December 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Regarding policy issues raised by the proposed .com agreement
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Hello All, I presented the resolution from the GNSO Council below in the ICANN public forum. The chairman of the ICANN board, requested that we identify the policy issues that the Council wishes to investigate prior to the Board approving any agreement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin 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.

1 0

Drafting meeting
by Avri Doria Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

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.

3 2

My term on GNSO Council expires at end of 2005 Annual Meeting in Vancouver
by Alick Wilson Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Colleagues Thank you for your vote of thanks today. This is to say "au revoir". I was one of the first batch of Nominating Committee appointees to GNSO Council in June 2003. It has been an interesting, learning, and challenging experience. I have met and got to know many new and interesting people. I came to Council with experience as an early adopter user of the Internet and a knowledge of Internet naming and addressing. However, ICANN and its role, structure, history, politics and issues were largely new to me. It took a long time to learn and understand. Now, two years later, I'm fully supportive of ICANN as the body responsible for the governance of the core Internet and of the of the bottom up consensus driven model. I intend to maintain an interest in ICANN. I will be at the ICANN Meeting in Wellington in March 2006 and I look forward to seeing you there. Kind regards, Alick

1 0

RE : [council] Compromise motion on Verisign
by Niklas_Lagergren＠mpaa.org Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Lucy and I are fine with the wording put forward this morning by Philip. -------- Message d'origine-------- De: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Date: ven. 12/2/2005 8:10 À: 'Norbert Klein'; 'Bret Fausett' Cc: council(a)icann.org Objet: RE: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign I think that Council needs to give some guidance on this issue. I think we made a very good step forward when the Board committed to consultant ion, and that consultation has begun. There are many consistencies in the statement n s of all the Constituencies and in the ALAC. And the need to undertake policy development seems a consistency, Council should tell the Board clearly of the consistencies that we see in the comments, I believe. In all constituencies yesterday, I am told, Board members stated the need for clear guidance. I also heard this from a few Board members. In the last public meeting in Luxembourg, we heard from one or two Board members , seated in the public forum, that they thought that the statements made from the constituencies from the floor in the public forum were "merely the statements of a few individuals". I think we have to take seriously how we can advance our ability to respond to the situations that face us when we walk into an ICANN meeting and decisions are going to be made, or not made, by the board on items of urgent concern or with significant policy implications. We have to be able to develop and take a resolution approach while at an ICANN meeting, and that is a topic we need to grapple with administratively going forward. For this meeting, the BC proposed a resolution that all constituencies had a full day and had constituency meetings scheduled when they could discuss the issue and approach. Philip has suggested some modifications to the resolution to simplify it. So, two points: We should provide a summary of the consistencies from our meeting. Secondly, we should present a resolution supporting a delay, and noting our policy work which has to be completed to advise the .com assignment process. I think it is fair for the Board to expect the gNSO policy council to be able to provide a resolution that has majority support. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:22 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: council(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Compromise motion on Verisign Bret Fausett wrote: > My understanding is that the Board already pledged not to sign > anything until 2006. Perhaps we want to put a date on the request. In > other words, change the resolution clause to read: "That the ICANN > Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement _until the > next meeting in Wellington, New Zealand_, while the Council fully > investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes _and > reports to the Board on its findings_." > > Bret I heard the same "rumor" - but was there a Board meeting deciding this? Norbert

1 0

Compromise motion on Verisign
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Following Council feedback please see below and attached a proposed compromise motion on the settlement Philip Draft GNSO Council motion on the proposed Verisign settlement v2 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 principle of a settlement of 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.

4 3

Minor change to proposed TOR new gTLDs
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

ref Council meeting 2 Dec item 2 I propose the following changes. The previous wording is somewhat too closed. 2c DELETE all and ADD Examine the distinctions between restricted, unrestricted, sponsored and unsponsored top level domain names, and how those distinctions meet the needs of users. 3B DELETE all and ADD Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots and comparative evaluation to determine the method of allocation that best enhances user choice, while not compromising predictability and stability. Philip

2 2

whois
by Bret Fausett Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

for what it's worth, the whois info for "matthooker.com" points to a P.O. Box and the telephone number goes to an answering machine that reports that calls are not returned and callers should send an e-mail. http://www.whois.net/whois.cgi2?d=matthooker.com Bret

1 0

Vancouver GNSO Public Forum 2 December 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] Questions and comments during the GNSO Public Forum in the Grand Ballroom (Salon A/C) on Friday 2 December 2005, 8:30 to 10:30 Vancouver Canada time, 17:30 UTC can be sent to: vancouver-gnso(a)icann.org WEBCAST AND REMOTE PARTICIPATION INFORMATION For events taking place in the Grand Ballroom (Salon A/C): http://media.icann.org/ramgen/broadcast/vancouver.rm GNSO Public Forum Agenda http://www.icann.org/meetings/vancouver/gnso-forum-agenda.htm Report from .com agreement workshop Reports from GNSO constituency meetings on Thursday 1 Dec business users constituency gtld registries constituency Internet service and connection provider constituency non-commercial users constituency registrar constituency intellectual property constituencies WHOIS update from the WHOIS task force on defining the purpose of WHOIS open mike Evaluation of recent round of new sponsored gtlds presentation by Miriam Shapiro on the process and lessons learned open mike New TLDs outline of proposed terms of reference presentation by dotBERLIN on why there should be more TLDs open mike Internationalised domain names motion to request an issues report open mike Single letter domain names potential release of single letter names at the second level of existing gtlds Presentation from Janis Karklins, president of WSIS prepatory process Open mike on any other issues -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Niklas/All Whilst the ISPCP didn't formally discuss the resolution during our constituency meeting we did update our statement on the VeriSign issue and will be posting this shortly. However it appears appropriate to make you aware that the ISPCP share the BC view that no decision should be made by the Board prior to the Wellington meeting. Discussion across the past few days has emphasised the serious level of concern over this proposal, and its our view that ICANNs duty is to the whole community, which means they must never give way to pressure that results in a bad deal being signed because of time constraints. No deal is preferable to a bad deal, and its vital that adequate time is allowed to ensure this one results in benefits to the broad community. It would also provide an additional opportunity to progress this issue with full community involvement. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Niklas_Lagergren(a)mpaa.org Sent: Fri 02/12/2005 01:16 To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; philip.sheppard(a)aim.be; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)icann.org Cc: Subject: RE: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec While the IPC agrees with the points raised in the preamble, we think the timeline set in the resolution is a bit unrealistic. The Board needs to act in the best interest of the corporation. They have a fiduciary duty to do so. Delaying action until March may be too long and not in the best interest of getting the lawsuits settled. We are also not convinced by the merits of a PDP on the issues mentioned in paragraph 2 but will not oppose the suggested wording if all other constituencies wish to keep it. Our proposed amendments are reproduced in attachment. Niklas -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: jeudi 1 décembre 2005 21:34 To: Philip Sheppard; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Proposed amendment to BC resolution. I have heard from one or two of you that you would prefer to separate the resolution into two segments. I believe this is easy to do, and can support that. . I urge all constituencies to discuss this resolution. It is the BC intent to call for a supporting vote for the resolution, with the idea of separating the call for the PDP/issues report from the board resolution. -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57 To:council@icann.org Subject: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Council members, please find attached from the Bc a proposed draft Council motion on the Verisign settlement. This follows the constituency presentations at the Verisign review meeting and proposes the board delay adoption until the council has considered the GNSO related aspects arising from the settlement. We hope this provides a full day for Constituencies to consider the proposed motion before Council might adopt it. Philip Regards, Marilyn Cade

2 1

RE: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
by Niklas_Lagergren＠mpaa.org Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

While the IPC agrees with the points raised in the preamble, we think the timeline set in the resolution is a bit unrealistic. The Board needs to act in the best interest of the corporation. They have a fiduciary duty to do so. Delaying action until March may be too long and not in the best interest of getting the lawsuits settled. We are also not convinced by the merits of a PDP on the issues mentioned in paragraph 2 but will not oppose the suggested wording if all other constituencies wish to keep it. Our proposed amendments are reproduced in attachment. Niklas -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: jeudi 1 décembre 2005 21:34 To: Philip Sheppard; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Proposed amendment to BC resolution. I have heard from one or two of you that you would prefer to separate the resolution into two segments. I believe this is easy to do, and can support that. . I urge all constituencies to discuss this resolution. It is the BC intent to call for a supporting vote for the resolution, with the idea of separating the call for the PDP/issues report from the board resolution. -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57 To:council@icann.org Subject: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Council members, please find attached from the Bc a proposed draft Council motion on the Verisign settlement. This follows the constituency presentations at the Verisign review meeting and proposes the board delay adoption until the council has considered the GNSO related aspects arising from the settlement. We hope this provides a full day for Constituencies to consider the proposed motion before Council might adopt it. Philip Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0