December 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates
by Your Name Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

OK with me Tony Harris > Dear Councillors, > > These are proposed dates for Council meetings till the Vancouver meetings. > > Thursday 28 July 12:00 UTC > Thursday 18 August 12:00 UTC > Thursday 21 September 12:00 UTC > Thursday 20 October 12:00 UTC > Wednesday 16 November 19:00 UTC > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you very much. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > -- > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > --

4 5

FW: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 9, 2006

Jan. 9, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:01 PM Subject: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement To: Chair, ICANN Board From: Chair, GNSO Council Hello Vint, Please pass onto the Board the following motion passed by the GNSO Council in its meeting in Vancouver on Friday 2 Dec 2005. "Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern; Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation between ICANN and Verisign; Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement; Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO; The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 3

Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
by olof nordling Jan. 5, 2006

Jan. 5, 2006

Dear all, As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January. The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions - if so, which questions? I'm looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft. Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season) Olof

11 35

GNSO Council revised draft minutes Vancouver meeting 28 Nov. 2005
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 28, 2005

Dec. 28, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver held on 28 November 2005. Unfortunately the document is unreadable on the website: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01687.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 28 November 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 - remote participation Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes Antonio Harris - ISCPC - proxy to Tony Holmes (joined meeting after roll call) Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars (joined meeting after roll call) Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - remote participation Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.- remote participation Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - remote participation Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 17 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Diane Schroeder - General Manager, Conferences, Administration & Finance Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Michael Palage - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Quorum present at 9: 12 PST. Two MP3 recordings of the second part of the meeting (not very clear) http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council20051122.mp3 http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO2-20051122;MP3.mp3 Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference. Approval of Agenda Diane Schroeder addressed the meeting informing the Council of an important time modification to the schedule for the GNSO Public Forum and GNSO Council meeting on Friday 2 December 2005 in Vancouver. Marilyn Cade proposed ending the meeting early to prepare for the joint meeting with the ICANN Board in the afternoon. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed Philip Sheppard as chair for the election process. Motion carried unanimously Decision 1: Philip Sheppard chaired the GNSO Council meeting for the election process. 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) Philip Sheppard proposed: Whereas Bruce Tonkin had been nominated by Ken Stubbs and seconded by Ross Rader as GNSO Council chair for the period from 18 November 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 January 2006) Recommended that Bruce Tonkin be elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006). Philip Sheppard called for a formal roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. No vote was recorded for Tony Harris who joined the meeting late. Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin was elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006). Philip Sheppard formally handed the chair to Bruce Tonkin. Item 4: Approval of minutes - GNSO Council teleconference - 13 October 2005 - GNSO Council teleconference - 20 October 2005 Maureen Cubberley moved the adoption of the minutes. The motion carried. Niklas Lagergren abstained Decision 3: The GNSO Council minutes of 13 October 2005 and 20 October 2005 were adopted. Item 5: 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 the document elaborated the need for further evaluation of recently introduced gTLDs and proposed an approach for this, focused to inform ongoing work on policy aspects regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. Discussions on an evaluation of the ongoing sTLD round were under way with the consultant that performed the main evaluation of the “proof-of-concept” round for ICANN. It was recommended that the GNSO Council stated that questions relating to selection criteria, allocation methods and contractual conditions were of particular relevance in this context. The document proposed a draft list of questions to this end. The report was designed to give the GNSO Council the information necessary to discuss and decide on ways to proceed with additional evaluation aspects of assigned new TLDs. Maureen Cubberley referred to page 8 of the report, 'consideration for additional review', and commented that there was a need for emphasis on the process of decision making that informed the evaluation. It was essential to look at the content of the recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sponsored round of gTLDs . Bruce Tonkin pointed out that the new gTLD process was under discussion, and that the evaluation was driven by a process several years ago. There were two issues, one, how to improve the process and the second, should new gTLDs be introduced. Marilyn Cade noted from the Business Constituency’s perspective, that clear guidance was given for the recent round of gTLDs to be sponsored. Sponsored was discussed in depth yet there appeared to be a limited match in the case of some of the applicants. Further guidance and criteria on ‘sponsored’was required. Maureen Cubberley commented that ambiguities in the RFP led to the issue. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the project manager (Miriam Sapiro) produce a ‘lessons learnt’ paper, a quick follow up of the report in terms of the outcome, which should not be wider but intended as input to a subsequent wider process and that an "independent external review" be carried out by someone different from the project manager. ACTION Council was encouraged to examine the list of questions and provide further questions to Miriam Sapiro. Further it was suggested that Miriam Sapiro do a presentation at the GNSO Public Forum on Friday 2 December 2005. Item 6: Policy Development Process for new gtlds - discuss issues report - decide whether to commence a PDP Bruce Tonkin referred to the ICANN Bylaws. Section 2. Creation of the Issue Report Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an "Issue Report"). Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following: Section 2. Creation of the Issue Report had been completed Section 2 e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council should initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Staff Recommendation"). Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the PDP is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue: The staff manager, Olof Nordling had recommended that a PDP be initiated. Bruce Tonkin proposed that at the current meeting the Council vote to commence a PDP. Marilyn Cade, seconded by Tom Keller proposed: Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work The vote was by show of hands. The motion carried unanimously. No abstentions Decision 4: Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work Item 7: WHOIS: 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 - vote on final recommendation as completed by the WHOIS task force on 19 Oct Bruce Tonkin noted that the "advice" as set forth was not consensus policy. Niklas Lagergren stated that the task force Final Report was supported unanimously by the WHOIS task force. Ross Rader, a member of the task force raised a procedural question that after the task force had already voted on the final report, it should be made precise that reference was to the gTLD WHOIS service and did not refer to the protocol, the RIR WHOIS service or the country code WHOIS service. Tom Keller seconded by Niklas Lagergren proposed that: The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD Whois service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure. Bruce Tonkin called for formal roll call vote. The motion carried. 26 Votes in support Abstention from Avri Doria: Reason: Does not believe goes far enough in protecting privacy Decision 5 The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure. Item 8: Policy development for IDNs - discuss background document - decide whether to formally request an issues report section 1 - Raising an Issue section 2 - Creation of the Issue Report Bruce Tonkin referred to the background document which listed the existing resolutions, workshops, and information on the President’s Advisory Committee, of which Cary Karp was a member, and suggested that the GNSO request the staff to produce an issues report on the policy issues using the document as a basis. Bruce added that there should be clarity for the community what the policy aspects for the GNSO were. Cary Karp commented that attention should not only be to constrain 2nd level of the DNS, the top level and the 3rd and 4th level of the DNS should also be considered. If control was invoked as a term of delegation the domain space could not be policed, which means that anything not permitted should be folded into the underlying possible standards. The first generation would be a normative framework that expected anything to be done but allowed policy constraint to guide. Cary further clarified that internationalization meant changing the system to make it useable in the polyglot world we live in while making it work with Cambodia, for example, is localization. An Arabic version of.com is a localization. The concern is the translated versions of the gtld labels. Discussion followed on the motion to be drafted. Due to the complexity of the topic and in order for constituency discussion, Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling the following motion to be voted on at the GNSO Council meeting on Friday 2 December 2005: Tabled motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space. WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to the issue of localised IDN equivalents of existing gTLDs and ccTLDs, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report. The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered. Bruce Tonkin proposed revisiting the process of the PDP on new gTLDs. and outlined the proposed work: January to June - PDP on New gTLDs - PDP on IDNs - WHOIS task force - considered to drain a lot of resources Bruce Tonkin noted that with respect to issues such as WHOIS that will likely need to evolve over several years, it may be more efficient to spend a limited time on the issue each year, rather than tie up GNSO community and staff resources for the whole year, e.g. each year concentrate 3 months on an issue and spend 2 days face to face, then leave it alone and pick it up again. There was general agreement on: - scheduling new gTLDs work program with significant face to face interaction time. - using new technologies, such as wikis and blogs to encourage community participation - setting up a group outside Council with expertise to support running a wiki on the new gTLD issues for the community beyond the council. - creating a structured mechanism to gather data Bruce Tonkin recommended that the Council as a whole deal with the new gTLD PDP using mailing lists, wiki, and a 2 day face to face meeting. Each new effort should take into account the GNSO Council review recommendations looking at what has gone before and what can be improved. The proposed IDN PDP would be managed by a task force of experts and the constituencies should work on identifying new people with particular skills. Agenda Item deferred: Item 8: WHOIS task force - progress on purpose and definitions of contacts Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 11: 45 PST. Next GNSO Council meeting in Vancouver, Friday 2 December 2005 at 10:30 PST see: Calendar

1 0

Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 28, 2005

Dec. 28, 2005

Olof, I may have additional comments, but one quick one. The reference to "oral presentations" should also say " via conference call". Also, I do not support limiting the response to only one question. For instance, by answering "Yes" to Q.1, and not answering any other question, THERE IS VERY little value to such a response. The purpose of this approach is to get substantive inputs that will not come in via the routine public comment process. I understand that it may not be able to get all questions answered, but we need to be cautious about suggesting that only one or two responses are adequate. We are not only inviting responses, but making a commitment to hear several of them via conf call, and of course all councilors always have to read all comments, as well as the analysis by the staff. So, we need to really encourage complete as possible responses. Is there a better way to do that without sayiing all have to be responded? Perhaps it needs to be a minimum of three responses? Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: "olof nordling" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:00:24 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP Dear all, As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should we specify another layer of questions if so, which questions? Im looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft. Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the season) Olof Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 23, 2005

Dec. 23, 2005

Hello Olof, As the Council approved the recent WHOIS recommendation in its meeting on 28 Nov 2005. See http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm for Final Report. The next step is to finalise a "Council Report to the Board". See quote from the bylaws below. As discussed in the Council meeting today, it would be appropriate to prepare this report for consideration by the Board in its Board meeting in February 2006. Regards, Bruce 11. Council Report to the Board The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following: a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council; b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position; c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest; f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.

7 9

ICANN opens public comments on ccNSO Recommendations for proposed bylaw changes
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Dec. 23, 2005

Dec. 23, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Opens Public Comments on ccNSO Recommendations for Proposed Bylaws Changes http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21dec05.htm The comment period extends to 16 January 2006. On 6 June 2005, the ccNSO Council initiated a country code Policy Development Process (ccPDP) to encourage ccTLD managers to become members of the ccNSO. This process culminated in the ccNSO Council's adoption of the ccPDP Board Report in Vancouver and a request that the Issue Manager forward the Board Report to the ICANN Board for consideration. The Initial, http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/ccpdp-initial-report-16aug05.pdf Final, http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/ccpdp-final-report-12oct05.pdf Members http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/ccpdp-members-report-07nov05.pdf and Board http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/ccnso-board-report-04dec05.pdf reports prepared as part of this process are available on the ICANN website. The Recommendations to the Board pertain to Article IX (ccNSO), Annex B (ccNSO Policy Development Process) and Annex C (the scope of the ccNSO) of the ICANN Bylaws. The ccNSO makes these recommendations as an improvement and clarification of the ICANN Bylaws on the ccNSO and the ccPDP in the interests of the ccNSO membership, the ccNSO Council and other stakeholders. The Board has directed staff to post the recommendations for public comment. Please submit your comments by 16 January 2006. Comments may be posted to <ccnso-bylaws-changes(a)icann.org> Please note that to submit email your email address must first be verified; upon your first submission you will receive a message asking you to confirm your email address. Submitted comments may be viewed at <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-bylaws-changes>

1 0

Extension: Public Comment Period on GNSO New gTLDs PDP to 31 January 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 22, 2005

Dec. 22, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Extension of Public Comment Period on GNSO New gTLDs Policy Development Process to 31 January 2006. In order to enable interested parties to prepare substantive comments on the identified issue areas in this policy development process, the deadline for comments has been extended to 31 January 2006. In addition, a call for substantive papers on the topics in the Terms of Reference, for posting and consideration for oral presentations to the GNSO, will be issued shortly with the same deadline of 31 January 2006. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Extension of public comment period - the "quickie" notice
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 22, 2005

Dec. 22, 2005

Hello Olof, I suggest replace the last sentence with: "In addition, a call for papers, for posting and consideration for oral presentations to the GNSO, will be issued shortly with the same deadline of 31 January 2006" We can then refine the words around how papers would be considered (e.g that they are within the scope of the PDP etc). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 3

IAB report on IDN
by Cary Karp Dec. 22, 2005

Dec. 22, 2005

During the discussion of IDN in the present meeting reference is likely to be made to an IAB report on "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names". A newly revised version of that text was approved for posting as an Internet Draft at an IAB meeting two hours ago. It is not likely to appear online by the time we reach the corresponding agenda item in our own meeting but should become available some time during the next 24 hours at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-idn-nextsteps-01.txt If any Councilor wishes to have a copy for personal review prior to that URL going live, please let me know off-list and I will forward one. /Cary

2 1