October 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Nominations for GNSO Council Chair open till 27 October 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 21 Oct '05

21 Oct '05

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, At the GNSO Council meeting on 20 October 2005 it was unanimously agreed to appoint an interim GNSO Council Chair from 18 November to 1 month after the 2005 Annual General Meeting (ie until 4 January 2006) and run the election for the GNSO Council Chair during December 2005, for the next term to run from 4 January to 3 December 2006 (one month after the current date for the 2006 Annual General Meeting) A formal nomination period is open for one week from Thursday 20 October to Thursday 27 October ending at 11:59 UTC. Only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations. There has been one nomination to date. Bruce Tonkin has been nominated by Ken Stubbs, seconded by Philip Colebrook and Bruce has accepted the nomination. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FYI - At-Large Newsletter
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 20 Oct '05

20 Oct '05

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] FYI ICANN AT-LARGE NEWSLETTER September 2005 In this issue: • Action: Hi, 高, Hola, 高い – Internationalized Domain Names Creep Forward. Your input is needed – and accepted in many languages. • Action: Ready for the future? Your thoughts are needed on what ICANN should do to face opportunities and challenges the future will bring. • Action: Hey .NET domain name holders! What does the New .NET agreement mean for you? • Action: Dot What? How should more top level domain names be introduced? • Meeting: Join us in Vancouver! ICANN At-Large invites you to join the debates about the Internet’s future. • Information: Asia/Pacific user groups are forming a Regional At-Large Organization _________________________________________________________ • Action: Hi, 高, Hola, 高い – Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Creep Forward. Your input is needed – and accepted in many languages. Registries that are offering IDNs have drafted a new version of the “IDN Guidelines,” which ICANN has posted for public comments <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20sep05.htm>. These are proposed “rules” Registries would follow in implementing IDNs, and they attempt to address such challenges as how to prevent the deceptive use of visually confusable characters from different scripts in individual IDN labels. For those not immersed in IDNs, the draft guidelines will be challenging reading. And if English is not your language, they will be daunting. They are worth the effort, however, because they are a critical step towards enabling the global Internet community to be *truly* global. Before the ALAC addresses the substance of the proposed guidelines, we asked ICANN to adjust the process of soliciting comments by posting the proposed guidelines in multiple languages and extending the comment period. They are working on it – the proposed guidelines were just posted in French <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20sep05-french.htm>. The ALAC believes that IDNs are not just a technical or business matter, but rather a fundamental element of the respect for cultural diversity and the internationalization of the Internet. The ALAC has been promoting the prompt introduction of full and non-discriminating support for all scripts and languages in domain names, as well as in other elements of the Internet that are directly used by the final consumers, in a manner that ensures an orderly and wise deployment of IDN registrations. The ALAC believes this to be one of the most pressing issues for the global Internet community and encourages all interested At-Large groups and individuals to provide input. Send emails to <forum(a)alac.icann.org> *and* <idn-guidelines(a)icann.org>. The ALAC can accept comments in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, German, Japanese, and Chinese. • Action: Ready for the future? Your thoughts are needed on what ICANN should do to face opportunities and challenges the future will bring. Dust off your crystal ball. ICANN has asked for the At-Large community’s help in planning for the future. A “Strategic Planning Issue Paper” has been posted in English, Spanish, and French for public comment (English at <http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-planning-issues-paper-04oct05…>; see <http://www.icann.org> for other languages), along with a request for the community’s views. The paper summarizes strategic planning discussions in which the ALAC and other stakeholders participated at ICANN's July 2005 meeting in Luxembourg, and includes a list of ICANN’s “opportunities and challenges,” such as: • The continued rise of the Internet as a truly global means of communication and the need for ICANN to meet the needs of a truly global stakeholder base; • Maintaining stability given expected increases in scale driven by the number of devices using the Internet and the number of users; • Possible fracturing of the current system perhaps brought about by some users becoming dissatisfied with perceived restrictions imposed by technical protocols or by actions of a government or governments. The ALAC has been asked to provide comments on this paper and would like guidance from the At-Large community in doing so. Community input will be used to craft ICANN’s Strategic Plan and will drive discussions that are being planned for ICANN’s November meeting in Vancouver <http://www.icann.org/meetings/vancouver/>. Email your views to the At-Large public forum <forum(a)alac.icann.org> *and* ICANN’s Strategic Plan public forum <stratplan-issues-paper(a)icann.org>. • Action: Hey .NET domain name holders! What does the New .NET agreement mean for you? On 12 October 2005 ICANN’s Board approved an amendment to the .NET agreement, which finalizes VeriSign’s contract as the .NET Registry and limits domain name registration fee increases to no more than 10% per year. The amendment addresses some complaints raised by the community after the Board approved the agreement on 1 July 2005. Strong concern was voiced by several ICANN constituencies about the approval process and the substance of the agreement approved three months ago (see Luxembourg public forum transcript at <http://www.icann.org/meetings/luxembourg/>). Objections were raised about not allowing for complete public review of the agreement before it was approved, and about elements of the agreement such as the removal of all price caps on .NET domain names and the ability to give volume discounts to some Registrars. ICANN’s Board and VeriSign subsequently agreed to re-negotiate parts of the contract and a proposed amendment to the agreement was posted for public comment <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-22sep05.htm>. The proposed amendment, which was negotiated with representatives of ICANN-Accredited Registrars, includes, among other things, a limit on registration fee increases to no more than 10% per year, but still enables VeriSign to offer Registrars volume discounts and incentives. Public comment on the proposed amendment was sparse, but worth considering (see <http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-amendment-comments/>) since they raise fundamental issues about the appropriate role of ICANN in setting price controls, fostering marketplace competition and protecting consumers. Share your views about these and other .NET issues by sending an email to <forum(a)alac.icann.org>. • Dot What? How should more top level domain names be introduced? The GNSO Council, a primary policy-making body within ICANN, has launched a new policy development process to guide ICANN on what to do next on top level domain (TLD) introductions. ICANN wants to take the lessons learned from past TLD introductions, along with community input, and develop a new process for introducing TLDs. The ALAC is developing detailed guidance for ICANN to help ensure that such a process meets individual Internet users’ needs. The type of issues on which ICANN is seeking advice is posted at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gTLD-questions.pdf>. The ALAC will post proposed input on its website <http://www.alac.icann.org/>. Please post your views to <forum(a)alac.icann.org>. The ALAC has pushed ICANN to regularize the process of examining and approving new TLD proposals, and has urged ICANN to move beyond testbeds and evaluations and permit those proposing new TLDs to put their plans into effect. Last year ICANN launched a limited process for selecting new sponsored TLDs (sTLDs) from a pool of ten applications <http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comments.htm>. The ALAC recommended that, rather than restrict the applicant pool to a few sTLDs, ICANN create a quick, effective and uncontroversial process for the creation of any kind and number of new TLDs. The ALAC would like specific input from you on questions posted by ICANN (see initial questions at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gTLD-questions.pdf>). • Meeting: Join us in Vancouver! ICANN At-Large invites you to join the debates about the Internet’s future. You are invited to join the ICANN community in Vancouver, Canada 30 November – 4 December, and participate in several meetings and fora on issues that affect the Internet's end-users. If you are interested in seeing more new top level domain names, using domain names in your own (non-English) language, protecting your personal information listed in WHOIS databases, and advancing individual users’ Internet interests in other areas, you won’t want to miss this meeting. You can attend in person or follow some proceedings via the Internet. Participation is free and Internet users are encouraged to come!! Check <http://www.icann.org/meetings/vancouver/> for general information and <http://www.alac.icann.org/> for details on At-Large-related events. • Information: Asia/Pacific user groups are forming a Regional At-Large Organization All individuals involved in Internet user issues in the Asia/Australia/Pacific (AP) region, are invited to participate in efforts to launch an Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO). Representatives of user groups involved in ICANN At-Large met last month during the APAN meeting in Taiwan to develop a charter, bylaws, and outreach plans aimed at enabling user groups in this region to work together to advance Internet users’ needs. Follow-up meetings/conference calls are being planned for November/December in Vancouver. More information is posted at <http://www.apralo.org/>. Send questions to <info(a)apralo.org>. The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee alac(a)icann.org www.alac.icann.org If a group you are involved with wants to influence decisions that shape the Internet, register as an "At-Large Structure" and participate in ICANN decisions critical to the Internet's end users. “At-Large Structure” registration is free, easy, and done via email. Groups interested participating in ICANN At-Large are encouraged to send an email to <als(a)alac.icann.org> or get more information and an application online <http://www.alac.icann.org/applications/>. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Elections of GNSO Council Members from Registrars Constituency.
by Bruce Tonkin 20 Oct '05

20 Oct '05

-----Original Message----- From: Robert F. Connelly Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:40 PM To: John Jeffrey Cc: Registrars Constituency Subject: [registrars] Elections of GNSO Council Members from Registrars Constituency. Dear John: This Email is to advise you of the results of a ballot for GNSO Representatives which just closed. Bruce Tonkin and Ross Rader have been re-elected to their posts of GNSO Representative. Respectfully submitted, Robert F. Connelly Secretary, Registrars Constituency.

1 0

FW: gTLD Registries Constituency comments concerning the Strategic plan - issues
by Bruce Tonkin 19 Oct '05

19 Oct '05

-----Original Message----- From: Marie.Zitkova Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 4:29 AM Subject: gTLD Registries Constituency comments concerning the Strategic plan - issues Dear Marilyn and Ross, Please find enclosed comment from the gTLD Registries Constituency concerning the ICANN Strategic Planning Issues paper. I trust you will find this a constructive and practical contribution for your meeting on Oct 19. Thank you. Best regards, Marie

1 0

RE: [council] Election of GNSO Council chair
by Bruce Tonkin 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

Hello All, > > I recommend the Council consider appointing a person as GNSO > Council chair for a 1 month term: > 18 Nov 2005 to 18 Dec 2005, > and then after the AGM, the Council appoints a person for a > 12 month term. > Thanks for all the feedback on this proposal. (1) For the future, I recommend that we simply add a GNSO rule of procedure that states that an election for the GNSO Council chair will occur within the month following an AGM. (2) For the new term, we can state the GNSO Council chair is elected from the time of appointment until one month after the next ICANN AGM, or a date 12 months after the date of appointment, whichever is sooner. (3) For the next Council meeting I recommend we appoint a person from 18 Nov to 1 month after the 2005 AGM (ie until 4 Jan 2005). We can then run the election during December, for the next term to run from 4 Jan to 3 Dec 2006 (one month after the current date for 2006 AGM). In due course we can update the bylaws - but lets start with what is immediately under our control. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Election of GNSO Council chair
by Bruce Tonkin 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

Hello All, The current term of the GNSO Council chair expires on 18 November 2005. Given that new Council members take up their appointments after the annual general meeting each year, it would seem to me to make more sense to elect the GNSO Council chair after each AGM. I recommend the Council consider appointing a person as GNSO Council chair for a 1 month term: 18 Nov 2005 to 18 Dec 2005, and then after the AGM, the Council appoints a person for a 12 month term. This will then hopefully better align terms of the GNSO Council chair with the cycle of elections to the GNSO Council and the cycle of ICANN AGMs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

7 12

ICANN Board Actions - 12-Oct-2005
by Michael D. Palage 15 Oct '05

15 Oct '05

Dear Council Members: I apologize for the delay in posting my normal recap of the ICANN Board meeting resolutions. The following resolution was passed by the ICANN Board by a majority of the Board with I believe 2 abstentions and 1 no vote. I am sure of the 1 no vote that I cast (reason set forth below), the 2 abstentions (Peter Dengate Thrush and Raimundo Beca). However, I am not sure of the exact affirmative votes because there were some directors that were dropping in and out of the call during the teleconference because of connectivity problems. RESOLUTION - Approval of Amendment to .NET Registry Agreement Whereas, ICANN and VeriSign have entered an agreement concerning the operation of the .NET registry effective 1 July 2005. Whereas, the community of ICANN-accredited registrars, along with other members of the ICANN community, have voiced complaints concerning the content of the .NET agreement at the Luxembourg meetings and in postings thereafter. Whereas, VeriSign issued a statement during the Luxembourg meeting agreeing to renegotiate terms relating to the wholesale price of names to registrars and the terms Registry-Registrar agreement (RRA). Whereas, ICANN staff has spent several months engaged in discussions with VeriSign and the registrars community concerning appropriate revisions that could be made to the agreement in an attempt to address some of the community concerns. Whereas, updates on the status of consultations and negotiations have been posted to the ICANN website on 9 August 2005 and 22 September 2005. Whereas, these discussions have led to a proposed agreement between VeriSign and ICANN to amend the .NET Registry Agreement, as posted on the ICANN website for public comment on 22 September 2005. Whereas, a public comment forum on the proposed amendment was opened on 22 September 2005 and closed on 10 October 2005. Whereas, the Board has reviewed and considered the five comments that were submitted to the public comment forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-amendment-comments>. Whereas, the Board has determined that entering the proposed amendment would be in the best interests of ICANN and the Internet community. Resolved (05.___) the Board authorizes the President and the General Counsel to enter the proposed amendment to the .NET Registry Agreement, and to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement as amended. There was a lengthy discussion on this topic (over 1 hour). I provided a supplementary statement on the record as to why I opposed the resolution which will appear in the formal minutes. I do not have a copy of the exact wording but from memory I believe it involved the following. I thanked the Registrars, VeriSign and Staff for their negotiations. I talked about the differing viewpoints regarding volume discounts within the registrar constituency. My opinion is that the final language is the best possible solution given that it has enough ambiguity to be construed in favor of either position. I also opposed the removal of the registrars ability to approve the full allocation charged to them under the RAA, now that the registry has the ability to collect 15 cents out of the 25 cent variable registrar fee through the registry. I believe this coupled with the removal of the registry fee cap that was previously in the .net contract removes important contractual safeguards to limit the overall growth of ICANN. Similar to how the new registry service process was incorporated into the .TRAVEL and .JOBS agreements, I believe this sets a dangerous precedent to boot-strap this provision in future registry contracts and thus removing the historic role that registrars have played in approving the budget. Staff denied that this was an attempt to boot-strap anything and that they were actively soliciting the support of registrars like last year to approve the budget. I had a different perspective on this outreach effort based upon the feedback I have heard from registrars. I then advocated delaying the passage of this resolution for one month to allow for further discussions. One director then asked the staff what would be the down side of waiting a month. The response to the best of my recollection was that there was no obligation for VeriSign to negotiate in these discussions, and that the registrars would be disappointed if we did not implement these agreements based upon their hard work. I will copy those staff that participated on the call on this email so that they can clarify or object to any of my recollections regarding this discussion. That being said, I believe that it is of growing importance for the whole Board teleconference to be audio recorded for the community to understand the depth of discussion taking place on our calls. I greatly appreciate the level of questioning that more directors are asking which is a very positive sign that they are listening to the issues. In other action items: ICANN appointed a new CFO Melanie Keller; appointed Olof Nordling as the branch manager of the Brussels office; deferred on the creation of ICANN Board Compensation Committee until the Board had further time to review that documentation; approved the redelegation of .TK; directed General Counsel to approve an analysis regarding the proposed by-law changes from the GNSO; approved the Board Governance Committee to move forward with the selection of the new Non-Com chair prior to the annual meeting in Vancouver, this was in an attempt to start the Nom-Com process earlier in the year to provide more time for the review and analysis of candidates. The staff provided an update on the status regarding the VeriSign litigation, however, there is nothing to report there. No discussion took place in connection the .xxx and .asia sTLD applicants. We also did not get to the GNSO PDP on new registry services or the IDN update. So that is the quick summary of a three hour marathon Board Call. I hope you find this information update informative. Best regards, Michael D. Palage

1 0

Marilyn Cade
by Norbert Klein 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Marilyn, can you please send my your address for off-list mailing. I obviously had an old one and the mail came back. Sorry for using the list for this. Norbert

1 0

CORRECTION:GNSO Council MP3 recording 13 Oct. 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] CORRECTION: Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on October 13, 2005 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20051013.mp3 http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Election of GNSO Council chair
by Bruce Tonkin 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

Hello Avri, > > I think it makes sense to delay the election of a new chair, > but I see no reason why your holding of the chair should not > be extended to cover the month's delay (assuming you will be > remaining on the council). Is that something we can vote on? > If so, I propose it. > The bylaws don't actually allow an "extension" beyond 12 months. The Council can appoint a chair from 0 to 12 months, but no longer. So for example it is not possible to appoint someone for 13 months. Thus I have proposed two terms: 1 month term, and then a fresh 12 month term. There is no limit on the number of terms that a person may serve, just on the length of each term. Regards, Bruce

1 0