November 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Invitation to Privacy Conference: 29 Nov. in Vancouver
by Robin Gross 10 Nov '05

10 Nov '05

Dear Councilors, Please join us on 29 November (2:00-6:30pm) in Vancouver at this important conference on international data protection and privacy issues related to the WHOIS database. We expect a lively and informative exchange on these complex and sensitive issues - so please consider attending this open meeting. Thanks. See you in Vancouver, Robin ============================================= Privacy Conference at Vancouver ICANN Meeting: Building Bridges on ICANN’s Whois Questions Tuesday, November 29th, 2:00 PM - 6:30 PM Sponsors: Noncommercial Users Constituency, Public Interest Registry & The Registry Constituency ++ Draft Agenda ++ Session I: Data Protection Commissioners, ccTLDs and Registrars This session invites Data Protection Commissioners to discuss their data protection laws. It also profiles several ccTLDs and Registrars who have changed their Whois procedures (or are in the midst of changing them) based on these laws. What are the changes? How are they working? How do they allow personal data to be made available to those who need it? (This session will feature considerable time for questions and discussion with the audience.) Session II: Experts on Other Areas of Internet Privacy The Whois debate takes place within the larger context of Internet privacy, but in the ICANN community we rarely refer to outside models. How do online service providers, ISPs and others handle requests for personal data in other Internet areas, including chatroom and email identities? What do these models offer in our work on the Whois dilemma? Session III: Registrars, Registries and NCUC Present Their New Plans for the WHOIS Databases Registries, Registrar and Noncommercial Users Constituency recently put forward different plans to change the gTLD Whois Database to provide protection for personal data. For the first time in a public forum, they will present and discuss their proposals. (Considerable time for input and discussion with the audience planned.) Building Bridges to the Public. This Conference will reach out to civic and social Internet-based organization throughout the world. Attracting new organizations with their insights and concerns will help infuse the Conference and GNSO Whois process with a new level of interest and relevance. Questions/Suggestions. If you have questions, suggestions for speakers, or organizations you think should be invited, please contact Kathryn Kleiman of the Noncommercial Users Constituency at KathrynKl(a)aol.com. Open to All

1 0

Note from Vint Cerf regarding comments on proposed .com agreement
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Nov '05

10 Nov '05

________________________________ From: Vint Cerf Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 1:15 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Dear Bruce, In an ongoing effort to support community dialogue and consultation regarding the VeriSign settlement agreement, the Board is extending the period for comment by requesting that constituencies and advisory committees submit concise, actionable comments regarding the settlement's effect on stakeholder community. I am writing to let you know that I have written emails similar to this to each of the constituency chairs or presidents withing the GNSO. In that email, I request that they please email these comments to <settlement-statements(a)icann.org>, ideally prior to the ICANN Vancouver meeting, so ICANN can use these comments as a basis for continued dialogue. Through those emails, the Board invites each constituency to discuss the settlement with the Board during the ICANN Vancouver meeting and, additionally, the Board will listen to comments regarding the settlement during the Vancouver Public Forum. The Board has set aside time to meet with constituency in Vancouver, and staff will follow-up with you and each constituency individually to confirm the details. The Board appreciates the comments and questions about the settlement posted in ICANN's public forum and raised in meetings with staff since the settlement was announced on 24 October. Additional Q & A's (questions and answers) will be posted on ICANN's website to address key issues raised and support further dialogue and consultation. We appreciate your efforts to assist the Board in determining whether the proposed settlement agreement is in the best interests of the entire Internet community. We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues in Vancouver. Sincerely, Vint Cerf

1 0

Additional evaluation of new TLDs, discussion document in draft
by Olof Nordling 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

Dear Council Members, Please find a draft discussion document attached, in response to questions concerning the need for additional evaluation of new TLDs to inform the policy development for introduction of new TLDs. The document contains background, considerations and proposals on the subject matter, for discussions on the list and in preparation for the Council conference call next Wednesday. Very best regards Olof Olof Nordling Manager, Policy Development Coordination ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 Mobile: +32.475.420805 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 E-mail: olof.nordling(a)icann.org <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org

2 1

ICANN Board Meeting -08-Nov-05
by Michael D. Palage 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

Dear Council Members: Listed below are the resolutions which the ICANN Board passed yesterday. I have also included how I voted on the resolution along with any questions/concerns that I may have voiced in connection with a specific matter. Should anyone have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards, Michael D. Palage Resolution: Review and Consideration of Policy Development Process Results and Public Comments for "Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry" Action: This resolution passed unanimously. However, I expressed reservation regarding the 45 day frame for referral to competition authorities, and whether that was sufficient based upon ICANN's existing experience with competition authorities. I also asked about the enforcement power of the major competition authorities if a third party evoked a complaint directly with the competition authority, as opposed to ICANN referring it. I received representations from ICANN staff in response to my questions that this should not be a problem. Resolution: Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for the Creation of a new Board Compensation Committee Action: This resolution passed with a majority of the Board voting with one no vote. I voted in favor of this committee based upon the discussion that the salaries of the officers would be made publicly available in accordance with ICANN's transparency requirements. Resolution: Approval of Board of Director's Expenses Action: This resolution for reimbursement to Vint Cerf and Vanda Scartezini for ICANN related travel expenses passed unanimously. Resolution: Authorization to Bind Professional Liability Insurance for Directors & Officers Action: This resolution passed unanimously. I requested and received assurances from staff that these policies would be provided to Directors during the annual meeting at the time Directors submitted their annual conflict of interest statement. Resolution: Approval of 177K in Legal Expenses Action: This resolution passed unanimously. However, myself and other directors asked for specifics in the future regarding the break down of legal expenses instead of just monthly totals and a summary of litigation and legal issues. Resolution: Authorization to Enter into Addendum to Marina del Rey Sublease Action: This resolution passed unanimously. Resolution: Redelegation of .GS (South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands) Action: This resolution passed with a majority of those directors in attendance with two abstentions. I noted for the record the second US Principles on the Internet Domain Name and Addressing System which state that "governments have a legitimate interest in the management of their ccTLDs". I also note the need for ICANN/IANA to move forward expeditiously with the translations of these key redelegation documents to help all countries, but particularly developing countries, in this vital task. Resolution: Proposed Guidelines for Implementation of IDN's, v.2.0 Action: This resolution passed unanimously. Given the concerns raised by some, these guidelines were explicitly set to expire in 9 month during which the President's IDN Committee and the other relevant working groups were to continue their work in this area. No specific resolutions were taken in connection with the following issues: - Briefing Regarding Certain Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Budget Items - Single Letter 2d Level Domain Name Discussion - Proposed ICANN Bylaws Changes on Interim ALAC's Certification of At-Large Structures - Consideration of .ASIA sTLD Application

1 1

GNSO Council draft minutes 20 October 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 20 October 2005. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- 20 October 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. proxy if necessary to Grant Forsyth/Philip Sheppard/Bruce Tonkin Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC- absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Greg Ruth Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller - Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars - proxy if necessary to Thomas Keller/Bruce Tonkin Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols/Kiyoshi Tsuru Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.- absent Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - absent Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. - absent Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - aplogies - proxy to Bruce Tonkin Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - proxy if necessary to Bruce Tonkin Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee - proxy if necessary to Norbert Klein/Bruce Tonkin 14 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Michael Palage - ICANN Board member Invited Guest Jordyn Buchanan - WHOIS task force chair MP3 Recording Quorum present at 14: 10 CET. Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Approval of the agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes - Committee teleconference - 25 August 2005 - Council teleconference - 1 September 2005 - Council teleconference - 8 September 2005 - Council teleconference - 22 September 2005 Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes: - Committee teleconference - 25 August 2005 - Council teleconference - 1 September 2005 - Council teleconference - 8 September 2005 - Council teleconference - 22 September 2005 Motion approved. Abstention noted for Grant Forsyth on Council teleconference - 22 September 2005 Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes were adopted for the meetings: - Committee teleconference - 25 August 2005 - Council teleconference - 1 September 2005 - Council teleconference - 8 September 2005 - Council teleconference - 22 September 2005 Item 2: Staff action items 2.1 list of current GNSO work items 2.2 update from Glen on Vancouver meeting schedule 2.2 Glen reported that certain room space had been procured for the GNSO Council and task forces on Monday, Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday and Saturday afternoons but the schedule had not been finalised. Maureen Cubberley offered to assist with obtaining space in Vancouver if needed for the GNSO. Marilyn Cade, supported by Maureen Cubberley reiterated the idea that it was necessary for a programming committee to meet at the end of each ICANN meeting. Grant Forsyth mentioned that the difficulties experienced in organising the New Zealand meeting should be brought to the Dr. Twomey and the Senior Staff's attention. Suzanne Sene reported that the Whois GAC workshop was planned as an open event on Tuesday morning, 29 November. Outreach was being made to Africa and Latin America for representation. The meeting focus would be on public policy aspects such as consumer, privacy and Intellectual Property protection. Among the proposed presentations are representatives from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on consumer protection, a German Data Protection commissioner from the European Commission, the Canadian banking industry, an Australian representative from eBay, and Margie Milam from Mark Monitor on Intellectual Property issues. Bruce Tonkin urged councillors to suggest possible speakers. Item 3: Process for election of GNSO Council chair - current term of GNSO Council chair finishes 18 November 2005 - consider election for a one month term (18 Nov to 18 Dec 05) to align with terms of Council members that expire at the end of annual general meetings - then hold election with full Council in December Bruce Tonkin commented that in view of the current GNSO chair’s term finishing on 18 November 2005, it would be worth considering aligning the term of the chair with that of council members which should correspond to the annual general meeting. Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard. Philip Sheppard stated that the process for election of GNSO Council chair had been updated by discussion on the council mailing list. Maureen Cubberley seconded by Ken Stubbs proposed that: a GNSO Council Chair be appointed for an interim term from 18 November to 1 month after the 2005 Annual General Meeting (ie until 4 January 2006) and an election for the GNSO Council Chair be held 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) for a period of one year. A formal nomination period would immediately open for one week from Thursday 20 October to Thursday 27 October 2005. The motion was unanimously accepted by nominated vote. Kiyoshi Tsuru, Robin Gross and Norbert Klein were absent with no proxy and did not vote. Decision 2 An interim GNSO Council Chair be appointed for an interim term from 18 November to 1 month after the 2005 Annual General Meeting (ie until 4 January 2006) and an election for the GNSO Council Chair be held 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) for a period of one year. A formal nomination period for an interim term would immediately open for one week from Thursday 20 October to Thursday 27 October 2005. Ken Stubbs seconded by Ross Rader nominated Bruce Tonkin, who accepted the nomination, for the interim position. The vote will be held at the next GNSO Council meeting on 16 November 2005 Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Item 4: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as .travel, .jobs. .mobi etc) - update on questions to structure the evaluation Olof Nordling commented that it would be useful if Council members were to submit questions to be evaluated which would be sent to the GNSO constituencies for their input. It seemed as though the mapping of earlier rounds was incomplete thus assistance with questions that were lacking from the earlier evaluation would be useful. Marilyn Cade clarified that the purpose of looking backwards at what had been done was to educate what should be done going forwards and see what lessons had been learned from the processes followed. Concern was expressed with what appeared to be a random process asking councillors to brainstorm questions. An evaluation process was established for the initial round of gTLDs, and though it may not be necessary to undertake every question reviewed, it could be a starting point to assess what areas would be applicable in the new gTLD policy. Philip Sheppard stated that it was necessary compare to the past if additional domain names were to be added and if the questions were changed comparability would be lost. Bruce Tonkin proposed that councillors contacted Olof Nordling regarding the evaluation of previous new gTLDs. Item 5: Policy Development Process for new gtlds - update on development of issues report Olof Nordling reported that the Issues Report for new gTLDs still required review by other staff members, including the General Counsel, and would be published shortly. It was a highly prioritized item. Item 6: Policy development for IDNs - update on background document Maria Farrell reported that the IDN background paper would be published at the end of the week ending 28 October 2005. Item 7: Update on WHOIS task force Jordyn Buchanan, the Whois task force chair stated that the Final task force report on a policy recommendation and advice on a procedure for handling conflicts between a registrar/registry's legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN was complete. The recommendation was unanimously supported within the Whois task force and the report would be submitted to the GNSO Council chair for consideration by the GNSO Council. Continued work in the Whois task force was focusing on items 1 & 2 of the Whois Terms of Reference, 1) Define the purpose of the WHOIS service in the context of ICANN's mission and relevant core values, international and national laws protecting privacy of natural persons, international and national laws that relate specifically to the WHOIS service, and the changing nature of Registered Name Holders. (2) Define the purpose of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, and the purpose for which the data was collected. Use the relevant definitions from Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point. A preliminary report could be expected 7 days prior to the Vancouver meeting. Item 8: Update on ICANN strategic planning from Marina Del Ray Meeting Marilyn Cade reported that the meeting, a one day event, was attended by Dr. Paul Twomey, Dr. Vint Cerf, Raimudo Beca, Njeri Rionge, Michael Palage and Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, (members of the ICANN board), Kurt Pritz, Denise Michel, Bret Fausett, Ross Rader, and Patrick Sharry who facilitated a brainstorming exercise using the documents in the Issues Report. The focus was on 2 – 3 year issues. The entire process will be published for public comment. The idea is to continue discussions in Vancouver, finalise the strategic plan and have the Board vote on it at the January meeting. Timelines emerged as a major concern and discussions with Vint and Paul Twomey were held about the urgency of approving the strategic plan within the timeframe. Recognition is emerging of the need to support cross communication, across the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. There was a strong assumption that inputs to the ICANN strategic plan would include recognition of the Supporting Organisations which placed responsibilities on the Council to develop its own strategic plan ensuring community representation in the consultation and input processes available on the larger ICANN plan. Among the top 10 items having impact on ICANN were IDNs and the post MoU WSIS environment. Ross Rader added that in totality it was a first step in representational dialogue, a two way process where people were listening and talking about things important to the GNSO. Striking was the amount of work that ICANN needed to do over the next 5 years which would require more effective communication in the GNSO and within the entire organisation. Marilyn Cade commented that increased interaction between the Advisory committees and the Supporting Organisations was essential. Item 9: Update on GNSO operational and strategic planning process. Ross Rader, who chaired the planning group in Grant's absence, reported the planning group was discussing how to organize the work, the next steps being to start doing the work. The major issue was the inventory of work that remained outstanding and prioritisation. It was generally agreed that consensus on prioritisation should be sought from Council. Short term scheduling was less difficult than long term scheduling. Grant Forsyth, chair of the planning group, commented that the core of the planning calls had been one common document, regularly updated, with three objectives, indicating the GNSO current work to the outside world, the priorities, and tracking the activities. Bruce Tonkin proposed working on the GNSO Strategic Plan prior to Vancouver. In parallel Grant Forsyth and Ross Rader would work on the GNSO Operational Plan with particular focus on the next 4 – 6 months, prioritising with input from the Council. Item 10: Any other business 10.1 GNSO Review Terms of Reference Liz Williams noted that the GNSO Review Terms of Reference were to be posted for Public Comment. 10.2 WSIS group update Avri Doria enquired whether any progress had been made concerning the list of volunteers to review and summarise the main outcomes and strategic issues of the Tunis WSIS meeting, 16-18 November 2005, which should be included in the GNSO Vancouver meeting schedule. Marilyn Cade reported that a conference call with ICANN staff and the working group would be scheduled to assure a bottom up process to formulate and participate in the plan and how best to address the issue in Vancouver. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 15: 20 CET. Next GNSO Council Teleconference Wednesday 16 November 2005 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes 13 October 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 13 October 2005. Something happened to this document on the website: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01493.html that is why I am resending it in plain text. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 13 October 2005 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 Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries - absent - apologies Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols/Kiyoshi Tsuru Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - absent Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Michael Palage - ICANN Board member MP3 Recording Quorum present at 14: 08 CET. Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Approval of the Agenda Item 1:- identify any common points of view for presentation to ICANN staff and other supporting organisations on 18/19 October 2005 Bruce Tonkin reviewed the ICANN Strategic Planning Issues paper posted on 4 October 2005, with Patrick Sharry and summarised as follows: 7 strategic issues are identified: - The continued rise of the Internet as a truly global means of communication and the need for ICANN to met the needs of a truly global stakeholder base - Ensuring stability and security in an environment of increased threats - Maintaining stability given expected increases in scale driven by the number of devices using the Internet and the number of users - Multiple complicated changes to the Internet operations or protocols that need to be managed in parallel, including possible paradigm changes not yet anticipated. - 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. - ICANN taking an appropriate role in the further evolution of the broad group of international entities involved in Internet co-ordination - Designing appropriate structures and processes for a post-MOU ICANN. The ICANN Strategic Planning Issues paper , pages 1 - 3, deal with the external environment that affect ICANN's role while pages 4 – 8 summarise public comments received during the planned sessions in Luxembourg and comments on the previous documents ICANN produced. The next step is to envisage the Internet environment in 3 – 4 years time and then Patrick Sharry will create a new document the " ICANN strategic plan". Marilyn Cade asked for clarification on how incomplete areas, identified initially in the Amsterdam 2005 consultation process, such as restricted funds, subject areas for restricted funds, how they would be managed, and regional offices, would be addressed as they were not included in the current document? Bruce Tonkin responded that restricted funds and regional offices were a means to meet an objective, and not objectives in their own right. The plan would first identify measurable strategic objectives for 2009, then identify the initiatives needed to meet those objectives, and then consider how to fund those initiatives. Avri Doria commented on 3 issues that should be included as separate items in the strategic plan: a. Internationalisation b. Stakeholder representation c. Corporate/organizational governance a. Internationalisation Internationalisation was proposed as a separate item in the strategic plan beyond the mention of regional offices, linguistic requirements and the USG relationship with ICANN and IANA in the MoU, in an attempt to obviate the need for international oversight. The current corporate existence as an US chartered corporation should be examined as the latter is subject to all US laws regarding business transactions with foreign governments and foreign companies. ICANN needs to insure that nothing in its US based incorporation could interfere with its global obligations and for this reason may need to consider changing from a US corporation to an International organization. There are several models that could be explored on how this could be achieved. Discussions would need to take into account and seek solutions in light of ICANN's current obligations under US law to its employees, to the constituencies, and current contractual obligations. b. Stakeholder representation: This topic should merit a separate item as it was important not only in the post MoU era but in the run up to the termination of the MOU. ICANN should consider increasing its stakeholder participation and the role they play in decision making, registrants, users of the DNS system and governments from "advisory" to full participation. The role of the non-registrant user, who does not own a domain name, should be explored. c. Corporate/organizational governance ICANN needs to review, and perhaps strengthen its notions of corporate/organizational governance, that is, a formal, external audit process that regularly reviews, not only the financial aspects of ICANN, but reviews ICANN's adherence to its own principles. In addition appeal mechanisms available to those who believe their rights or concerns vis a vis ICANN, and its process, have been damaged should be reviewed. Is the internal ombudsman process adequate or should there be a mechanism or a process created for external binding appeal ? Norbert Klein supported Avri's comments and said that at the WSIS conference in Geneva other governments expressed concern about the legal implications that ICANN was a US corporation. In general it was agreed that a review, summarising the main outcomes and strategic issues of the Tunis WSIS meeting, 16-18 November 2005, should be included in the GNSO Vancouver meeting schedule as well as the role of government in ICANN. ACTION ITEM: Council members who volunteered to provide input to the document of outcomes from the Tunis WSIS meeting were, Marilyn Cade, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Avri Doria and Norbert Klein. Philip Sheppard commented that the Issues paper should be more explicit on" fostering competition", part of ICANN's mission, and the way ICANN is perceived in fostering competition. Grant Forsyth commented that it was important for the strategic planning process to look at the world of ICANN in a wider context as not necessarily the only player in broad Internet governance, and identify issues that were not dealt with through ICANN but recognize that there are other bodies or entities to deal with these issues. For example, the Internet in developing countries was a factor to be acknowledged and recognized, even if it was not appropriate for ICANN to address the issue. Tony Harris referring to " ICANN should be doing more to assist the development of internet communities in developing countries" mentioned that it was the role of the WSIS in the declaration of principles, and the suggestion would be to concentrate on focusing ICANN on creating awareness of the ICANN function and resources and not developing broader Internet communities as a general purpose. Regional outreach should be anchored in the objectives of ICANN such as IP addresses and domain names rather than confusing people about the role of ICANN. Tony Holmes referred to the "need to prepare for a post-MOU ICANN" and commented that the reason why it had not come to the fore was because of the uncertainty in this area and it was not clear what it meant for ICANN. Dialogue at the Council level would be advantageous to clarify the issue. Ken Stubbs, supported by Philip Colebrook added that future financing and enhancing relationships between the supporting organisations should be elaborated. Maureen Cubberley suggested linking of some of the ideas, as separate discussions tended to diffuse and complicate the issues, and analysing to see where there was overlap and significant impact of the overlap. Item 2: GNSO Strategic plan document for presentation to the Board in Vancouver - begin to identify GNSO strategic view for input into ICANN strategic plan. Bruce Tonkin pointed out that the strategic objectives in terms of 3 years, should be identified as a base for the operational plan which would take into account 4 month and one year goals. There should be a balance in strategic objectives and operational planning. The planning process is a yearly cycle, which is updated. The GNSO objectives could be formulated under the 7 headings: 2.1 Representation: The GNSO should examine " representation", how broad was the current representation, what was expected in 3 years , and what was needed to transition to the future. Marilyn Cade proposed short, medium and long term goals. An example of an operational plan based on the objective of broader representation: To ensure participation in the constituencies from all regions (e.g. Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America) and major sub regions (e.g. Middle East, Pacific Islands, Caribbean Islands) of the world. To ensure representation on the council from all regions. The constituencies require participation from each of those regions and sub regions to carry out their work. Where are the gaps in participation and what are the steps that the council should take itself, or what would the council need from an external group to close that gap. In the area of representation for example there is an outside resource to the Council, the Nominating Committee, to whom a list of criteria could be presented as a mechanism to solicit representation from unrepresented regions of the world A measurable should be defined against the objective: Part of the GNSO Review is to measure the current representation in the GNSO constituencies and council on a region and sub region basis and the objective is where to go in the future and the next stage would be what should be done to achieve that. Ross Rader suggested that the diversity within the constituencies be recognized and there should be continued encouragement for not only geographic diversity but liberty of interest. Some thought should be given to groups that may need to be broken out of existing constituencies and examining their place in new constituencies. In the registrars constituency, registrars service different subgroups of registrants such as large corporates protecting brands and registering many names, small businesses, 'pay for click' registrants that have a million names each. Some registrars focused on direct sales to retail customers, e.g. Godaddy, other registrars focused on providing registration software services to other organizations e.g. Tucows or Melbourne IT, and some registrars focused on the secondary market. Philip Sheppard suggested that a subset could concretely be judged by defining the cost benefit to users of the users being more deeply involved in ICANN. The costs of users to be involved and what they would get out of that involvement should be considered. It concerned the functions of ICANN and the ability to make a difference by involvement. 2.2 Security. What would a GNSO objective be on security? Philip Sheppard, using the ICANN example, stated that defining what ICANN did not do was as important as defining what ICANN did, thus defining what the GNSO did not do on security would be key. Bruce Tonkin noted that two main approaches to security could be one, to inform registrants about what security they should be seeking and then rely on competition to ensure that registrants could choose the appropriate level of security for their needs, or two, ICANN decide that the market has failed to protect registrants and non-registrant users, and require all registrars or registries to implement a minimum level of security. The recent work done by the ICANN Security and Stability committee on domain name hijacking is an example where there is an attempt to inform the public, and then it is left to the GNSO to decide whether to impose some security requirements through a policy. Tony Holmes commented that a missing element was the need to cooperate on security with other groups across other areas. An proposed objective would be not to develop security solutions but collaborate with those who did develop security solutions and provide information to the GNSO community, except perhaps in the area of ensuring the adoption of security standards in areas where ICANN had direct oversight or technical coordination. Another approach was suggested, mandating at the top level, and create an awareness in the user population of the importance of advancing the adoption of DNSSEC Security is singled out by the MoU as a subset of stability and should continue to be seen in that perspective rather than a separate item. Ross Rader suggested leaving a placeholder on security. The scope of the GNSO as opposed to the ICANN world should be considered. There were a number of clear security issues in both the registration and the resolution processes, such as transfers, which are well documented. At the GNSO level security should be more specific, stating the current status, what is or would be desirable and how would those objectives be reached, e.g. increasing awareness, and if after a year awareness has not been increased, then mandate. In summary the strategic objectives could be stated as: The GNSO will aim to cooperate with security experts (such as SSAC) and technical standards bodies (such as IETF) to raise awareness of security issues and possible solutions to those issues. The GNSO will identify known security issues within the domain name registration and the maintenance of domain name records, and identify possible solutions. 2.3 Scale Issues Stability in relation to scale is important from an IP address point of view. From a TLD point of view one of the issues relating to scale are domain names. For example, if the number of users increased from 40 million to a 100 million what would that do to the DNS system, would it be putting more load at the root server level, should there be new TLDs? New gTLD allocation policy needs to be discussed, for example does each device type get their own TLD (e.g. .mobile, .ipod etc)? International Domain Names (IDN's) could become a scaling issue, for example if there were an increase in English speaking Internet what affect would that have as a scale and if there were more languages being used scaling would be an issue in the sense of languages as well. The fundamental question is whether there would be a large increase in domain names, how it would work and then what policy decisions should follow. In summary a strategic objective could be stated as follows: The GNSO seeks to ensure that the gtld domain name system can handle at least three times the number of top level and second level domain names, and at least 100 languages by 2009. 2. 4 Multiple complicated changes to Internet operations Looking at environmental changes, domain names existed before the world wide web and before search engines but will there be a continued need for them and what will be the interaction of the growth of research on domain names and technology. The GNSO would not change the technology, but in considering environmental changes may be in a position to request new requirements in technical standards by being informed at a standardisation and application level. Proposed objective: - to increase liaisons with technical groups such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IET and WC3 - to arrange workshops or conferences with these groups to facilitate two way discussions to understand the impact of technological change on the DNS, and changes in the use of domain names by Internet users. 2 5 Possible fracturing of the address space At a domain name level alternative roots over the DNS become an issue. ORSN, an alternative registry, of alternate root servers operating with a 'stale' root zone file. http://european.de.orsn.net/faq.php#opmode was mentioned. Proposed objective: To preserve the integrity of the single root for both ASCI and IDN related domain names. Objectives need to be framed around what is good for the DNS and the single root argument leans toward what is good for ICANN and the GNSO and not necessarily what is good for the DNS. ICANN is founded on the support of a single authoritative root and it would take a significant amount of rethinking, redebating for the community that supports ICANN to move away from that base. However current technology is limited to a single root system and without a technological solution it is difficult to move beyond that. The reality is that with a fragmented root there will be no sure way of knowing the outcome when there is a DNS query or parts of the DNS will be unreachable. There is not necessarily a commitment to a single root but committed to the restraints that exists. A proposed objective should encompass predictability and reliability. [Related references from the IETF include, RFC2956 (Overview of 1999 IAB Network Layer Workshop, dated October 2000), RFC2775 (Internet Transparency, dated February 2000), RFC 2826 (IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root, dated May 2000)] In summary an objective could be stated as: The GNSO will continue to support a domain name system that consists of globally unique identifiers that ensures two users in different parts of the Internet using the same application would experience the same application behaviour when using the same identifier (predictability), and that this behaviour is repeatable at different times of the day (reliability). 2. 6 ICANN taking an appropriate role in the further evolution of the broad group of international entities involved in Internet co-ordination. This item has been broadly encompassed by issues such as security, changes in protocols, fracturing of the root. The need for ICANN to develop an appropriate role, which could be co-operation, collaboration, co-existence and/or participation within a broader group of entities, such as the IETF, W3C, ITU, ISO, the Unicode consortium and regional bodies such as CENTR and APTLDs. Separating strategy from operations, the strategy could be: to establish outreach with international entities involved in Internet coordination. 2. 7 Designing appropriate structures and processes for a post-MOU ICANN. Strategic objectives for 3 years ahead could be defined in the above mentioned objectives and any post MoU structure would need to support those areas. Ensuring the ability to maintain the bottom up consensus policy development process maintaining the broader private sector leadership, which would include civil society, broad set of Internet users, the technical community and business users, . Next Steps: - Formulate objectives. - State the initiatives to achieve the objectives - Input for the operational planning of the GNSO - Next 12 months Continued work focus on current issues such as Transfers and Whois as well as work on strategic goals. Planning for Vancouver meeting: 2 Documents: 1. Operational document stating goals for the next 4 months and 12 months, such as transfers, WHOIS, GNSO Council review output 2. Strategic objectives document based on 7 items above - establishing the initiatives in each category OAB 3. Marilyn Cade asked whether there would be any budget items related to the strategic or operational plan that should be noted for the Vancouver meeting as there were certain outstanding issues that had to be addressed by the community and resolved. Michael Palage commented that there has been a proposal submitted by the staff to the finance committee regarding moving forward with some of the set aside budget items. Procedurally the recommendations of the Board Finance committee will have to be submitted to the full Board before deciding how to move forward. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 16: 15 CET. Next GNSO Council Teleconference Thursday 20 October 2005 at 12:00 UTC. Topic: see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council teleconference on Wednesday 16 November 2005
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

Please note the unusual day (Wednesday rather than Thursday) as well as the change in time to reflect the shift to/from daylight savings time (depending where in the world you are located). The Council calls will continue at this time until around April 2006. Regards, Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2005 7:01 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council > teleconference on Wednesday 16 November 2005 > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday 16 November 2005 > > Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 > > (11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 8:00 > Wellington next day 17 November) > > > Item 1: Approval of minutes > - Council teleconference - 13 October 2005 > - Council teleconference - 20 October 2005 > > > Item 2: Staff action items > - list of current GNSO work items > - update from Glen on Vancouver meeting schedule > > Item 3: Election of GNSO Council chair > - Bruce Tonkin has been nominated and seconded > - term from 18 Nov 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 Jan 2006) > > > Item 4: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as > .travel, .jobs. .mobi etc) > - update on questions to structure the evaluation > > > Item 5: Policy Development Process for new gtlds > - discuss issues report > - decide whether to commence a PDP > > Item 6: Policy development for IDNs > - discuss background document > - decide whether to formally request an issues report > > > Item 7: WHOIS: Final Recommendation regarding handling > conflicts between a registrar/registry's legal obligations > under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN > - vote on final recommendation as completed by the WHOIS task force on > 19 Oct > > Item 8: WHOIS task force > - progress on purpose and definitions of contacts > > Item 9: Update on GNSO strategic plan > > Item 10: Update on GNSO operational plan > > Item 11: Any other business > > >

1 0

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council teleconference on Wednesday 16 November 2005
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday 16 November 2005 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 8:00 Wellington next day 17 November) Item 1: Approval of minutes - Council teleconference - 13 October 2005 - Council teleconference - 20 October 2005 Item 2: Staff action items - list of current GNSO work items - update from Glen on Vancouver meeting schedule Item 3: Election of GNSO Council chair - Bruce Tonkin has been nominated and seconded - term from 18 Nov 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 Jan 2006) Item 4: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as .travel, .jobs. .mobi etc) - update on questions to structure the evaluation Item 5: Policy Development Process for new gtlds - discuss issues report - decide whether to commence a PDP Item 6: Policy development for IDNs - discuss background document - decide whether to formally request an issues report Item 7: WHOIS: Final Recommendation regarding handling conflicts between a registrar/registry's legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN - vote on final recommendation as completed by the WHOIS task force on 19 Oct Item 8: WHOIS task force - progress on purpose and definitions of contacts Item 9: Update on GNSO strategic plan Item 10: Update on GNSO operational plan Item 11: Any other business

1 0

Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Nov '05

09 Nov '05

-----Original Message----- From: Tina Dam Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2005 5:40 AM Subject: Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted Today's IDN status Update includes the posting of the IDN revision working groups proposed final version of the IDN Guidelines. Please note that this still is pending ICANN Board endorsement before it may be considered the final version 2.0. Along with this, an overview of the actions taken by the working group in response to the comment received on the initially proposed draft has been posted. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-07nov05.htm Please keep in mind that the IDN forum is still open for the continued IDN discussions. And please don't hesitate to contact me for any questions. Best regards, Tina Dam Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

5 6

Introduction of new TLDs, Issues Report in draft
by Olof Nordling 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

Dear Council Members, Please find attached a draft Issues Report on the introduction of new TLDs, as input to discussions on the list and for the next GNSO Council meeting on 16 November. Very best regards Olof Olof Nordling Manager, Policy Development Coordination ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 Mobile: +32.475.420805 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 E-mail: olof.nordling(a)icann.org <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org

1 0