, extent of actual choice and price elasticity suggests that impact has been minimal. Other evidence, however, indicates that TLD expansion has attracted about 20% new registrants and led to new uses among 40 60% of registrants. The most significant contribution has been the development of facilities-based competition. As a result, new providers of registry services have been able to compete effectively with the incumbent registry, VeriSign, on that basis. Innovation has played a supporting role, and may become increasingly important as the three largest registries work to distinguish themselves from one another. The agreements that underpin the new gTLDs reflect a level of detail that may not be necessary for future TLDs. While it was understandable for ICANN to have erred on the side of caution as it undertook initial expansion, the resulting legal framework is cumbersome. There was relatively strict insistence that the agreements adhere to key provisions of the original proposals, although it appears that such rigidity was not always the wisest course. While the agreements are relatively uniform, there are some cases -- such as the requirement that smaller, sponsored TLDs use only ICANN-accredited registrars where divergence would have made sense. In a future round, it should be possible to use a streamlined base agreement and limit appendices to those necessary to ensure critical elements of registry performance and compliance with ICANN policies. There should also be more flexibility in the agreements to enable both ICANN and the registries to address routine issues. Launching a new gTLD is not for the faint of heart. The experiences of the six that have done it already, and the wisdom the community as a whole as gained, should provide valuable assistance to those TLDs that follow. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Draft minutes GNSO Council meeting 19 August 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 1, 2004

Sept. 1, 2004

Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 19 August 2004 in html attachment and plain text. If you would like any changes made please let me know. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat *********************************************** 19 August 2004 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. - proxy to Grant Forsyth (if required) Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - joined call late Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Jisuk Woo Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc Schneiders/Jisuk Woo Alick Wilson - absent Demi Getschko - absent Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent - apologies 13 Council Members Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Vittorio Bertola - ALAC Liaison Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat - absent Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent Jeff Neuman - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 Recording Quorum present at 12:05 UTC, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of Agenda Agenda approved Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 Ken Stubbs seconded by Marilyn Cade moved the adoption of the Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 The motion carried unanimously Decision 1: The Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 were adopted Item 2: Draft initial report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. Bruce Tonkin stated that the purpose of the agenda item was for Council to decide whether further changes would be required or whether the report could be published for the first 20 day public comment period. Philip Colebrook expressed concern about: a. the general lack of timelines in the process and b. the manner in which ICANN would fulfill its functions. Kurt Prtitz responded that any request for registry change would come to ICANN through the registry liaison group and at that point a project team would be created to evaluate that registry change. The team would vary, depending on the nature of the registry change, with the right skills, such as business or technical liaisons, to evaluate rapidly. There may be parallel consultation with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and outside expert business analysis. The target timeline for a quick look process would be 2 months between the registry submitting a request and receiving approval for that request. Ken Stubbs stated the need for a process: a. that assured confidentiality between the registry operator and ICANN once the request had been made, b. such as stratifying the nature of the request at the beginning, so that the ICANN staff could effectively quote a timeframe to help with business planning for registrars and registries. He reminded Council that Registries were required to give Registrars a 90 day notice period for any significant change implementation and proposed that the notice period to registrars to be concurrent with the entry into a process. Ken Stubbs expressed concern that during the reconsideration process there could be a halt in the registry operation approved by ICANN if a third party contested the approval. Marilyn Cade agreed with Ken Stubbs that flexibility in the business model was needed in response to the community needs. Kurt Pritz suggested that the quick look process including Board approval could be completed in 2 months, and the ICANN General Council could respond within 2 weeks to provide ICANN's view on whether the registry change required approval under the registry agreement. Kurt asked the gTLD registry constituency for input on a reasonable timeline target for the process? Philip Colebrook responded that the registry constituency had not determined a position on this yet. Paul Verhoef stated the importance of determining the timing of each step so the operational reality matched the expectations The general view on the report was: a. Timelines needed to be clarified - ICANN staff required feedback from the GNSO members a reasonable timeframe, - GNSO Council required feedback from ICANN staff on the timelines b. General Counsel's advice be sought on the gTLD registry constituency concern about the reconsideration process c. More readable public comment format for the report Bruce Tonkin proposed scheduling a GNSO Council call on September 9, 2004 to finalize the report for public comment with the aim to provide clarity on the timelines and answers to the questions on the reconsideration process. Item 3: Update on policy implementation from ICANN Bruce Tonkin commented that policy implementation would be a regular item on the GNSO Council agendas in order to the review the status of policies that have already been approved by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board - to determine whether the policy had been implemented and - at a future date, input on what measurement had been taken to measure whether the policy had met its objective. 3.2 WHOIS: (approved by ICANN Board 27 March 2003) http://www.icann.org/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm Bruce Tonkin referred to the Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) which took effect in October 2003. and asked Kurt Pritz about other elements of that policy. Kurt Pritz announced that ICANN was required to deliver a report to the Department of Commerce (DOC) in November 2004 on the status and efficacy of the implemented WDRP policy. As a result ICANN would be requesting registrars to complete a questionnaire on the policy implementation. Some policies were not followed through by ICANN to the implementation, for example, deleting names which was considered to be a completed policy because registries were effectively deleting names. 3.2 WHOIS: (approved by ICANN Board 27 March 2003) ICANN recently posted two policies which would be formally effective on 12 November 2004. - Whois Marketing Restriction Policy Policy documentation is available at http://www.icann.org/registrars/wmrp.htm. - Restored Names Accuracy Policy Policy documentation is available at http://www.icann.org/registrars/rnap.htm. Kurt Pritz noted the bylaws requirement to post the policies where a complete overview of Consensus Policies applicable to ICANN accredited registrars could be found and the registrars were given a fax written notice of the policy. Marilyn Cade expressed concerned about community awareness of the implemented policies. Bruce Tonkin suggested that a formal notice be sent to Council so that the constituencies could be informed and suggested a link on the front page of the ICANN website. Item 4: Update on process for new gtlds The MOU between ICANN and US Department of Commerce requires: Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions; c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and, d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Bruce Tonkin requested guidance from ICANN staff on what the steps were for implementing a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs and the timing of those steps. Paul Verhoef stated that ICANN staff were not yet in a position to report back as they were still in the process of checking with the Department of Commerce. The OECD report was delivered as well as a report on the business aspects of the gTLDs already implemented that would be made available to the Council and there was outside expertise flowing into the process. Marilyn Cade expressed concern about the timelines and that there may not be time to consult with Council before finalizing the strategy and suggested that timely background information directly available to the GNSO Council would be most useful. Bruce Tonkin proposed requesting a Status report for the next meeting. Item 5: Any Other Business: 1. Update on joint Whois Task Force 1 and 2: Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan, co-chairs of the joint Whois task 1 and 2 which is currently called: "Improving informed consent to the publication of contact data and improving controls for 3rd party access to published contact data" gave an update stating that an initial list of issues obtainable in the near term had been created, the status of previous recommendations would be examined, the focus was on the feasibility of tiered access and sub groups would examine these issues. 2. Marilyn Cade suggested a review of the timelines in the policy development process and a review of the GNSO Council and proposed drafting a motion with the ICANN staff for the next meeting. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan and everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 13:15 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be held on Thursday 9 September 2004 at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 9 September 2004
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 1, 2004

Sept. 1, 2004

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 9 September 2004 12:00 UTC (10pm Melbourne, 1pm London, 8am Washington, 5am Los Angeles) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 19 August 2004 Item 2: Draft initial report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.pdf Review proposed timelines and consider executive summary for public comment. Item 3: Update on process for new gtlds The MOU between ICANN and US Dept of Commerce requires: (from http://www.icann.org/general/amend6-jpamou-17sep03.htm ) Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions; c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and, d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Item 4: Update on WHOIS Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0