February 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Call for nominations for ICANN Board seat 14 open Monday 21 Feb. 00:00 UTC
by gnso.icann March 4, 2005

March 4, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] GNSO Council Elections for ICANN Board seat 14 currently occupied by Michael Palage. 1. Nominations Open: Monday 21 February 2005 at 00:00 UTC Nominations Close: Friday 11 March 2005 at 17:00 UTC The full nomination procedure is set out at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18feb05.htm Please complete the web based template for nominations. The description of the nominator should read nominee The space will take a fair sized message. OR Nominations should be e-mailed to the GNSO Secretariat at the following email address: gnso-nominations(a)gnso.icann.org. 2. Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the selection criteria. 3. All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member. Please second the nomination at: gnso-nominations(a)gnso.icann.org. 4. Archives of nominations can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-nominations 5. Only GNSO Council members may nominate and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates. 6. The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. 7. The GNSO Secretariat will convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list. 8. There will be a one week period to arrange the ballot, collect candidate statements, and arrange any teleconferences to interview the candidates. 9. The vote will start on Friday 18 March 2005 and conclude on Friday 1 April 2005. GNSO Councillors will be given timely notification of each step during the election process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [gnso-dow123] RE: [council] RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 28, 2005

Feb. 28, 2005

Thanks, both Bruce and Tim. I am sure the TF would be happy to invite Chris. We are also interested in inviting cc's from Latin America, so we can ask Chris for possible circulation of a request to the cc's from Latin America as well. That way, we will hear from several countries. I'll put this on the TF agenda tomorrow as another possible guest speaker for the next set of calls, which will have to probably be after Mar de Plata, given all that is on our plates. We also need to hear from governmental agencies about their uses and views, and we haven't gotten around to identifying that set of invitees yet. In the past, in WHOIS panels, etc., we have invites a range of consumer protection; privacy, law enforcement, etc. Tim, your point about transfers and its reliance on the email of the registrant is interesting. Does this show up in the report of the ICANN staff as one of the problem areas that is emerging/internally disputed transfers... sounds like perhaps the technical contact might be the ISP, for instance, and they do a transfer, and the actual registrant isn't informed, or doesn't agree, and then disputes? What a nightmare for the registrar! Maria, would you ask Tim Cole/Kurt Pritz when the report that Kurt discussed on the last Council call will be actually published? I know it wasn't quite final when he reported on it, but I assume is forthcoming... just useful to know of when to expect it. Thanks, MC -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dow123(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 5:21 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Chris Disspain; gnso-dow123(a)gnso.icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] RE: [council] RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005 I'd like to point out an issue with the current (new) transfer process that needs to be considered here. Right now, there is no requirement to display the email address of the Registrant in the Whois of gTLDs. So most gaining registrars use the email address of the Administrative Contact to confirm transfer requests. The problem we have seen, and I am sure others as well to one degree or another, is that even after a "good" transfer is completed (confirmed by the Administrative Contact), the Registrant sometimes comes forward and says they did not authorize it. Under the current policy, we have to reverse the transfer or risk going into a dispute that the gaining registrar will lose and pay for. Since the Registrant has ultimate authority over a transfer, and that makes sense, then their email address should at least be available to Registrars in any tiered access model. At least as long as the transfer policy is what it is. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-dow123] RE: [council] RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005 From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Sun, February 27, 2005 10:48 pm To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: "Chris Disspain" <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, gnso-dow123(a)gnso.icann.org Hello Marilyn, > We are also still looking for cc's who use a form of tiered access. The WHOIS task force may wish to invite Chris Disspain, the CEO of .au Domain Administration (auDA) which is the policy body for .au, to explain the mechanism used in Australia. au uses a tiered access structure. There are three tiers. (1) public access (see http://whois.ausregistry.com.au/ ), which provides the following information: Domain Name: Last Modified: Registrar ID: Registrar Name: Status: Registrant name: Registrant ID: Registrant ROID: Registrant Contact Name: Registrant Email: Tech ID: Tech Name: Tech Email: Name Server: Name Server IP: Name Server: Name Server IP: (2) Registrar access. A registrar can access the full records for the names under their management, and can also access other registry records, if the registrant provides them with an access password (auth_info). The access password is typically provided by a registrant that wishes to transfer to the registrar. The registrar is able to retrieve the full record as part of the process of authenticating the transfer request. (3) Law enforcement access. An Australian law enforcement agency may make a request to auDA for access to particular records in writing. auDA has full access to all records for this purpose. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars representative on the GNSO Council

2 1

RE: [council] RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 27, 2005

Feb. 27, 2005

Hello Marilyn, > We are also still looking for cc's who use a form of tiered access. The WHOIS task force may wish to invite Chris Disspain, the CEO of .au Domain Administration (auDA) which is the policy body for .au, to explain the mechanism used in Australia. .au uses a tiered access structure. There are three tiers. (1) public access (see http://whois.ausregistry.com.au/ ), which provides the following information: Domain Name: Last Modified: Registrar ID: Registrar Name: Status: Registrant name: Registrant ID: Registrant ROID: Registrant Contact Name: Registrant Email: Tech ID: Tech Name: Tech Email: Name Server: Name Server IP: Name Server: Name Server IP: (2) Registrar access. A registrar can access the full records for the names under their management, and can also access other registry records, if the registrant provides them with an access password (auth_info). The access password is typically provided by a registrant that wishes to transfer to the registrar. The registrar is able to retrieve the full record as part of the process of authenticating the transfer request. (3) Law enforcement access. An Australian law enforcement agency may make a request to auDA for access to particular records in writing. auDA has full access to all records for this purpose. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars representative on the GNSO Council

1 0

RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 27, 2005

Feb. 27, 2005

Dear fellow councilors You may be interested in this session, which will be highly informative related to tiered access / Whois. Since the Council will be meeting in Argentina with the TF, you might want to attend this call. The session will have a transcript, so if you miss the call, you can also read the transcript. I've also suggested that the TF needs to hear from the SSAC chair/ and we also need to hear from various governmental entities regarding their needs, and experiences. We are also still looking for cc's who use a form of tiered access. However, this will be a highly educational session. Your attendance would be welcomed. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:16 PM To: Marilyn S Cade; David Fares; Sarah Deutsch "> Subject: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005 Details for the combined WHOIS task forces 1,2,& 3 call MARCH 1 2005. Please note change of time: Time: 11:00 am LA, 2:00pm EST, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 CET, 6:00am Melbourne next day Subject: Tiered access and proxy services There will be presentations by: - CIRA - DENIC - Domains By Proxy - ENOM - Global Name Registry - Network Solutions AUDIO PARTICIPANT ACCESS ========================================== CALL DATE: MAR-01-2005 (Tuesday) DURATION: 2 hr LEADER: MS GLEN DE SAINT GERY USA Toll Free Number: 888-658-8648 USA Toll Number: +1-773-756-4602 PASSCODE: WHOIS For security reasons, the passcode and the leader's name will be required to join your call. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Website
by gnso.icann Feb. 27, 2005

Feb. 27, 2005

Dear Councillors, Reminder! Comments due by 12 February. So far 2 comments have been received 2, thank you very much, but others would be most welcome. Regarding recommendation 20 of the GNSO Council review: The GNSO Council should overhaul the website so that it better meets the needs of all who are interested in the work of the GNSO. In an effort to improve the website, it would be most useful to have an idea of what your requirements are for the website. Perhaps the following headings may help focus your comments: 1. Structure - do the custom constituency pages help or hinder? 2. Navigation - how can it be improved on the ICANN web site in general? Can you easily get what you want from the GNSO home page? 3. Content - should there be a simpler menu for basic information on ICANN on the ICANN home page? And a similar menu for the GNSO home page? 4. Accessibility - do you ever have connectivity problems? 5. New Ideas - is there content missing? If so what? Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

4 3

GNSO Council revised minutes 17 February 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

[To:council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the GNSO Council minutes as revised by Kurt Pritz for: Item 6: Report from ICANN staff on current complaints raised by Internet users and registrants Statistics. Thank you. Regards, -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Registry Constituency IDN communiqué
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

Thanks Cary. You might like to include some specific examples of two identifiers (names) that could look the same, and explain how a registry would avoid the problem for each example. Regards, Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cary Karp > Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2005 9:00 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [council] Registry Constituency IDN communiqué > > The communiqué that I mentioned at last week's Council > meeting is now on-line at: > > http://www.icann.org/topics/news022305.html > > You may also wish to note the broader topic page that ICANN > has posted at: > > http://www.icann.org/topics/idn.html > > /Cary >

2 2

Registry Constituency IDN communiqué
by Cary Karp Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

The communiqué that I mentioned at last week's Council meeting is now on-line at: http://www.icann.org/topics/news022305.html You may also wish to note the broader topic page that ICANN has posted at: http://www.icann.org/topics/idn.html /Cary

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes 17 February 2005
by gnso.icann Feb. 23, 2005

Feb. 23, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Councillors, Please find the draft GNSO Council minutes for 17 February 2005, as edited by Bruce Tonkin and Dr. Paul Twomey. If you would like any changes made, please let me know. Thank you very much. Regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat ************************************************************************ **************** 17 February 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. absent, apologies- proxy to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - proxy to Marc Schneiders Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C. Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc Schneiders Alick Wilson Maureen Cubberley 17 Council Members ICANN Staff Dr. Paul Twomey - ICANN President and CEO Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager - absent GNSO Council Liaisons Thomas Roessler - acting ALAC Liaison Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Visitors: (participants and contributors at the Amsterdam Consultation meeting) Chuck Gomes - Verisign Naming and Directory Services David Maher - PIR Senior Vice President Mark McFadden - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency chair Marie Zitkova - gTLD Registries Chair Jordyn Buchanan - Co-chair Whois task force 1/2 MP3 Recording: Quorum present at 20:10 CET. Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda Agenda Approved Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 13 January 2005 Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the Minutes of 13 January 2005 Motion unanimously approved. Decision 1: The minutes of 13 January 2005 were adopted Item 2: Report on Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN Strategic Plan 7-8 February 2005. Marilyn Cade summarized the outcome of the Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN Strategic Plan on 7 and 8 February, thanked Dr Twomey, the participants, presenters and ICANN staff for their support. The first day was devoted to presentations and the second day to rapporteurs who presented a synthesis of those comments that received broad agreement. The consensus comments were divided into 2 categories: 1. Consultation Process Recommendations for the development of the current plan 2. Substantive Comment Recommendations consisted of comments on the plan which received broad agreement associated with the four key areas of the Strategic Plan. Tony Holmes emphasized 3 important factors needed for ongoing success: - Call for ICANN to make sure the next version of the plan was published in advance for the Mar del Plata meeting - Organize the event in Mar del Plata for further discussion - Process developed in Amsterdam is moved forward in terms of the next strategic plan. Bruce Tonkin commented that there were 3 documents that should be provided - The Strategic plan for the next 3 years (2005, 2006, 2007) - The Operational plan for the next 12 months (July 2005 to June 2006) - The Budget for the next 12 months (July 2005 to June 2006) Dr. Paul Twomey thanked the Council for the invitation and all those involved in organizing the Amsterdam Consultation meeting. Some of the output was consistent with other output received during consultations while, some was different. There was agreement on the terms of how to move forward. Past experience had shown that it takes some years to get a set of organizational planning documents and cycles right for an organization, and the feed back from the first strategic plan was not surprising. In terms of the cycle, it would appropriate to break down the documents in 3 parts: 1. Strategic overview 2. Operational plan 3. Financial implications Currently, and since ICANN's creation, the operational plan and the budget document are merged together with much of the past discussion focussed on the budget and finances. The feedback would be useful to look at the three parts together. Evolving the planning process including consultation was more important than spending all the community's and ICANN staff's remaining attention on one particular document. The feedback from several consultation meetings is that the operational plan is the next priority. Consequently the feedback from the Amsterdam and other consultations should be taken to look at what would affect the strategic overview broadly. The operational details in the present document could be separated,and used as input into the operational/budget planning process due to be presented for board approval in Luxembourg, and a document that focuses on the strategic overview could be prepared for discussion at the Mar del Plata in a public meeting after which the Board could approve. Following the Mar del Plata meeting, ICANN staff in consultation with the community would be working on the operational plan, taking into account the operational aspects, achievements aimed at, specific projects and timeframes for the next year. Dr. Twomey commented that this year, 2005 the operational plan will need to be combined with the development of the budget, but the desire was, and this seemed to come out of the Amsterdam contributions as well, to move to a planning cycle, namely: - July to December 2005 would focus on the strategic overview and the revision of the strategic overview document. - December 2005 through to May /June 2006 would focus on operational planning documentation and the budget This would start building a yearly cycle where discussions and consultation would take place on the strategic overview, the operational plan and the budget aspects. Dr. Twomey concluded by saying that an enormous amount of time and effort had gone into producing the strategic document and appreciated the consultation. He felt the community would not benefit much from a significant re-writing of another version of the document, but rather should focus on trying to take another cut at the larger picture, the strategic overview, based on the input received from the community, and then move on to the operational aspects for the next 12 months. Grant Forsyth asked where we were in the operational and planning cycle, where did the current plan sit in that? Dr. Paul Twomey responded that in the past ICANN had produced a combined operational plan/budget for the period July to June. The bylaws require the budget document to be completed by certain stages and by June. The budget preparation has started and initial discussions have been had with budget advisory group. More input is required on the the operational aspects of this document. Some of the things listed in the strategic plan document had already been completed. The document was a new type of document for ICANN, and it was difficult to write to meet the objectives of providing a strategic overview of ICANN as well as provide enough detail on the operational activities of ICANN for those not familiar with ICANN. Some things at the operational level have been or are being implemented and this is partly the reason why it is now better to take a cut through the present document and distinguish which belongs to the strategic overview of ICANN and what needs to be achieved as part of the operational plan. More project specific items should be part of an operational document which could be incorporated in the budget process. Bruce Tonkin clarified saying that he supposed there was a framework for a strategic plan when the 2004/2005 budget was produced and what Grant Forsyth was referring to were the dates in the strategic document that refers to the current budget year (July 04 to June 05), whereas we should now look at a three year period starting from July 2005. Dr. Paul Twomey agreed, the budget process being looked at was for the financial year July 2005/ June 2006. Maureen Cubberley agreed that it took up to 2 years to establish an appropriate planning cycle and suggested that as a starting point for determining the planning process it might be useful to develop an overlay that looked at the fiscal year milestones, key Board meetings, decision milestones, and the groups that fed into those decisions and than try to structure a 2 year timeframe so as to find parallel points to put the planning process forward and critical deadlines. She explained her understanding of the strategic overview as a shared responsibility, less of a consultation by the staff with the stakeholders and more of a participatory process from the beginning and asked whether Dr. Twomey agreed that it was a shared responsibility and would there be a process for that? Dr. Paul Twomey explained why the document was a challenge, why there were several versions and why it did not come through the consultation process earlier. It was partly because there were several external audience groups and some parts of the document could be seen as desirable by some and undesirable by others. He added that it was natural in a community where many people voluntarily contributed much time and experience they could not be expected to draft a document from scratch. The intent was to produce a document that could be responded to and not a final version. He went on to make a practical observation that when targets in any planning document were not met by an organization, the reason was often that new issues emerge which required resources to be reallocated because of the pressing nature of the new situation. ICANN, he felt, was prone to such emergencies, and while a plan and projects were needed, practical realities happened during the year. Tony Holmes requested clarity on one element that seemed to have fallen away and looked back at the process recommendations from the Amsterdam meeting. 1 focus on the strategic plan for the future coupled with the budget activity 2. Operational plan to be published before Argentina meeting. If understood correctly that would not happen. Dr. Paul Twomey replied that the current ICANN budget was an attempted operational plan backed by spreadsheets and the 2004/2005 budget as posted, gave information on what was going to be done. He stressed the benefit in getting the constituencies and the community to focus on the project aspects of the operational plan/budget document rather than how they would be funded. Budget, in the ICANN sense meant some version of the operational plan and the budget. Bruce Tonkin summarized that for the Mar del Plata meetings a new version of the strategic overview document would be produced which would take into account the output of the Amsterdam meeting plus other consultations, but may strip out some of the operational material and put that in a fresh document that would be the first draft of the combined operational budget document. A public consultation, still to be scheduled, will be planned separately from the public forum in Mar del Plata to discuss and consult on the Strategic Overview. Maureen Cubberley encouraged cross consultation to which Dr. Twomey commented that some of the constituencies specifically asked to be consulted apart and that it was not being disrespectful to cross constituency consultation. Dr Twomey agreed that both separate consultation with individual stakeholder groups and joint consultation was required in the process Bruce Tonkin thanked Dr. Twomey for attending and all those who attended the Amsterdam event that were on the call. Item 3: Update on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture and operation of a gTLD registry. Bruce Tonkin reported on having an action item on the topic but considered that the current priorities should be focussed on Whois. Item 4: Update on WHOIS task forces Jordyn Buchanan commented that there were two issues: I. Task Force 1/2 developed recommendations relating to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system. The recommendations were submitted to the GNSO public forum during Cape Town meeting, Constituency statements and comments have been solicited, 2 constituencies have indicated reservations on the recommendation, the task force has not yet determined how to deal with the issue. 2. The second recommendation relating to a procedure for conflicts when there are conflicts between a registrar's or registry's legal obligations under local privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN had fairly broad support from the task force. The ICANN staff reviewed the recommendations and staff expressed their concerns. The task force has requested dialogue with Senior staff on the policy and legal side, but has not yet been able to schedule a meeting with relevant staff. 3. Tiered access - not much work has been undertaken. The task force intends to have outside experts present on implementation aspects of tiered access. Bruce Tonkin proposed working closely with the GNSO Policy Officer to develop a single document combining Whois task forces 1, 2 1/2 and 3 discussions. This document would incorporate the material required in a task force report as defined in the bylaws, such as the constituency statements, current recommendations, and degree of support for the recommendations (including where necessary a summary of majority and minority positions). It would also include a summary of documentation on the Whois issues using documents already prepared over several years, and identify which aspects of the WHOIS issues fit into the mission of ICANN. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the combined WHOIS task forces meet as a group fairly regularly in the period prior to the Mar del Plata meetings to focus on the Whois issue working from one document and documenting the levels of agreement. Item 5: Election for ICANN Board seat #14 (currently held by Michael Palage) - the GNSO Council must affirm the vote of Board Seat #14 no later than 5 May 2005 - the elected Board member takes up seat #14 on 5 June 2005 - Proposed process: - -- Call for nominations: Friday 11 March 2005 Call to be sent out on Council list. (only Council members, based on consultation with their constituencies, can nominate) -- End of nominations: Friday 25 March 2005 -- hold election in person at the GNSO Council meeting in Mar del Plata, 6 April 2005 (note a majority of the Council votes must be in favour of the successful candidate - this may require multiple rounds of voting) The Council discussions indicated that a separate election process by email vote would be preferable, and to accelerate the nomination period to allow sufficient time for an email vote prior to the Mar Del Plata meeting. Bruce Tonkin seconded by Maureen Cubberley proposed: - that Council agree to start the nomination period earlier - then conduct an e-mail vote - ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting The motion was carried unanimously by voice vote Decision 2: - that Council agree to start the nomination period earlier - then conduct an e-mail vote - ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting Action Item: Errors on the website relating to the term of office for Alejandro Pisanty and Michael Palage be rectified by the secretariat. Item 6: Report from ICANN staff on current complaints raised by Internet users and registrants Kurt Pritz reported that after the 3 months of the transfer policy a draft report is being prepared stating the registrant, registrar and registry experiences. The focus of the report: 1. Authentification and verification methods - their success The transfer policy - complaints - Failure in making transfers because registrars were locking all names and it was difficult to unlock them - Opportunity of fraud, theft and hijacking of names - one real circumstance and 2 unsubstantiated cases 2. Dispute resolution process - procedure that was required by the registries in case there was a dispute whether a transfer should be made or not. In the first 3 months there was only one instance where it was invoked, instead what appeared was that ICANN staff worked regularly on addressing registrant complaints on the transfer process. Most complaints were that the registrant wanted to transfer and could not because the name was locked. The purpose behind the dispute resolution process and the fee associated with it was that the fees would inflict some amount of pain for those not complying with the transfer process and it was a self policing mechanism. The fact that ICANN staff was doing the dispute resolution worked around the fee. A topic to be addressed at a later stage to examine whether the Dispute resolution process could be made more affective. 3. Undo mechanism The registries were required to implement an undo mechanism to assure that unauthorized transfers could be reversed. This appeared to be effective, the only complaints were about timeliness. and this would be the subject of further study. Statistics Over half complaints relate to making transfers easier to make. Over a third - 40% of the comments to date concern loosing registrars locking domain names so that they cannot be transferred or resellers using their own name as registrant data, or some other form of nacking the transfer. 10 % commented that the whole process should be faster. Less prevalent complaint was the quality of the Whois data especially at the reseller level. A correction to the Whois data would help the process itself. 56 % of the comments and most of the phone calls were about speeding up the process. 18% regard altering the form of authorization to make it more effective. The comments went across the board for example: adding additional lock identifications, authorization, spam filters 18 % comments said the transfer policy was susceptible to theft. The report will be released shortly. Item 7: Update from ICANN staff on new appointments, and plans for issues report on re-registration of recently deleted names Paul Verhoef introduced Maria Farrell the new GNSO Policy Officer who started on February 7, 2005 and reported that Olaf Nortling, a Swedish citizen would start on March1 2005. Both would be based at the Brussels office. Maria Farrell introduced herself saying that she had come to ICANN from the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Her background was policy development on Internet related issues with different constituencies over the last few years. Item 8: Any other business: a. Amsterdam discussion. Bruce Tonkin stated that during the last meeting, January 13, 2005 a budget was approved, in the mean time money had been spent and a copy of the invoice had been sent to all Council members thus the council should formally approve the expenditure of those funds. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs proposed: that the GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of 5131 Euros in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council members and that those funds will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds account. Formal nominative vote: 24 votes in favour 2 votes absent (Kiyoshi Tsuru, Lucy Nichols) Motion carried. Decision 3 The GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of 5131 Euros in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council members and those funds will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds account b. The Mar del Plata meeting schedule Marilyn Cade expressed concern about the naming of Constituency day and concern that the schedule change on the website caused inconvenience in personal traveling schedules. Bruce Tonkin proposed planning - a joint WHOIS task force / GNSO Council meeting and a GNSO Public Forum in Mar del Plata where comments would be invited from the public. - 3 April - GNSO Council and GAC meeting on Sunday morning with a paper prepared on both sides - 3 April - Sunday afternoon GNSO Council meeting for operational planning session with GNSO Policy staff - 4 April - Monday morning GNSO Council Breakfast - 4 April - Monday meeting with constituencies - 5 April - Tuesday morning Whois joint task force meeting with Council - 5 April -Tuesday afternoon Deleted Names issue - 5 April -Tuesday WSIS Bruce Tonkin suggested continuing the discussion the Mar Del Plata planning on the Council list. c. Cary Karp commented on an issue that has been discussed in the community regarding possible security problems with IDN domain names that look similar to a typical user. He reported that the registry constituency had prepared a statement explaining how the registry operators have addressed the issue and this statement would be made known to the Council d. Alick Wilson raised the question of the vacancy on the Nominating Committee. Bruce Tonkin proposed contacting John Jeffrey on the issue Alick Wilson proposed that the candidates should make a statement about themselves and the position that they wished to take e. Thomas Roessler announced that he would be leaving the Council as he would be replaced by the newly appointed ALAC representative by the next Council meeting. Bruce Tonkin, on behalf of the Council, thanked him for his contributions. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 21:10 UTC. Next GNSO Council see: Calendar

1 0

Bret Fausett has been appointed as Liaison to the GNSO Council from the At Large Advisory Committee
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 23, 2005

Feb. 23, 2005

Hello All, Bret Fausett has been appointed as Liaison to the GNSO Council from the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). For those of you that have not met Bret, he maintains a blog on ICANN issues at: http://blog.lextext.com/blog/icann// Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0