December 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Drafting meeting
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 4, 2005

Dec. 4, 2005

Dear all, thanks, Liz, for the kind offer. But this is already under the responsibiity of the Programme Sub group of the Council, and our staff member is Glen. Glen and I are coordinating with Diane for a meeting today for some of the Programme committee re Council's and Constituency needs and we are talking to the host. The Council can expect to hear back through that mechanism re options for Council's consideration for the policy spec. Session, and overall program planning for Wellington. The next step for this policy area ifor Council to work, with Olof's support,on advancing the work plan. Until that occurs, it is premature to decide on work methods, beyond the agreement taken in Council for the two days in Wellington. I will leave any further comments on this until Olof has a chance to further his thoughts on the work plan. . Thanks, though, Liz, four your e-mail. Council will hear back from Glen after the Programme Committee meeting and we promise to be very active advocates on Council/constituency behalf. :-) Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams(a)icann.org> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:54:03 To:"'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc:"'Diane Schroeder'" <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Drafting meeting Dear All Just a quick note from the staff side. We usually arrive several days before the ICANN meetings to do all the preparation necessary for the Board, Council and other meetings. The proposal to meet for two GNSO days before would have a direct impact on the way in which the staff would plan their involvement. Before we make firm commitments about times/dates/places/logistics could I confer internally and let Council know what would be practical from our side as well. Bruce's ideas about meetings prior to Wellington is a good one -- of course, the Brussels office could be used to facilitate those kinds of meetings for people in Europe and we could work out how to do that. Will get back to everyone ASAP. Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 2:26 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Drafting meeting Hello Avri, > > Probably not a realistic suggestion but one I feel needs to > be put forward. Is there any way to arrange for the face to > face drafting session to be done at an interim time between > Vancouver and Wellington in order to expedite the work and > try to meet the by-laws' > required timing? Part of the issue here is that a face-to-face meeting requires significant travel for most Council members - this is a matter of time and cost. E.g it is at least a days travel for me to and from most locations in Europe or USA. Thus the proposal to meet shortly before Wellington was to ensure economies of airfares for those that will most likely be travelling to Wellington anyway. Of course smaller groups of ICANN participants can get together in local regions prior to Wellington, with the Wellington meeting be an opportunity to consolidate the views of prior meetings. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Regards, Marilyn Cade

6 6

Providing input into policy development and/or forming a new GNSO constituency
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

Hello All, A few comments have arisen this week that there is no ability for some users to participate in the GNSO policy development process. There are two aspects: (1) Providing input and becoming involved in discussions on a topic (2) Having a vote on the Council (or task forces) with respect to approving any recommendations I think we need to give consideration to (1) for how to better facilitate input and discussions. The GNSO public forums have been one initiative in recent meetings to encourage more participation. Up-to-date our main approach has been to involve ALAC liaisons at the Council and in task forces, and rely on public comments submitted to the ICANN website after a formal call for comments. With respect to (2) there is a documented mechanism in the ICANN bylaws where any group can request the creation of a constituency. The relevant quotes from the ICANN bylaws are: "...self-organized Constituencies are hereby recognized as representative of a specific and significant group of stakeholders" "Each Constituency ...... shall maintain its recognition, and thus its ability to select GNSO Council representatives, only so long as it in fact represents the interests globally of the stakeholder communities it purports to represent, and shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. No individual or entity shall be excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of participation in another Constituency. " "Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of: a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent. Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment. " Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Email questions/comments that were not addressed in the public forum
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

Hello All, We received emails from two individuals that were intended to be read out during the GNSO public forum on Friday. We can discuss these at our next meeting. From: Richard Henderson: (1) Regarding .pro and the use of proxy registrants With reference to the use of proxy registrants like EnCirca to circumvent the restrictions on who may acquire .Pro domains, may I ask what actions and conclusions have been arrived at by ICANN staff or Board, as requested at the last ICANN Meeting? Specifically, concerns were expressed that the use of proxy registrations in the .Pro registry might in themselves contravene the intentions of the ICANN Agreements that .Pro should be a restricted TLD limited to verified professionals; and concerns were also expressed that this style of proxy registration by a registrar like Encirca could set a precedent which might subvert the restricted nature of future sTLDs such as .Travel. ICANN staff were requested to address this issue and Tina Dam was to deal with this. Does ICANN endorse this kind of proxy registration for acquiring future sTLDs which might otherwise be restricted by the spirit and intention of the ICANN Agreements. If so, what is the point of having the restrictions and verification procedures in the first place? (2) Regarding forming an individual users constituency with the GNSO Given the need for ICANN to demonstrate as wide a base of worldwide support as possible, at a time when its authority and legitimacy are being challenged, would consideration and support be given to a petition to establish an Individual Users Constituency within the GNSO? This would enable a wider spectrum of informed participation from individuals who do not 'fit' other constituency definitions, and also offer representation within the GNSO to what is in reality the largest constituency of all: the millions of individuals who use the Internet and its DNS for a multiplicity of valid reasons. This constituency would promote individual membership and stimulate participation and involvement in a way that ALAC (which is institution-based) has frankly failed to do outside the GNSO. It would also strengthen the authority and identity of the GNSO, widen its base, and answer those critics at the UN who feel that ICANN pays little account to the global community of internet users. This petition may be presented by long-term participants before, or at, the Wellington meeting. Do members of the GNSO welcome this initiative in principle? (3) Proposed .com agreement Who will actually benefit from the ICANN-Verisign Agreement apart from ICANN and Verisign? In the context of ICANN's commission to act as steward over the fair distribution of the DNS, and the condition of promoting competition as set out in its MoU with the DoC, how do the ICANN staff and Board justify a "deal" which offers a perpetual monopoly, guarantees built-in price hikes, and sets out terms not available to other registries? In the context of its commitment to the *whole* internet community, why did it not encourage a bidding process and seek to bring down prices; why did it elect to couple the resolution of other legal matters with the unrelated issue of finding the best terms for the Internet community with regard to the .com TLD; why did it fail to involve its own constituencies in a negotiation process based on "bottom-up" consensus; why did it hand Verisign a package which provides so little incentive to drive prices down and customer service up? Why are the Internet Community and ICANN's own constituencies being foisted with a privately-brokered deal which seems to be presented "top down" and which seems to be to the advantage of Verisign, but also seems to threaten the interests of other entities as well as the competitive imperative upon which the MoU is supposedly grounded? >From Danny Younger: (4) Escrow/Protection of data on registrants I know that the Council has many items on its plate, but I continue to remain concerned about the security of registration data. Although the RRA requires registrars to escrow registrant data, we are all aware that this has not been happening -- our registrant registration data remains at risk. My question: What will the Council do on behalf of individual registrants to ensure that our registration data is safe? (5) Participation in new generic TLD process The GNSO Council is poised to move forward on the issue of new TLDs. In keeping with past practice it will doubtless appoint a task force to deal with the issue. What provision will the GNSO Council make for those that have no constituency affiliation to participate in the GNSO task force process? Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] Drafting meeting
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

Let's keep the ideas for options for approaches to support the work plan going into Olof. As to whether most of us can afford the extra travel-- cost or time-- that has to be a factor. If all these ideas go to the full council then the programme comittee is informed conceptually, but of course wouldn't take action until a work plan emerges. -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:33:29 To:Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc:Liz Williams <liz.williams(a)icann.org>, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, Bruce Tonkin <bruce.tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Drafting meeting What would you think about holding a separate meeting for the Council work, perhaps in February, in a reasonably accessible location like Amsterdam or Los Angeles? -- Bret Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] Drafting meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

Hello Avri, > > Probably not a realistic suggestion but one I feel needs to > be put forward. Is there any way to arrange for the face to > face drafting session to be done at an interim time between > Vancouver and Wellington in order to expedite the work and > try to meet the by-laws' > required timing? Part of the issue here is that a face-to-face meeting requires significant travel for most Council members - this is a matter of time and cost. E.g it is at least a days travel for me to and from most locations in Europe or USA. Thus the proposal to meet shortly before Wellington was to ensure economies of airfares for those that will most likely be travelling to Wellington anyway. Of course smaller groups of ICANN participants can get together in local regions prior to Wellington, with the Wellington meeting be an opportunity to consolidate the views of prior meetings. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

nz meeting early work days
by Ken Stubbs Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

avri... if your planning on going to ietf and you were considering attending the working group meetings, you would have to leave Dallas at the latest on Thursday mar 23 in order to even arrive in Auckland on the 1st day of any proposed weekend meeting . you would have traveled at least 23 hours and arrived the morning of the 1st meeting day (if it was a sat & Sunday meeting).. given that the overwhelming majority of the members of this TF will be flying at least 15 hours to go to new Zealand, i believe that in order to be both physically & mentally "effective" for the _*entire*_ icann meeting, it is essential that some "down time" be provided for.. this is why i proposed a weekend break prior to the actual meeting start.. regards, Ken

3 2

Call for Nominations for GNSO Council chair
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, A formal nomination period for the election of GNSO Council chair for the period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 is now open for two weeks from Friday 2 December to Friday 16 December ending at 11:59 UTC. All nominations should be seconded and only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations. Please send all nominations and seconds to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org Nominations and seconds will be acknowledged and posted to the council list. Thank you Kind regards, Glen -- -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slides used in the ICANN public forum presentation
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

Hello All, Here are the two slides that I presented in the ICANN public forum today. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] Drafting meeting
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Dec. 3, 2005

Dec. 3, 2005

Marilyn/All I share your concern and fully support the need to try and include councilors in the block booking arrangements.With that of course, should be a commitment to participate as required across that period. My plea to the programme committee is that as a minimum they set in stone the key times/dates for some of the critical policy development sessions e.g. GNSO council, GNSO Open Forum and constituency days. Some things we can work around, those we can't. Additionally following todays GNSO Forum I'd like to make the case for a longer session on two counts. Firstly we seem to be engaging with the community so much better over the past two meetings and second, its essential for us to do our jobs properly. I aim to be in Wellington for the drafting session, providing of course .............the date and times are fixed in advance and not within the final week prior to travelling! Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Marilyn Cade Sent: Fri 02/12/2005 22:45 To: alick.wilson(a)xendra.co.nz; 'Avri Doria'; 'GNSO Council' Cc: Subject: RE: [council] Drafting meeting While I support trying to use a tool, as noted, I also note that whatever work we do will be preliminary, and we will still need to do the work in Wellington. And in Marrakech. Can I ask how many people we would think, though, that would be in such a drafting session in Wellington? As Alick knows, there is a room challenge in NZ just before, due to very interesting festival, and we need to book hotel rooms rather shortly. Also, it is very possible that InternetNZ might be able to provide a working conference room. I can check on that. I'd prefer for ICANN to provide a working room at the main hotel [whatever that might be]; or at the "venue", but I don't know if that is possible. Also, a new suggestion: which I'll bring up in the administrative planning working group of Council, but mention here informational purposes. I'd like to put in a standing request for the future. For all future meetings, I'd like for Councilors to give a commitment to Glen for their attendance at the ICANN meeting, and have the council booked into the same hotel with the staff and the board, should they so chose. It is ridiculous that we can get the NomComm members and appointees into that hotel, but we can't get the councilors, who have heavy work loads during the week of ICANN, and given the way that the lack of firm planning progresses at this stage, councilors are often unable to get reservations in the venue hotel. Some might chose to stay at another hotel, but I'd like to get a block included by ICANN, and if we can make a commitment -- generally - - for a certain number, then ICANN should be able to include the Councilors in their "reserved block" in the hotel with the staff and board. Finally, I believe that the programme committee is possibly to meet Sat. p.m. for a meeting re future planning needs. I think we will have an opportunity to put forward ideas on meeting and programme requirements for future meetings, post 2007, but we also need to make some significant process improvements for our next 3 meetings. I know all of us were challenged by the lack of a firm agenda; changes in meeting times, etc. etc. and it was undoubtedly even harder on the staff and board and community. So, without dwelling on that retroactively, I'll just note the opportunity to improve prospectively. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alick Wilson Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 3:45 PM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Drafting meeting How about trying a web based tool supported by telephone instead of face-to-face. By way of example, something like Jotspot Live http://www.jotlive.com/? If Council was using something like this now, we remote attendees would be able to see what is being drafted. Moreover, the job of real time drafting would be more efficient as it could be shared. Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, 3 December 2005 9:35 a.m. To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Drafting meeting hi, Probably not a realistic suggestion but one I feel needs to be put forward. Is there any way to arrange for the face to face drafting session to be done at an interim time between Vancouver and Wellington in order to expedite the work and try to meet the by-laws' required timing? In the spirit of self disclosure, I admit I have a conflict the week before Wellington, but will opt to skip the IETF meeting being held that week if necessary. a.

4 3

FYI - GNSO Council meeting - text of motions passed
by Maria Farrell Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Dear all, Ahead of proper minutes of today's meeting, please find below the text of the resolutions passed by today's meeting of the GNSO Council. Voting numbers aren't included - simply the text of the resolutions. Best wishes, Maria Item 1: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 * initiate formal call for nominations Item 2: Terms of reference for new gTLDs (staff recommendation from issues report) 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable. 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains a. [Taking into account ] the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users. c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names. b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability. c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers. 4 Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds. b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services. c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services. Item 3: Issues report on IDNs Proposed 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 internationalization of the domain name space, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report; WHEREAS the GNSO Council recognizes and wishes to inform and be informed by the technical efforts currently under way in other organizations which are represented on the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs; WHEREAS the GNSO Council acknowledges the timelines in the ICANN bylaws, and recognize the recommendation from the GNSO Council review to revise those timelines, and given the complexity of this issue, the GNSO Council will develop an appropriate work plan that meets the needs of the ICANN community. The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO Council recommends that the staff engage appropriate expert resources to assist in the preparation of the Issues Report. 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. Item 4: Vote of thanks for outgoing Council members * Philip Colebrook * Alick Wilson * Niklas Lagergren Any other business Motion on Verisign agreement 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.

2 1