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

GNSO Council meeting MP3 recording 21 Dec. 05
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] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on December 21, 2005 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20051221.mp3 http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Happy listening! Happy Holidays! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Consensus policy recommendation on WHOIS service
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 22, 2005

Dec. 22, 2005

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:32 PM Subject: Consensus policy recommendation on WHOIS service To: Chair, ICANN Board From: Chair, GNSO Council Hello Vint, At the GNSO Council meeting in Vancouver on 28 November 2005, the GNSO Council approved the following consensus policy recommendation relating to the WHOIS service provided by gtld registries and gtld registrars by super-majority vote. "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: 1. 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. 2. Create goals for the procedure which include: (a) Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/tf-final-rpt-25oct05.htm)" I have asked the ICANN staff to complete a Council report incorporating details of the recent vote, for consideration by the Board in its meeting in Feburary 2006. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

FW: Regarding Timelines for the new gTLD policy development process
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 22, 2005

Dec. 22, 2005

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:17 PM Subject: Timelines for the new gTLD policy development process To: Chair, ICANN Board From: Chair, GNSO Council Hello Vint, The GNSO Council, at its teleconference today (21 Dec 2005), voted to extend the public comment period (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm) for the new gTLD policy development process from 9 Jan 2005 to 31 Jan 2005, in order to get more substantive comments. The intent is to encourage individuals and organisations to submit substantive papers on the topic, and arrange appropriate teleconferences where some of these papers can be presented to the GNSO. The GNSO Council also voted to extend the time available for constituencies to prepare position papers to 31 Jan 2005. It has been a long standing issue that the current timelines for the policy development process within the ICANN by-laws are unworkable for substantial policy issues, where wide consultation is required amongst people spread around the world. The independent review of the GNSO processes (see http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec4-22dec04.pdf) in Dec 2004 recommended that the process be revised. The GNSO Council is concerned that either the Board should endorse the approach taken by the GNSO Council in this instance, or perhaps a minor change could be made to the ICANN bylaws with respect to the policy development process that states that the timeline of a PDP may be changed on a case-by-case basis provided this is approved by a super-majority vote of the GNSO Council (or alternatively by a majority vote of the Board if that level of governance is desired). I request that this issue be considered for the ICANN Board meeting of 10 January 2006, and request that the Board provide a response back to the GNSO Council on this issue. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] Extension of public comment period - the "quickie" notice
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 22, 2005

Dec. 22, 2005

I am pretty happy with language. I suggest a paragraph break between the two subjects, and that it say " in addition to the extention, the Council is issuing a call for papers focused on substantive comments addressing the questions in the TOR,...". Resume Olof's language. Should it also note that the deadline for constituency statements will be extended to cooincide with these dates? Excellent draft. -----Original Message----- From: "olof nordling" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:48:47 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc:"'Kurt Pritz'" <pritz(a)icann.org>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>, "'Glen De Saint Géry'" <glen(a)icann.org>, "'Liz Williams'" <liz.williams(a)icann.org>, <tina.dam(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Extension of public comment period - the "quickie" notice Dear all, As agreed during the Council call, heres my proposal for an announcement of the extended public comment period for the new gTLD PDP, to be posted on the ICANN front page: Extension of Public Comment Period on GNSO New gTLDs Policy Development Process 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 papers, for posting and ensuing oral presentations to the GNSO, will be issued shortly with the same deadline of 31 January 2006. Could this be sufficient for the quick version? As time is of essence in order to get it posted before the Christmas break I would need your comments before 6 PM CET/5 PM UTC. (Kurt: please advise if that timeline is doable for getting it posted before Santa takes over) We will have to develop the call for papers in detail in the near future, of course. Best regards Olof PS. As it was a little unclear how many were interested to be in this quick loop, I send this to the whole list - with my apologies if you consider it spam. Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

Wellington
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

As promised during the Council meeting: Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:43:27 -0800 From: Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Dear Glen - I am sorry I didn't get this info to you for the council meeting - maybe you can send them a note - here's what we have so far: 31 Mar Friday Board Meeting 30 Mar Thurs Public Forum (am) 29 Mar Wed GNSO & CCNSO Council meetings & Public Forum (pm) 28 Mar Tues Workshops, GAC, GNSO Public Forum 27 Mar Mon Constituency Day, CCNSO & GAC 26 Mar Sun GAC, GNSO Council Prep 25 Mar Sat GAC, GNSO Council Prep Thanks. Diane Rae Schroeder General Manager, Conferences, Administration & Finance ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 United States +1-310-823-9358 (phone) +1-310-823-8649 (fax) www.icann.org -- 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 Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Olof, Looks good to me. Best regards, Maureen ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of olof nordling Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:49 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Maria Farrell'; 'Glen De Saint Géry'; 'Liz Williams'; tina.dam(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Extension of public comment period - the "quickie" notice Dear all, As agreed during the Council call, here's my proposal for an announcement of the extended public comment period for the new gTLD PDP, to be posted on the ICANN front page: Extension of Public Comment Period on GNSO New gTLDs Policy Development Process 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 papers, for posting and ensuing oral presentations to the GNSO, will be issued shortly with the same deadline of 31 January 2006. Could this be sufficient for the "quick" version? As time is of essence in order to get it posted before the Christmas break I would need your comments before 6 PM CET/5 PM UTC. (Kurt: please advise if that timeline is doable for getting it posted before Santa takes over) We will have to develop the call for papers in detail in the near future, of course. Best regards Olof PS. As it was a little unclear how many were interested to be in this quick loop, I send this to the whole list - with my apologies if you consider it spam.

1 0

Extension of public comment period - the "quickie" notice
by olof nordling Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Dear all, As agreed during the Council call, heres my proposal for an announcement of the extended public comment period for the new gTLD PDP, to be posted on the ICANN front page: Extension of Public Comment Period on GNSO New gTLDs Policy Development Process 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 papers, for posting and ensuing oral presentations to the GNSO, will be issued shortly with the same deadline of 31 January 2006. Could this be sufficient for the quick version? As time is of essence in order to get it posted before the Christmas break I would need your comments before 6 PM CET/5 PM UTC. (Kurt: please advise if that timeline is doable for getting it posted before Santa takes over) We will have to develop the call for papers in detail in the near future, of course. Best regards Olof PS. As it was a little unclear how many were interested to be in this quick loop, I send this to the whole list - with my apologies if you consider it spam.

1 0

Re: [council] Chair election Ballot
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

I thought I heard noises in the background at various times, but wasn't sure if it was Santa chuckling, or Scrooge like noises. Now we know was Ross voting! -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:17:56 To:names council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Chair election Ballot I tried three times to cast my vote telephonically (and my proxy for Maureen). I've since called back in, but rather than interrupt the call, I just wanted to show for the record that I am in favor of the motion to elect Bruce. If it is possible to still include my vote, I would vote in favor for both myself and the proxy that I carry for Maureen. -ross Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] Chair election Ballot
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Thanks Ross. I just dialed in, upon returning to my office 5 mins ago, but the call seems to be over. Sorry to have missed it. mc -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:18 PM To: names council Subject: [council] Chair election Ballot I tried three times to cast my vote telephonically (and my proxy for Maureen). I've since called back in, but rather than interrupt the call, I just wanted to show for the record that I am in favor of the motion to elect Bruce. If it is possible to still include my vote, I would vote in favor for both myself and the proxy that I carry for Maureen. -ross

1 0

ALAC issues
by bfausett＠internet.law.pro Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Apologies, but I had to drop off the call early. If there are issues or questions regarding ALAC activites or positions, please let me know and I will respond on the list. Happy holidays, Bret Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

1 0

Chair election Ballot
by Ross Rader Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

I tried three times to cast my vote telephonically (and my proxy for Maureen). I've since called back in, but rather than interrupt the call, I just wanted to show for the record that I am in favor of the motion to elect Bruce. If it is possible to still include my vote, I would vote in favor for both myself and the proxy that I carry for Maureen. -ross

1 0

A useful document from the past
by Olof Nordling Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Dear all, Just a moment ago, Danny Younger sent a mail to the GA-list with a link to a document from April 2003, compiled by a DNSO committee on request from the Board concerning new gTLD matters. It is not in the "past decisions and documents" overview I put together a few months ago, but it would deserve to be included and certainly deserves reading. Please see: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030410.gTLD.committee.conclusions-v3.html Talk to you soon on the Council call. Best regards Olof

1 0

GNSO Council revised draft minutes 28 Nov. 05
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver on 28 November 2005. Liz Williams has been added to the list of attendees. I apologise for the version that is currently on the Council list, this version will be easier to read. Please let me know what other changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes-28 November 05
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver on 28 November 2005. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Comments for the GNSO Council teleconf. 21 Dec.
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Dear fellow Councilors and ICANN POLICY STAFF A few questions for both staff and fellow Councilors: I note that I haven't seen the minutes of our last two meetings. Can you repost, Glen, if the minutes are already available? I also ask whether the staff have been directed to forward the Council's resolution to the Board chair/Board? If not, can that be done shortly? I am concerned that our resolution related to the .com settlement may not be before the Board. I will be driving and on a cell phone during the call, and have given a proxy to Grant Forsyth, then to Philip Sheppard, should I be off the call. Finally, I offer the following proposal for fellow Councilors to consider regarding the gTLDS policy process: The Council should invite all constituencies to prepare their statements for contribution, BUT in ADDITION, and in parallel, other mechanism should be used to inform the policy development process. I describe a recommendation below that I've previously mentioned in less detail. 1) Given that we are losing about two weeks due to holiday, I propose that Council formally announce an extension in the initial comment process to extend it to the end of January. This would give more time to the Constituency statements, and also allow the following process to take place for more input into the policy development process. 2) I propose that Council direct the staff director, Olof Nordling, to manage a process on behalf of Council that would be structured consultation and input into the process. All of our constituencies and the broader community could undoubtedly benefit from the opportunity to hear from experts, rather than just gather opinions or make statements. Thus, I would suggest that the following guidelines be followed [or some modified version developed] 3) The Council should host two phone conferences with the following structure/format. a) Organizations, individuals, and interested parties should be invited to make presentations related to the questions that are contained in the ToR, and provide any other statements that they consider relevant. 20 minute slots would be reserved for anyone who submits a "white paper/PowerPoint" to the Staff Director. NOTE: This would NOT be a place for the Constituency Statements, since those will come into the process anyway, but offers a way to get unique contributions. For instance, outreach to the SSAC, to OECD, etc. might be useful to suggest that they may want to make a "presentation". b) the calls should be transcribed via a conference call transcription service and the transcripts would be posted c) all white papers or PowerPoint presentations would be made available and posted d) Do others think that there should also be 3 - 4 three minute slots at the end of each of the conference calls for "open mike" statements from those who don't bother to submit a white paper/PowerPoint? I would suggest that the presentations be limited to 15 minutes and a 5 minute clarification q and a be allowed. Given the time between here and Wellington, I would suggest that two calls be held, broken into two segments of 2 hours each. It is important to remember the constituencies and the ALAC will have their own consultation process to undertake as well, and thus, if we can do these calls in the early part of January, that would be most helpful. Again, I am proposing that we also recognize that the PDP time frames do not work, especially taking into account the holiday period and we formally extend the time frame now for the preparation of the initial submission of information to the Staff Manager. I also think that Council needs to be very realistic about the need to take extensive input; we may find that we need to have more than one round of input and discussion of the inputs to the questions, for instance. Finally, we need to discuss how best to establish a mechanism to have consultation with the other SOs, and with the GAC and SSAC. As I recall, that is part of our responsibility. We may want to schedule discussion sessions of 1-2 hours in Wellington, for instance. I hope to be on much of the call, but will be driving home and there may be transmission problems. My apologies for any interruption. Marilyn -------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 1: Approval of minutes of 28 Nov 2005 Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 - nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005 - election to be held during the meeting Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process - public comment period opened on 6 Dec 2005 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm ICANN bylaws section 8: "Procedure if No Task Force is Formed http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report." Item 4: IDN issues report Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] 1b Internet Users
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Interesting, isn't it? And the research that I do in internet use, indicates that by 2006, year's end, I in every wo is from China, the second in ten is from India. India will surpass China in population !y 2020, if not a bit earlier, and by 2010, more mobile device (not just cell phones) than "computers". Sensor technology as aggregate of traffic, etc. Etc. Addresses become larger "play", etc. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:28:13 To:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] 1b Internet Users Some great data to keep in mind during the next few months as we consider the new gTLD and IDN issues. "Some time in 2005, we quietly passed a dramatic milestone in Internet history: the one-billionth user went online. Because we have no central register of Internet users, we don't know who that user was, or when he or she first logged on. Statistically, we're likely talking about a 24-year-old woman in Shanghai. According to Morgan Stanley estimates, 36% of Internet users are now in Asia and 24% are in Europe. Only 23% of users are in North America, where it all started in 1969 when two computers -- one in Los Angeles, the other in Palo Alto -- were networked together. It took 36 years for the Internet to get its first billion users. The second billion will probably be added by 2015; most of these new users will be in Asia. The third billion will be harder, and might not be reached until 2040. " More here: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/internet_growth.html -ross Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

Discussion on the "General Assembly" mailing list regarding new TLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Hello All, Glen de Saint Géry has brought to my attention that since the announcement of the new gTLD PDP, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the General Assembly (ga) mailing list. See: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ The General Assembly was a formal part of the DNSO, the pre-cursor to the GNSO. It no longer formally exists in the new bylaw structure, but the mailing list has been retained. The closest equivalent in recent ICANN meetings is the GNSO public forum, where anyone in the GNSO Community is free to contribute. For some history see: http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso-app2.html Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Thanks Bret. MC -----Original Message----- From: bfausett(a)internet.law.pro [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:56 PM To: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January > Would someone please point me to the posting? Thank you. http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm -- Bret

1 0

RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

All, I strongly support this view and Bruce's detailed approach to a comprehensive consultation that actually seeks public input on the policy issue itself. Bruce's dual-pronged approach, i.e. - seeking statements from constituencies on what they think the policy should be in response to the terms of reference, - seeking input from the public on what the policy should be ............ is logical. I also support the idea of an online event or discussion of some sort. Marilyn made a very practical suggestion that we draft some specific questions. Then in subsequent e-mails, there was reference to posted questions. Clearly, I am missing something here because I can't find the questions. Would someone please point me to the posting? Thank you. Best regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:49 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January If that is what we want we should make this very clear to the public so that we will reiceive the input we are looking for and not i.e. comments in regard to the TOR itself. Having the public focus on the real policy questions will certainly raise the quality of the comments quite a bit. Best, tom Am 19.12.2005 schrieb Bret Fausett: > So Bruce is correct: we are asking for substantive answers to the > questions posted. These comments will be synthesized into an initial > public comment report that will become part of the PDP record. I know > that the ALAC intends to submit initial comments during this period. > > Bret > > > Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

2 1

Registrars approve ICANN budget (2005-2006)
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Hello All, In the public forum of the recent ICANN meeting in Vancouver, Paul Twomey reported that registrars had not yet approved being invoiced for the variable registrar accreditation fees which make up the majority of the ICANN budget. The relevant section of the registrars accreditation agreement is shown below: (http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3 ) "3.9.2 Variable Accreditation Fee. Registrar shall pay the variable accreditation fees established by the ICANN Board of Directors, in conformity with ICANN's bylaws and articles of incorporation, provided that in each case such fees are reasonably allocated among all registrars that contract with ICANN and that any such fees must be expressly approved by registrars accounting, in the aggregate, for payment of two-thirds of all registrar-level fees. Registrar shall pay such fees in a timely manner for so long as all material terms of this Agreement remain in full force and effect, and notwithstanding the pendency of any dispute between Registrar and ICANN." Kurt Pritz has notified registrars that as of Friday 16 Dec 05, 142 registrars, representing over 70% of registrar-level fees paid, have expressed their approval (exceeding the two-thirds approval required). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN opens public comment period on the Terms of Reference for New gTLDs Policy Development Process of the GNSO Council. 06 December 2005 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm gNSO Home Page: http://gnso.icann.org/ Call for comments on gNSOwebsite: http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ The ICANN bylaws require a public comment period of 20 days following the iniation of a PDP. http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA Terms of Reference for New gTLDs 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 assesswhether there is sufficient support within the Internet community toenable 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. The "Issues Report" for this PDP is available at: <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/gnso-issues-rpt-gtlds-05dec05.pdf>. The public comment period is from 6 December 2005 to 9 January 2006. Comments may be submitted to the email address <new-gtlds-pdp-comments(a)icann.org> Comments submitted may be viewed at <http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-pdp-comments> -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 3

1b Internet Users
by Ross Rader Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Some great data to keep in mind during the next few months as we consider the new gTLD and IDN issues. "Some time in 2005, we quietly passed a dramatic milestone in Internet history: the one-billionth user went online. Because we have no central register of Internet users, we don't know who that user was, or when he or she first logged on. Statistically, we're likely talking about a 24-year-old woman in Shanghai. According to Morgan Stanley estimates, 36% of Internet users are now in Asia and 24% are in Europe. Only 23% of users are in North America, where it all started in 1969 when two computers -- one in Los Angeles, the other in Palo Alto -- were networked together. It took 36 years for the Internet to get its first billion users. The second billion will probably be added by 2015; most of these new users will be in Asia. The third billion will be harder, and might not be reached until 2040. " More here: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/internet_growth.html -ross

1 0

Re: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

I would like to be thoughtful abt how we invite comments. Otherwise, we will simply get arguments. I think that befotre we propose public forums for input, iwe should develop a list of the questions we need addressed. As well as providing for opem mike. For instance, one series of presentations that would be useful would include addressing technical questions abt characteristics ofmore latin character TLD4. Also inviting the OECD to present from their earlier paper, and so on.. -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:28:53 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January Hello Ross, > > It is unclear to me precisely what we are looking for > comments on - the process, the terms of reference, the issue, > something else entirely? You raise a good point, as we seldom frame the question properly when we seek public comments. It is something I hope in future would be assisted by a manager of Public Participation. My interpretation of the process is that we are actually seeking public input on the policy issue itself. The terms of reference have already been approved by the Council. At this stage of the process we are seeking statements from constituencies on what they think the policy should be in response to the terms of reference, and also seeking input from the public (in the general sense of the word - ie includes individuals companies, organisations, Governments etc) on what the policy should be. We would then use all this input to begin to formulate a draft policy position that has broad support across the GNSO. Also rather than just relying on public submissions via a website/mailing list - that we should arrange some online "events" where people can participate via phone, discussion forums etc. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Hello Ross, > > It is unclear to me precisely what we are looking for > comments on - the process, the terms of reference, the issue, > something else entirely? You raise a good point, as we seldom frame the question properly when we seek public comments. It is something I hope in future would be assisted by a manager of Public Participation. My interpretation of the process is that we are actually seeking public input on the policy issue itself. The terms of reference have already been approved by the Council. At this stage of the process we are seeking statements from constituencies on what they think the policy should be in response to the terms of reference, and also seeking input from the public (in the general sense of the word - ie includes individuals companies, organisations, Governments etc) on what the policy should be. We would then use all this input to begin to formulate a draft policy position that has broad support across the GNSO. Also rather than just relying on public submissions via a website/mailing list - that we should arrange some online "events" where people can participate via phone, discussion forums etc. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council chair elections 21 December 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 19, 2005

Dec. 19, 2005

Dear Council Members, Bruce Tonkin, the only nominee, has accepted his nomination for GNSO Council Chair, for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. Nominations closed on December 16, 2005. The elections will take place on the GNSO Council call on 21 December 2005. If you are not able to be on the call, please let me know who has your proxy with voting instructions. Thank you very much! Kind regards, Glen Hello All, > > Lucy Nichols a GNSO Council representative from the > Intellectual Property Interests Constituency has nominated > Bruce Tonkin for the position of GNSO Council chair for the > period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006. > > Ken Stubbs, a GNSO Council representative from the gTLD > Registries constituency has seconded the nomination. > I accept the nomination from Lucy Nichols and seconded by Ken Stubbs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 15, 2005

Dec. 15, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, These are proposed dates for the GNSO Council teleconferences in January, February and March: Tuesday 17 January 2006 19:00 UTC Tuesday 21 February 2006 19:00 UTC Tuesday 14 March 2006 19:00 UTC PDP working calls will be placed inbetween as required. Please let me have your comments. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

6 7

.auDA WHOIS Policy Review
by Liz Williams Dec. 15, 2005

Dec. 15, 2005

Colleagues Some of you may be interested in this work. au: auDA WHOIS Policy Review - Aug 2005 auDA is currently holding a public consultation and reviewing the WHOIS Policy (2003-08). http://auda.org.au/reviews/whois-2005/ Regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

2 6

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday 21 Dec 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 15, 2005

Dec. 15, 2005

Hello All, I am only available for 1 hour for the meeting next week. I think it is worthwhile having a short meeting before the end of the year to make sure we start work on new TLDs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 9:22 AM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday > 21 Dec 2005 > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday 21 Dec 2005 > > NOTE CHANGE IN TIME FOR MEETING FOR NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER TIME > > Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 > > (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next > day) Melbourne ) > > Item 1: Approval of minutes of 28 Nov 2005 > > Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to > 3 Dec 2006 > - nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005 > - election to be held during the meeting > > Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process > - public comment period opened on 6 Dec 2005 > > "Procedure if No Task Force is Formed > > a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the > Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days > thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to > solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such > representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency > Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) > calendar days after initiation of the PDP. > > b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems > appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a > particular individual or organization to gather information > on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or > briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the > Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after > initiation of the PDP. > > c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, > Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile > (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty > (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, > the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in > creating a Final Report." > > > > Item 4: IDN issues report > > Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting > > > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > >

2 1

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday 21 Dec 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 13, 2005

Dec. 13, 2005

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Wednesday 21 Dec 2005 NOTE CHANGE IN TIME FOR MEETING FOR NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER TIME Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 28 Nov 2005 Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 - nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005 - election to be held during the meeting Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process - public comment period opened on 6 Dec 2005 "Procedure if No Task Force is Formed a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report." Item 4: IDN issues report Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

settlement comments
by Thomas Keller Dec. 12, 2005

Dec. 12, 2005

This message has been send on behalf of Jordyn Buchanan http://forum.icann.org/lists/settlement-comments/msg00414.html Best, tom -- Thomas Keller Domain Services Schlund + Partner AG Brauerstrasse 48 Tel. +49-721-91374-534 76135 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax +49-721-91374-215 http://www.schlund.de tom(a)schlund.de

2 1

GAO Report on Domain Names
by Bret Fausett Dec. 8, 2005

Dec. 8, 2005

Dear Council, The United States Government Accountability Office, an independent research and investigation department of the United States government, issued a report today on issues directly applicable to aspects of our work. The report is entitled "Internet Management: Prevalence of False Contact Information for Registered Domain Names," and I recommend it to you as helpful background information. The report is available at the following URLs: Main Report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06165.pdf Highlights: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06165high.pdf Abstract: http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-165 Bret

2 1

Updated GNSO 4 month Operational Plan
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 6, 2005

Dec. 6, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Attached please find the updated GNSO 4 month Operational Plan. This plan reflects staff's current understanding of tasks and timing. Please let us know if it needs any amendments. This will be posted on the GNSO website shortly and updated at regular intervals. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Council list
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 6, 2005

Dec. 6, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please let me know about your requests for the New Zealand meetings off the Council list to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Meeting preparations
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 6, 2005

Dec. 6, 2005

Hello Philip, Actually I found personally that I didn't have any down time for the whole time. As for "informational" workshops, I think we need to distinguish between: - tutorials - working meetings I think we need both, but the tutorials could certainly be held before the main event as is common with technical conferences. With respect to working meetings (and I consider the IDN workshop in that category) it needs to be clear what the objectives of the meeting are, and the presentations should address that objective (e.g new TLDs). The outcome should either be a new document, or an updated document. The difficulty with both IDNs and DNSSEC is that there is a need for both tutorials and working meetings, but often these are either combined into one workshop, or the objective of the workshop is unclear. In any case, I think the program committee needs to carefully plan for both types of activity in the meeting plan. Part of ICANN's problem right now is that there are too few people spread across multiple activities. This makes having these activities in parallel difficult. Regards, Bruce

2 1

Wellington preparations
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 6, 2005

Dec. 6, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, In preparation for the Wellington meetings, there is provisional agreement for two "Council drafting days" on Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 March 2006 in advance of the formal meetings, so please plan your travel to be ready to meet on Saturday morning. The ICANN meeting is due to finish on March 31, 2006. A piece of good news is that grouped accommodation for the Council will not be a challenge, and I will be able to fill you in on this later. Please let me know if you do not want to be part of the group. Let me know if you have any questions. Please contact me this week at: glen[at]mobileemail.vodafone.fr Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org glen[at]mobileemail.vodafone.fr

3 3

Re: [council] Wellington preparations
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 6, 2005

Dec. 6, 2005

Glen' I need a room at the Intercontintal for the ICANN meetings, beginning Prob. Thursday. If you and Lydian and I are to tour, then I would suggest we leave the day after your staff meeting in the am. By rental car. I mwy come to Wellington earlier to help Keith with an event outside ICANN. He thinks I could stay with he and Diane or Peter and Liz for those 2-3 days. But I want to be first on your hotel list for the BD/staff hotel from Thursday night thru the Monday after bd meeting. After all, I got us those rooms! In future we will want to get a firm count because late comers will not get on that list. I just added 15 assumig that is: Registry:2 Egistrar: 3 ISP: 3 IP:2 BC:3 NCUC:2 So, on first come basis, will get most. But can you make extra attentioon to Bruce and me? -----Original Message----- From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:37:27 To:council@gnso.icann.org Cc:Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Wellington preparations [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, In preparation for the Wellington meetings, there is provisional agreement for two "Council drafting days" on Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 March 2006 in advance of the formal meetings, so please plan your travel to be ready to meet on Saturday morning. The ICANN meeting is due to finish on March 31, 2006. A piece of good news is that grouped accommodation for the Council will not be a challenge, and I will be able to fill you in on this later. Please let me know if you do not want to be part of the group. Let me know if you have any questions. Please contact me this week at: glen[at]mobileemail.vodafone.fr Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org glen[at]mobileemail.vodafone.fr Regards, Marilyn Cade

2 1

RE: [council] Nominations for the GNSO Council Chair
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 5, 2005

Dec. 5, 2005

Hello All, > > Lucy Nichols a GNSO Council representative from the > Intellectual Property Interests Constituency has nominated > Bruce Tonkin for the position of GNSO Council chair for the > period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006. > > Ken Stubbs, a GNSO Council representative from the gTLD > Registries constituency has seconded the nomination. > I accept the nomination from Lucy Nichols and seconded by Ken Stubbs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Nominations for the GNSO Council Chair
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 5, 2005

Dec. 5, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Lucy Nichols a GNSO Council representative from the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency has nominated Bruce Tonkin for the position of GNSO Council chair for the period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006. Ken Stubbs, a GNSO Council representative from the gTLD Registries constituency has seconded the nomination. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: Nomination]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 4, 2005

Dec. 4, 2005

Is theer a second for this nomination please? Thank you? Glen Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:02:35 -0600 From: <Lucy.Nichols(a)nokia.com> To: <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> I nominate Bruce Tonkin for the position of GNSO Council chair for the period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006. Lucy Nichols IPC Constituency -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Drafting meeting
by Lucy.Nichols＠nokia.com Dec. 4, 2005

Dec. 4, 2005

I also prefer pre-Wellington "working days". Adding two days to an already very long week is difficult for everyone as we all have other work commitments. Lucy Nichols >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Liz Williams >Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:54 AM >To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org >Cc: 'Diane Schroeder' >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 > >

2 1

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

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

BC final position on Verisign settlement
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Please find attached the final BC position on the Verisign settlement.

1 0

Fwd: Statement on proposed settlement from ICANN ALAC
by Bret Fausett Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

Dear Councilors, Below please find the Communique that the At Large Advisory Committee will deliver to the ICANN Board this afternoon. Bret -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [alac] Statement on proposed settlement from ICANN ALAC Date: 1 Dec 2005 14:17:46 -0800 From: John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> To: settlement-comments(a)icann.org, forum(a)alac.icann.org, "ALAC" <alac(a)icann.org> The ICANN At Large Advisory Committee at a meeting this morning adopted this statement about the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement. Regards, John Levine, ALAC member and document scribe ----------------------------------------------------- Concerns on the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement from the At-Large Advisory Committee 1 December 2005 1. We believe that it would be more appropriate to separate the lawsuit settlement from the contract renegotiation. If the settlement requires changes to the contract, ICANN and Verisign can amend the current contract to reflect settlement terms. 2. We are concerned about the loss of accountability and oversight both of the community over ICANN and of ICANN over Verisign. The external oversight of ICANN's budget currently provided by the registrars will no longer exist. The settlement provides no meaningful checks on Verisign's behavior, unless they misbehave so badly that ICANN voids their contract. As the registrars have pointed out, the proposed "consensus process" is new and untested. 3. We are concerned about the use and misuse of personal data. Under the agreement, Verisign is allowed to do whatever data mining they want of COM zone usage and access. For example, they could sell DNS traffic data about pepsi.com to Coca Cola, or about greenpeace.com and other political sites to governments whose policies they oppose. As a trustee for the Internet community, ICANN should provide appropriate protections for the community's data. We are also concerned that such data mining would be illegal in countries with data privacy laws. 4. We believe that the proposed price increases for the .COM registry are inappropriate, since the registry is no longer required to offer any justification for them. We are also concerned about the tripling of ICANN's per-domain fee. Although the incremental cost to each individual user will be low, the aggregate cost to users will be in the tens of millions of dollars per year. 5. We are concerned by the lack of economic and legal analysis of the effects of the proposed settlement. To the extent that the .COM registry is a monopoly, it requires stricter regulation than if it is not. Analysis by a qualified economist of the price sensitivity and substitutability of .COM and other domains, based on the extensive historic data, should help understand the situation. Similarly, qualified legal analysis of the likelihood of success of ICANN's and Verisign's suits would help quantify the legal risks and costs the settlement would avoid. Market forces can have an effect on .COM registry prices in two ways: (a) periodic rebids, and (b) a substitute service. The current proposal does away with the rebidding, and we doubt that .BIZ or .INFO or ccTLDs are a substitute for current registrants who already have branded their .COM address. 6. The proposed settlement makes Verisign the permanent source of the majority of ICANN's revenue. By making itself dependent on an entity not accountable to the public, ICANN endangers its independence and hence endangers ICANN's public trust. 7. We share ICANN's concerns with the current budget and planning process, which depends in large part on registrar approval and quarterly financial contributions from numerous sources. We endorse a budget and funding mechanism that would provide ICANN greater certainty in the budget planning process and reduce the administrative burden on ICANN of billing and collections. Nevertheless, we believe very strongly that ICANN should consult with the registrant and At Large community before it fundamentally reshapes its funding mechanism through new contracts with the registries. Ultimately, funds paid to ICANN from registrars or registries come from us, the At Large community. We encourage ICANN to engage the community in a larger conversation about how it should be funded and how its budgets should be created and approved. 8. We are deeply concerned by the lack of transparent process. The current (2001) .COM contract had a specific renewal timeline that has been ignored, since the settlement includes a new contract that would void the current one. ICANN offered no timetable or process for consideration of the proposed settlement until forced to by the CFIT lawsuit. The community does not know whether it has a month or a year to collect its input and offer its advice, nor whether it may be possible to modify the proposed settlement or it simply has to be accepted or rejected. 9. With these considerations in mind, the ALAC advises the board to reject the proposed settlement, to seek qualified advice on the econmic and legal aspects of any proposed settlement, and to seek a settlement that addresses our concerns.

1 0

Re: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

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

ICANN Publishes WDRP Report
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Publishes Report on Implementation of the Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP http://www.icann.org/whois/wdrp-survey-report-30nov05.pdf Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Budget Briefing document
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/budget-briefing-29nov05.pdf BRIEFING REGARDING OPEN BUDGET ITEMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 The ICANN Board adopted the fiscal year 2005-06 budget at the Luxembourg meeting (see, http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15jul05.htm#p3) The adoption provided that: "the community consultation process has also made it clear that there are categories of expenditures that remain under discussion within the ICANN community, particularly support for the creation of a new non-profit organization to facilitate DNSSEC deployment; spending from segregated funds (with the exception of funding for the Technical Standing Panel, and initiatives on IDN and registry failover); and the establishment of new regional offices," and "the Board Finance Committee is requested to itemize the expenditures in the expense categories still under discussion, including those in Resolution (05.[C]) above in order to ensure that such expenditures will continue only at the run rate from fiscal year 2004-2005 while community discussions continue. " The purpose of this memo is to provide a description in detail of the budget line items frozen at current run rates and, where appropriate, a report on community input regarding those items so that the Board can decide whether to adopt these line items along with the previously adopted budget. This memo recommends approval of those items. As a result of the Board action on the budget, staff has performed three sets of analyses: 1) The burn rates during the last fiscal year. Monthly spending was analyzed to ensure that last year's activity rates can be funded and sustained. 2) Detail explanation for each line item amount under consideration. 3) In the cases of planned expenditures for the two line items for translation and establishment of regional presences, examination of public comment for each line item including meeting transcripts in Luxembourg and Mar del Plata in order to provide an overview of which portions of the community supported or objected to these items. (See Appendices "A" and "B" respectively.) The line items in the current budget (see, http://www.icann.org/financials/adoptedbudget-12aug05.html#EXPENSEREVENU EPROJECTION), currently held to "run rates" by the board vote are spending on: (1) DNSSEC; (2) Translation, (3) At-Large and Community Projects; (4) Regional meetings participation; and (5) Establishing regional presences. These materials were presented to the Board Finance Committee and discussed in the Committee meeting held 28 September 2005. Committee recommendations follow discussion of each line item. A. DNSSEC ========= ========== Description =========== ICANN, along with other contributors, intend to fund a not-for-profit concern that will work to promote, and then implement DNSSEC. Disbursement of funds to a different entity is contingent upon the presentation of the new concern's operating plan and approval by the ICANN board. Line item amount: $300k Run rate: $0 Task Description and Status =========================== This line item falls under the funding for "Stability and Security Projects" in the adopted budget. It falls directly under ICANN's mandate to ensure the ongoing security and stability of the DNS. The formation of this entity has not taken place. Steve Crocker, SSAC Chair, has been providing advice regarding the project, taking advice from others regarding entity formation and precise role. It is expected that the entity will receive sources of funding from others besides ICANN. Discussions with Steve and others indicate the full implementation of DNSSEC will require considerable funding. Regardless of the timing of this planned entity or whether it is determined by staff and Board that this proposed entity is the appropriate mechanism for the deployment of DNNSSEC, this funding is required so that ICANN can take a visibly supportive role in this area. It is important to recognize that DNSSEC efforts are moving ahead, regardless of ICANN's decision to participate. The Sweden TLD has deployed a version of DNSSEC, other groups have formed task forces to study and ultimately implement it. The proposed ICANN contribution in the 2005-06 budget is "the price of admission" to keep ICANN in the visibly supportive role that is required if ICANN is to continue to be recognized as effective. If the Board approves this line item, there are two additional controls in place to ensure reasoned and consensus-based investments are made: * if it is determined that all or much of this $300,000 should be invested in a single effort, the bylaws require that the Board approve that expenditure even after the line item in the budget is approved by the board; and * ICANN staff will consult with Vint, Steve and other technical liaisons to the Board prior to making any investment in this area. Recommendation =============== It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. It is recommended that the Board consult with the Chair, the CEO and the Technical Liaisons in order to gain a full understanding of DNSSEC related issues and ICANN's role. The Finance Committee asked that in approving this line item, the board request a detailed spending plan for additional approval prior to making major expenditures (exceeding $50,000 per ICANN controls policy) and that staff provide periodic reports to the Committee regarding the efficacy of spending after it has been made. B. Translation ============== ============== Description =========== This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. The ICANN brochure and other materials are now translated into 17 languages. An increased comprehensive translation program has been budgeted for the fiscal year 2005-06 to assist with those stakeholder groups who do not operate in English as their first language. Included will be facilitation of participation at ICANN meetings in multiple languages. Run rate: $75K annually. [$0 was spent in the first quarter of last fiscal year as expenditures were tailored to match the slower than planned revenue increases. $52K was spent during the last three quarters after revenue flow was ascertained, a $75K run rate.] Line item amount: $300K Detailed spending (approximation): ================================== - $100,000 - Outsourced translation services to provide accurate, syntactical translations of ICANN literature; - $50,000 - Outsourced translation services to broadcast real-time translations in the primary regional languages of the key events at ICANN's meetings; - $100,000 - Outsource translation services to provide accurate, syntactical translations of key elements of ICANN's website; - $50,000 - Outsourced translation services to support ICANN efforts with regional media, and with editing, archiving and posting recordings for access by key Internet communities. Task description ================ The MoU with the U.S. Government calls for ICANN to "develop and implement an appropriate and effective strategy for multi-lingual communications." The translation budget of $300,000 will be used to target a variety of Internet stakeholders in each region using some or all of the following mechanisms: - Regional media - providing ICANN information, press briefings, interviews, public service announcements and video news releases in multiple languages to numerous, regionally-based, multi-lingual publications and media outlets; - ICANN literature - including hard copy, CD, and online distribution, in each region in multiple languages, describing ICANN's mission, structure, how to get involved, recent activities and regionally-specific developments, and information of interest to specific constituency groups; - ICANN website - translating principle documents into nine different languages; - Regional ICANN meetings - broadcasting real-time translations in the primary regional languages of ICANN's public forum, Board meetings and other key events, distributing multi-lingual literature to attendees, and conducting multilingual interviews for regional press; - Audio/video archives - maintaining visual and/or audio recordings of various international meetings, seminars and speeches that will be accessible to the international community in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and other languages; - Editing, archiving and posting donated translation services from members of the Internet community to reduce costs and improve utility of materials for key Internet communities. Comments from the community =========================== During both the Luxembourg and Mar del Plata ICANN meetings, translation was addressed in multiple public discussions. In the public forums and during public discussions of ICANN's strategic plan, statements by members of the ICANN community supported increased translation efforts as a critical component to international participation in ICANN. This position was encapsulated in a statement by ICANN consultant, Patrick Sharry, who identified internationalization/translation as the most important issue consistently raised by participants in the strategic planning small group discussions he conducted in Luxembourg: "...Internationalization...came up in a number of ways in a number of those forums. Internationalization in the sense that people wanted ways of working that wasn't in English... That's also to do with the way that business processes are conducted in ICANN, and that's meetings and the documents and translations that might be useful for that.... So I think that that would be the number one issue. " A full listing of community commentary regarding translation can be found in Appendix A. Recommendation ============== Performing translations where economical and meaningful enjoys wide community support. ICANN's first translation efforts of the past fiscal year have indicated that the increased amount planned is reasonable for the effort defined. ICANN has also learned lessons and received offers regarding economical methods to obtain translations. It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. C. At Large and Community Projects ================================== ================================== General Description =================== This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. At-Large activities include expenses to improve upon the significant progress that has been made on the creation and involvement of ICANN At-Large. As ICANN attempts Regional At-Large Organisations, additional start-up funds are needed. To increase the likelihood of establishing the At-Large framework envisioned in the bylaws, additional ICANN support is required for At-Large organizing/outreach, including staff support to secure the involvement of a significant number of At-Large Structures in each region in ICANN policy activities, and face-to-face interactions at ICANN meetings of At-Large community leaders. Line item amount: $381K Run rate: $188K [The run rate varies from month to month. Higher levels of expenditures are made during the ICANN meetings due to travel expenses. During this period, ALAC will hold activity levels and meeting travel at rates consistent with last year.] Detailed spending: ================== - $133,500 - Development and distribution of informational materials, support for RALO organizing meetings, secretariat support for RALO formation efforts, and in- region staff/consultant services to support At-Large organizing and outreach objectives; - $235,000 - Travel for ALAC members and key At-Large leaders to ICANN meetings to conduct ALAC policy development and outreach activities, and travel for ALAC members and/or At-Large leaders to attend 2 key outreach events in each region; - $12,500 - Administration expenses to support At-Large efforts, including regular conference call meetings. Task description ================ The At-Large and Community Projects budget of $381,000 will be used to build upon the significant progress that has been made in the creation of a global framework of "At-Large" user groups and their involvement in ICANN, including the work of the At-Large Advisory Committee. To increase the likelihood of fully establishing the At-Large framework envisioned in the bylaws, these funds will support: - At-Large organizing and outreach, including staff support to inform and educate the global At-Large community and secure the involvement of a significant number of individual Internet user groups (At-Large Structures) in each region in ICANN; - Community efforts to create Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) (as called for in the bylaws), including support for RALO planning and formation meetings, efforts to develop RALO MoUs and supporting documents, support for At-Large representatives' participation in meetings and events to advance RALO formation and involvement in ICANN issues; - At-Large Advisory Committee policy development and communication efforts, including resources to help the ALAC coordinate with At-Large Structures globally and communicate their activities to the At-Large community, and to support the ALAC's efforts to develop policy advice that promotes individual user community interests. Recommendation ============== ALAC enjoys broad community support. Additional funding is required in order to provide the resources necessary to finalise the formation of RALOs. It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. D. Regional Meetings ==================== ==================== General Description =================== This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. ICANN will sponsor attendance at regional meeting for the world's least developed countries. Meetings will include seminars describing IANA services, DNS structure and operations and opportunities available through widespread connectivity and an interoperable Internet. Line item amount: $450K Current run rate: $0 Task description and costing ============================ This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. One of ICANN's four key priorities, as reflected in the strategic plan, is to ensure global stakeholder participation. ICANN's work to date in relation to developing country participation has focused on outreach and developing partnerships in respective regions. This work has been well received and will be built upon. This new line item in no way seeks to replace this. However, ICANN's current work has been limited because ICANN has not been able to help sponsor regional meetings and participation therein, nor focus resources to improve the ability for developing countries to participate in ICANN. All efforts to date rely on the resources of others. The budget item proposed is in response to the growing need for ICANN to improve (and increase) developing country awareness the organization and its areas of responsibility, increase participation, and improve ICANN's responsiveness to developing country needs. ICANN is undertaking much work in outreach and building partnerships in different regions. However, ICANN's current work needs to be enhanced with a mechanism to help sponsor and support the world's developing countries participate in regional meetings, and ICANN, within areas of ICANN's mandate. It is not appropriate for ICANN to solely rely on other international organizations (governmental or not) for this. If ICANN fails to continue to improve its developing country outreach and participation work, it will put at risk its own structure and ability to say with credibility that it is working to ensure participation of all stakeholders, from all regions, in particulardeveloping countries. ICANN has not been able in the past to help sponsor regional meetings within the areas of its responsibilities for the world's least developed countries. Nor has it been able to provide resources to help participants from developing countries partake in ICANN. The importance of ensuring participation from all regions, in particular developing countries, is not new. It is reflected, in part, in the MoU between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce (14)(e), where it states that ICANN should "develop a collaborative program with private and intergovernmental parties to conduct outreach to governments and local Internet communities in targeted regions, including key constituencies". Additionally, in discussions on Internet governance, the World Summit on Information Society, and in particular the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), have noted that participation from developing countries is often limited and expensive. [WGIG report, para 19]. The WGIG report specifically noted that there were "two overarching prerequisites to enhance the legitimacy of Internet governance processes," those being: * The effective and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, especially from developing countries. * The building of sufficient capacity in developing countries, in terms of knowledge and of human, financial and technical resources." [Para. 74] The WGIG report furthermore identified a number of priority recommendations, which include in paragraph 82: "Meaningful participation in global policy development: * International organizations, including intergovernmental organizations where relevant, should ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in the determination of policy decisions that affect them, and promote and support such participation. * Specific efforts should be made to address the lack of funds of the different stakeholders of developing countries, which impedes them from actively and consistently participating in international Internet governance processes." ICANN proposes to use the funds to improve developing country participation in two ways: (a) To support, where appropriate in partnership with other organizations, the participation on a rotational basis of developing country participants (government, private sector, technical community, civil society) in ICANN meetings. * Total of approximately US$ 250,000 for 50 developing country participants @ US $5,000 each (the U.N. rate), to attend one of three ICANN meetings. This equates to supporting approximately 16 participants to attend one ICANN meeting (a cost of approximately US$ 83,000 for each meeting). * If possible to do in partnership with other organizations, this could contribute to additional support for participants from developing countries, in particular least developed countries. (b) To regularly hold, where appropriate in partnership with regional governmental and non-governmental organizations, workshops on specific areas of ICANN's responsibility and emerging issue areas. The purpose of these workshops is to: * To better provide information to developing country participants on issues of interest as they relate to ICANN's mandate; * To better understand specific needs of respective developing country regions on their needs from ICANN so ICANN can better ensure full global participation in ICANN's processes and deliverance to all regions of ICANN's work. - Total of approximately US$ 200,000. - Proposing 2 meetings per region @ $20,000 each. For developed country regions, the focus should be on the least developed areas (e.g. North America/Caribbean, focus in Caribbean; for Europe focus is former EasteEurope). - The regional meetings will focus on IANA/ccTLD issues, DNS and other ICANN related issues, of particular interest/concern to the specific region. - The meetings will occur where possible in partnership with other regional events to ensure improved attendance. Funds would go in part to support travel for participants from the developing country, and in part to support the local event. With work in any region it is important to not just 'parachute in', but rather to build partnerships and help build capacity and knowledge that remains in the region. This program aims to do exactly that - focusing on specific regional needs, building local awareness, and delivering to local needs. Also noted is the importance of understanding how things work in respective regions, as well as reaching out to constituencies and partners not yet involved in ICANN. Recommendation ============== For the reasons stated above and the sense of urgency ICANN must bring to this situation, it is recommended that the Board approve this line item. The Finance Committee asked that in approving this line item that staff provide periodic reports to the Committee regarding the efficacy of spending after it has been made. E. Regional Presences ===================== ===================== Regarding the establishment of regional presence, there is $40,000 in seed money per location for each of four global regions (Asia-Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East) to conduct appropriate study in to order to determine the most effective manner in which to effectuate regional presences. The operational study and plan may result in the establishment of an office, the use of existing presence by another entity, periodic meetings or some other form of presence. Line item amount: $200K Current burn rate: $0K Description =========== This expense line item is contained ICANN's Global Partnerships budget and is within the capital expense line item in the published budget. This effort will be supported primarily by the Regional Liaisons and the Global Partnerships General Manger. The budget for regional presences is beyond that of the liaisons; the liaison positions were also included in the prior year's budget. Recruiting for these positions is nearly completed. The original publication of the operational plan indicated that concrete steps were to be taken to establish regional offices in specific locations. After consultation with the community, this objective was modified to use the funds to determine the most effective way to conduct outreach. The original objective: "Establish regional presences, to implement ICANN's outreach to the local Internet community. Retain regional liaisons and in cooperation with outside entities that contribute staff, infra-structure and logistics to establish offices in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Establish regional presences in cooperation with outside entities that provide logistical, staffing or infrastructure support. These presences should provide: * Education in a manner consistent with other objectives, * ICANN operational support so that local stakeholders have a contact point in the same time zone. " Was modified to: "Establish regional presences through the hiring of regional liaisons to implement ICANN's outreach to the local Internet community. These presences should enable local personnel (not ICANN staff) to work with regional populations to bring: * Education in a manner consistent with other objectives, * ICANN operational support so that local stakeholders have a contact point in the same time zone. " As a result of these changes, there was positive feedback from the community. In particular, in the meeting in Luxembourg the follows comments were made in public meetings: "I love how this particular item has been rewritten. As you know, my constituency and myself in particular have been very suspicious of this particular item that sits in the strategic plan. And I think that the input that ICANN, the board and the staff, got for this particular item that appears in the strategic plan has been redrafted and reoriented in a very positive way. I like a lot of the way that things have been reworded here in terms of the liaisons and the way that the emphasis is on presence, the presence in those places." and "I want to express my appreciation for the changes that I see reflected in the overview that's presented here based on the input that you all have received both in Mar del Plata and since then. And I think that we all really ought to say thank you for that and how much we appreciate that." In previous writings and discussions with the community regarding the establishment of regional presences, ICANN has described offers-in-kind to assist in the establishment of offices or presences. These offers have been described in public fora and writings without providing detail. Some of those offers include: Latin America: - Offers of support have been received from organizations in Uruguay and Brazil. Asia Pacific (including Middle East): - Offers of support have been received from organizations in Japan, Singapore, Thailand, India, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Africa: - Offers of support have been received from organizations in Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Mauritius In addition, one country, requesting that it remain confidential, has offered office space, infrastructure, etc. Other countries and organizations have offered aid. Regional presences are also important for all the reasons stated in the section describing Regional Meetings, supra. One of ICANN's four key priorities, as reflected in the strategic plan, is to ensure global stakeholder participation. The regional presence proposal is in response to the growing need for ICANN to improve (and increase) developing country awareness the organization and its areas of responsibility, increase participation, and improve ICANN's responsiveness to developing country needs. The MoU between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce states that ICANN should: "develop a collaborative program with private and intergovernmental parties to conduct outreach to governments and local Internet communities in targeted regions, including key constituencies. " Additionally, in discussions on Internet governance, the World Summit on Information Society, and in particular the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), have noted that participation from developing countries is often limited. Success in both the U.S. Government MoU and in WSIS/WGIG requires outreach in the form of regional presences. The Internet community has told ICANN that before opening offices in any area, ICANN should undertake the study necessary to and enable local entities determine the most efficacious way in which to conduct that outreach. This is what this funding is intended to do. Community feedback =================== There has been substantial discussion in ICANN meetings and in discussion for a posted on the ICANN site. There have been expressions both for and against the establishment of regional offices. There were expressions of appreciation when ICANN altered its objective in this area to use the funding to enable local entities to accomplish outreach. As stated above, several members of the community have made offers of financial or other support to establish regional presence in their area. This is a very strong indication that many who would be directly affected by ICANN regional participation support it. A full listing of community commentary regarding regional presences can be found in Appendix B. Recommendation ============== Nearly every corner of the ICANN community has provided commentary in this area. ICANN has conducted substantial community consultation regarding the implementation of outreach. ICANN has substantially changed its objective regarding regional presences in response to this commentary. The current plan is a conservative approach that engages the outreach "recipient" in the process in order to ensure the outreach is delivered an effective form. It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. The Finance Committee asked that in approving this line item that staff provide periodic reports to the Committee regarding the efficacy of spending after it has been made. F. Conclusion ============= ============= In this analysis, ICANN has set out to provide insight into the thought, planning and detail that went into the budget formulation in these specific instances. Also described is the consultation and feedback ICANN has received from the community on some of these issues. It is recommended that the Board approve these budget line items. In each case the funds will enable required efforts to support ICANN efforts regarding the MoU, WSIS and, most importantly, performing our core mission.

1 0

Election of Ute Decker to the GNSO Council from the IP constituency
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

From: Steve Metalitz Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2005 9:51 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: Election of Ute Decker Bruce, Please be advised that the IPC election has concluded and that Ute Decker has been selected to serve as one of our representatives to the GNSO Council for a two-year term, succeeding Niklas Lagergren whose term expires at the end of the Vancouver meeting. Like Nik, Ute is a citizen of the European region. Steve Metalitz IPC President-elect

1 0

Data required for the GNSO review
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

Hello All, Dr Liz Williams has prepared the following list of questions to gather information for the GNSO review next year. Please feel free to discuss with your constituencies and let Liz know whether additional questions should be asked, or whether these questions are difficult to answer or in the wrong format. Regards, Bruce Tonkin 1. Representativeness Please provide answers to the following questions. 1.1. Provide a copy of the Constituency Charter 1.2. Provide a copy of the Statement of Operating Procedures 1.3. Provide a full list of current (2005) and past (2002-2004) constituency members 1.4. Provide a statement which identifies membership fees and any membership conditions 1.5. Provide a statement of how often the constituency meets; by which method (face to face or teleconference); how minutes are produced; and whether those minutes are publicly available 1.6. Provide a statement which sets out how constituency positions are reached and the voting methods within the constituency (include whether there are weighted voting patterns) 1.7. Fill out the following tables to show demographic statistics on the basis of the full list of constituency members # of Members % of Members Africa Asia/Australia/Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean Islands North America Total: Gender Distribution of Members Gender Distribution of Council Reps Male Female 2. Effectiveness Please provide answers to the following questions. 2.1. Provide a statement showing how the constituency gathers opinions about policy development processes include in particular, how the constituency develops position statements on policy issues 2.2. Provide a statement showing how many issues papers or position papers the constituency has issued since 2003 2.3. How long does it take before GNSO Councillors are presented with a constituency position to give to the GNSO Council 3. Transparency Please provide answers to the following questions. 3.1. Describe the constituency election procedures. For example, how nominations are called for and seconded; how elections are run (on-line or physical meetings) 3.2. Document the candidates for each election and their geographic regions include Nominating Committee representatives) 3.3. Show whether the election results are publicly available

2 1