June 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

ALAC response on new gTLD strategy
by Bruce Tonkin June 21, 2005

June 21, 2005

For info: -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org] Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2005 7:01 PM Olof Nordling ha scritto: > The very first step is now to verify the completeness of the list of > questions. Is the list adequate and sufficiently complete to inform > the implementation process in practice? Comments on that aspect are > welcome by 22 July, i.e. a week after the end of the ICANN meeting in Luxemburg. Hello, first of all, thanks for this document; I think that - also given the increasing concerns that the recent round of new gTLDs is causing outside the ICANN world - it is very important to make things progress in this field. The ALAC will definitely set aside some time in Luxembourg to address the issue you are posing. At the same time, please let me share a personal concern with the matrix-based contribution approach as described in this draft. It is not entirely clear in the document whether the matrix is just intended to indicate staff expectations in terms of who will comment what, or whether it is meant to be an actual binding assignment of tasks, in the sense that comments on issues other than those marked with an X will be ignored. In any case, for what regards the ALAC, we expect to be consulted on all issues regarding the new gTLD process, and not just on those where we currently have the X in the matrix. In particular, "policy-level" advisory committees, such as the ALAC and the GAC, were designed to provide advice on the point of view of specific stakeholder groups on all policy matters discussed by ICANN; I think that it is not conceivable to limit the issues on which they are allowed to express advice. Also, more generally, I do not think that it is a great idea to mix a list of internal ICANN entities and constituencies, intergovernmental organizations, other types of associations, all in a flat list of contributors. Singling out specific organizations is another thing I would not recommend - why are you explicitly asking advice to the OECD and WIPO, but not, say, to UNESCO, which is deeply involved in [multi]linguistic matters? Why do you ask the IETF, but not the W3C or the ITU? I would rather suggest that you open up a general public comment period, which you should publicize by warning all relevant institutions and encouraging participation, but not single out any specific external contributor. Regards, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...

1 0

Luxembourg meeting schedule & agenda is now published
by Ken Stubbs June 20, 2005

June 20, 2005

see: http://icann.org/meetings/luxembourg/ Names council meeting scheduled for Tuesday 12 July from 17:00 - 19:00 hrs

4 5

RE: [council] Review of Registrar disclosure of WHOIS data policies
by Maria Farrell June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

Dear all, Attached is a revised spreadsheet presenting privacy notification information on the Top 10 randomly registrars. I have archived the relevant sections and all urls of the privacy and registration documents for each registrar at; <http://www.furl.net/members/mfarrell10> http://www.furl.net/members/mfarrell10 , and click on the topic entitled 'Top 10 registrars - whois policies'. This spreadsheet analyses the registrars' compliance with section 3.7.7.7 of the R.A.A., quoting the relevant part of their registration agreements or privacy policies for each sub-section 3.7.7.4.1 - 3.7.7.4.4. I've also included some bullet points of analysis, essentially some features I observed in compiling the data. These are purely interpretive on my part and you may of course draw your own conclusions from the data. Overall, the data gathered indicates significantly greater uniformity amongst privacy notification and information among the top 10 registrars than in the rest of the market. * Between the Top 10 and the randomly chosen registrars, notification procedures are more or less uniform (i.e. virtually all notify the registrant using a link and tick box on the payment page). * However, information provision about privacy varies significantly. Most of the Top 10 registrars provide a separate privacy page that is accessed either directly from the home page or via a link from the customer registration agreement. Of the randomly chosen 10, only 3 provide a separate privacy page; one of the three is a New Zealand company affiliated to a top 10 registrar, the other two are UK companies. The sample is too small to draw any firm conclusions, but it may indicate that both size/visibility and also the jurisdiction/cultural tradition are two important factors regarding dedicated privacy pages. * Few registrars explicitly reference the purposes for which data are collected, but most describe the uses to which it is put. * While most agreements hit all the main relevant points of the R.A.A., they do so by organising the terms and concepts in very different ways. The majority of registrars in both groups appeared to be observing the R.A.A. in their provision of information on stated uses of personal data. * The randomly chosen registrars seem less likely than the top 10 to explicitly state the requirement to publish personal data in Whois and/or to mention ICANN in this context. It may be that increased competition and visibility at the top of the market have made notification and information practices rather more uniform amongst the top 10 registrars. Best regards, Maria

1 0

Luxembourg accommodation
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org;liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] There is still accommodation available at the Novotel in Luxembourg which is very close to the convention center. http://www.novotel.com/novotel/fichehotel/gb/nov/1930/fiche_hotel.shtml The meeting schedule is not yet complete but constituency day will be on Monday 11 July. http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Definition of Sponsorship
by Bruce Tonkin June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

Hello Kiyoshi, I hope the paper on the issues around new TLDs will be available by the meeting on 23 June. We can then cover this topic under item 5. Once the current sponsored round is complete - it would be particularly useful to get a paper from the staff (with Board input) on the difficulties faced by the staff and Board with this concept. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ From: Kiyoshi I. Tsuru [mailto:ktsuru@bgmt.com.mx] Sent: Friday, 17 June 2005 6:40 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: Definition of Sponsorship Dear Bruce, Can we add to the discusion of next week the scope and definition of "sponsored" under the White Paper? Thank you so much, Kiyoshi Kiyoshi I. Tsuru Bello, Escalante, Morales y Tsuru, S.C. Agustín Manuel Chávez 1 - 001 Centro de Ciudad Santa Fe 01210, México, D.F. Tel. +52 (55) 5292-5232 x 105 Fax +52 (55) 5292-5233 www.bemt.com.mx <http://www.bemt.com.mx/> La información contenida en este mensaje de datos es confidencial, constituye un secreto industrial en términos de la legislación vigente y se encuentra dirigida exclusivamente al destinatario indicado en dicho mensaje. Si usted recibe esta información por error o si usted no es el destinatario del mensaje, favor de destruirlo inmediatamente, absteniéndose de leerlo, reproducirlo, transmitirlo, almacenarlo, divulgarlo, revelarlo o usarlo de manera directa o indirecta en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio. Muchas gracias. The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, privileged and intended for its recipient only. If you receive this mail by mistake and/or if you are not the recipient thereof, please destroy it immediately, abstaining yourself from reading, reproducing, transmitting, storing, disclosing, revealing or using it, either directly or indirectly, in any manner and by any means. Thank you very much.

3 2

FW: [gnso-dow123] Voting rules for the combined WHOIS taskforce
by Bruce Tonkin June 16, 2005

June 16, 2005

>From the chair, of the non-commercial constituency: -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, 17 June 2005 1:04 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: nhklein(a)gmx.net; gnso-dow123(a)gnso.icann.org; robin(a)ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Voting rules for the combined WHOIS taskforce NCUC favors one vote per constituency, and at the TF level we favor giving a formal vote to the ALAC. It seems clear that formal votes should be uniform and should not be affected by accidents of who happens to be on a call. However, the voting issue is quite separate from the participation issue. We could go either way on this one. Although nominally we started operating on the idea that only one member could speak, we have broken that rule more often than not, usually because each participant has some unique knowledge. E.g., in NCUC Kathy Kleiman is a lawyer and I am not; in BC sometimes Marilyn knows something Mr. Farris may not and vice versa, etc. And of course the registrars are nothing if not various in their voices and opinions! In general, restricting communication on TF calls can be cumbersome and stifling. Most of us are aware of who is speaking and what interest group they represent, so while the risk of a major imbalance in dialogue exists and should be guarded against, we need not be overly restrictive in our attempt to compensate for it. >>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> 6/15/2005 8:43:18 AM >>> Now that we have combined the three task forces we could either: - provide three votes per constituency, and allow three members per constituency to speak on a teleconference or physical meeting Or - operate with a single vote per constituency, and allow only one member per constituency to represent the constituency's views in a teleconference or physical meeting

1 0

GNSO Council meeting on 23 June: Staff Report
by Maria Farrell June 16, 2005

June 16, 2005

Dear all, Below is the staff report ahead of next week's conference call of the GNSO Council. All the best, Maria GNSO Council Staff Report 16 June 2005 1 WHOIS Task Force Recommendation 1 on notification: Progress: The Final task force report was submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration at the June 2 2005 meeting. Staff has completed the following information-gathering exercises: * Top 10 registrars' notification practices * 10 randomly chosen registrars' notification practices Current status: Report for consideration at Council meeting on 23 June, 2005. Purpose of Whois Progress: Staff has completed the following information-gathering exercises: * Uses of Whois data Current status: The task force is developing work on the purpose of whois. Recommendation 2 on conflicts with national laws Progress: The task force aims to finalize the recommendation for circulation to constituencies (for constituency statements) on Tuesday 21 June, 2005. The recommendation will then be the subject of a preliminary task force report, public comments, and a final task force report to the GNSO Council which is anticipated by late August 2005. Current status: Recommendation being finalized by task force for circulation to constituencies. Staff contact: Maria Farrell 2 Transfers policy implementation report Progress: Tina Dam, Karen Lentz and Maria Farrell are available to work with GNSO Council members on this topic. Karen has developed some statistics on the type of complaints/questions we receive about transfers that can be shared with the entire working group to help decide what part of the policy language to clarify. Current status: Awaiting Council member response Staff contact: Tina Dam / Maria Farrell 3 New gTLDs Including internationalized domain names at the TLD level. Progress: New gTLD question list in preparation for circulation Current status: In progress Staff contact: Olof Nordling 4 Input to ICANN strategic / operational planning process and budget Progress: Conference call held with ICANN staff on 9 June discussed how to manage interactive consultation in Luxembourg. Current status: Questions to guide the sessions are being developed and refined and will be circulated to the constituencies, SOs and ALAC two weeks before Luxembourg. (Friday 24 June) Staff contact: Kurt Pritz / Maria Farrell 7 Planning for ICANN Luxembourg meeting Progress: The agenda is expected to be circulated early in the week beginning 20 June, 2005. Council contact: Marilyn Cade Staff contact: Glen de Saint Gery

1 0

Regarding Council voting numbers
by Bruce Tonkin June 16, 2005

June 16, 2005

Hello Marilyn, > > As I recall, consensus policy takes 2/3s majority. Due to > weighted voting there are 27 total votes. However, with one > vacancy of the Nominating Committee appointees, there are > actually only 26 votes. Thus 2/3s would be of the 26 votes, > not 27. Yes - there are currently only 26 votes able to be cast. See paragraph 8, of section 3, article X, of the ICANN bylaws. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X The number of votes relates to "total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office" Also: "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein." Thus members representing a total of 14 votes would be required to achieve quorum, and 8 votes would be the minimum required to make a decision. Note that there are also notice provisions - so it is not possible to call a meeting without notice and make decisions amongst a subset of Council members. > > Then, 2/3s would be .... 17 votes, or 18 votes? I think it is > 17.4, which would be 17. ""Supermajority Vote" means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members present at a meeting of the applicable body." So if 26 votes were able to be cast during a meeting, then a total of 18 votes would be necessary for a supermajority vote. Note however that it is possible to get a supermajority vote from a meeting with members only having a total of 14 votes. (ie if you had 10 votes in favour when a total of 14 votes is available at a meeting) Whenever we have an important vote - I endeavour to ensure that we have all available votes cast (ie 26 votes) and I will recommend delaying a vote to another meeting if that can't be achieved. With respect to policy: (From Section 12, of Annex A) "A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the Council's recommendation. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in the outcome of the policy issue." Thus in putting forward a policy recommendation to the Board, we would need to record the votes from all members of Council. This is presently a total of 26 votes. A Supermajority vote of all Council members in this context would need 18 or more votes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Voting rules for the combined WHOIS task force
by Bruce Tonkin June 16, 2005

June 16, 2005

Hello Marilyn, > > As to "speaking" on a TF, I am not in agreement at all on > limiting the "speaking" on the TF. First, we need to > understand that TF members work, or should be working, or > don't need to be there. Thus, to limit who speaks when more > than one person is doing work on a TF is demeaning to the > integrity of the TF's ability to self manage itself. > Yes - some of this ground was covered at the time we set up the original WHOIS task forces. One of these days we will get all this material together for a set of guidelines for the GNSO Council and Task Forces. At the GNSO Council meeting following when the voting rules were discussed for the GNSO task force - there was a further discussion regarding task force participation. The minutes are available here: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18dec03.shtml A follow up message to the Council list: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00348.html Stated: [council] Clarification of participation in WHOIS task force calls by alternates Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:01:43 +1100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Hello All, At its meeting on 20 Nov, the GNSO Council decided: "That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views." Following initial meetings of the WHOIS task forces, clarification was sought on when it would be appropriate for constituency representatives, attending a teleconference or physical meeting as alternates to the primary constituency representative, to speak. Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following approach: "We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational interest. The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and analyzing information. Many of the alternates, some of whom have significant ICANN experience and historical knowledge, can contribute significantly in furthering the Task Force's work by simply providing historical information or indicating the availability of other information germane to the issues the Task Force is addressing. Of course, under no circumstances will any alternate be allowed to represent the views of the constituency or provide the vote of any constituency (unless the designated representative is absent on the call)." The GNSO Council discussed this issue during its meeting on 18 Dec 2003. It was recognised that alternates play a valuable role in task force work in using their own network of contacts and resources to collect data together for the task force. Normally alternates would provide their work through the primary constituency representative on the task force. It was noted however that during a particular call or physical meeting an alternate may have some useful "factual" information to provide that is relevant to the discussion. Note that ICANN staff members and the GAC liaison have typically operated in that mode during GNSO council calls. It was noted that a balance needs to be struck between alternates offering information that might be strongly related to a particular constituency viewpoint (e.g isolated events, anecdotal information, or a reference to a Web blog or an academic paper expressing a particular opinion) as opposed to factual information (e.g a reference to an existing ICANN policy, or a reference to a previous statistical survey, or ICANN workshop). The Council recommended that the chair of each task force be given the discretion to take advantage of the availability of alternate members for the purposes of providing factual information, whilst ensuring that each constituency expresses their particular opinion/viewpoint on the policy issue under consideration through a single representative during any single call or physical meeting. If a particular constituency believes that the intent of the motion of 20 Nov (which ensures fair participation by all constituencies regardless of their size and resources) is not being met, this should be raised with the chair of the task force, through their representative on the task force. If a consituency is unable to resolve the issue with the task force chair, then the constituency can request guidance from the GNSO Council, through their representatives on the GNSO Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council

1 0

Protocol for participation in teleconferences
by Bruce Tonkin June 16, 2005

June 16, 2005

While I was searching through the archives regarding the guidelines for the original WHOIS task forces, I also found this item, which may assist new members of the Council or task forces: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00349.html This protocol of course can be subject to improvement - suggestions for improvement always welcome. Regards, Bruce Tonkin [council] Protocol for participation in Council calls ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Hello All, Given we have some new council members, and some new participants from the ICANN staff and GAC, I would like to state some of the "unwritten" protocol rules that have been built up over time on the GNSO Council that make it easy to participate on a call with a large number of participants. My basic approach to a call is for each agenda item: - introduce the agenda item - provide some brief background to the issue, or ask a person to present a report or motion - form a queue of speakers to talk on agenda item If you wish to comment on a topic, please say: "It's <your name>. Please add me to the queue." I will normally collect a list of names for the queue and announce the queue order. E.g " I have Ken Stubbs, Marilyn Cade, and Jordyn in the queue - anyone else like to join?". This helps you know when it is your turn to speak. It is often polite for frequent speakers, to allow less frequent speakers to speak first. E.g "It's <your name>. Please put me at the end of the queue, as I would like to hear the views of the other speakers first". Please don't assume that I or other participants can determine who you are based on the sound of your voice. This may work for calls with a small amount of people that know each other well, but it does not scale to calls involving a wide range of people that often sound similar based on their particular regional "version" of English :-) Ie don't just say "Add ME to the queue", as often it is hard to hear who "me" is. If you wish to comment immediately on a statement made by a speaker while a queue is in place please say: "Its <your name>, may I comment?" or "<your name>. May I respond?" At this point I will either say "Yes, go ahead <name>." or "I will add you to the queue, after <name of another council member>". I am more likely to give the option to speak immediately to those that are infrequent speakers. If you are expecting to give a long response to an individual's statement, I would prefer that you join the queue rather than immediately respond, to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to speak, and we don't end up forming a back-and-forth dialog between two individuals on the call. Please do not just jump in and speak. This means that some that have been waiting patiently to speak don't get a chance, and it is also hard to determine who you are purely on the basis of your voice (particularly if you do not speak regularly). This may sound cumbersome, but it is surprisingly efficient and ensures that at any point in time the council knows who is speaking and who gets to speak next. It is also a standing unwritten rule that everyone is entitled to a particular view, and if you want to change their view, this should be done by addressing the particular view and not the credibility or motivation of the person expressing the view. Ie personal insults or criticisms such as "I am more intelligent than you, so how would you know?", or "You are only saying that because you are a secret agent for company x" are not appropriate. As chair, I always welcome suggestions for improving the running of meetings either on the list or by private communication. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council.

1 0