July 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Tasks 1 & 2 Constituency statements due on 21 July 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 19, 2005

July 19, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To:gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Reminder that the GNSO constituency statements are due on 21 JULY 2005. http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Constituency responses are required on Tasks 1 and 2 from the Terms of Reference for the combined WHOIS Task Force. http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html (see below for full text) Please send the constituency statements to: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org Please take note of the ICANN bylaws detailing the GNSO policy development process which outline the essential elements of a constituency statement. These requirements are included at the bottom of this email. Kind regards, Glen (1) Define the purpose of the WHOIS service in the context of ICANN's mission and relevant core values, international and national laws protecting privacy of natural persons, international and national laws that relate specifically to the WHOIS service, and the changing nature of Registered Name Holders. (2) Define the purpose of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, and the purpose for which the data was collected. Use the relevant definitions from Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point (from http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-exhc-12feb03.htm) "Contact: Contacts are individuals or entities associated with domain name records. Typically, third parties with specific inquiries or concerns will use contact records to determine who should act upon specific issues related to a domain name record. There are typically three of these contact types associated with a domain name record, the Administrative contact, the Billing contact and the Technical contact. Contact, Administrative: The administrative contact is an individual, role or organization authorized to interact with the Registry or Registrar on behalf of the Domain Holder. The administrative contact should be able to answer non-technical questions about the domain name's registration and the Domain Holder. In all cases, the Administrative Contact is viewed as the authoritative point of contact for the domain name, second only to the Domain Holder. Contact, Billing: The billing contact is the individual, role or organization designated to receive the invoice for domain name registration and re-registration fees. Contact, Technical: The technical contact is the individual, role or organization that is responsible for the technical operations of the delegated zone. This contact likely maintains the domain name server(s) for the domain. The technical contact should be able to answer technical questions about the domain name, the delegated zone and work with technically oriented people in other zones to solve technical problems that affect the domain name and/or zone. Domain Holder: The individual or organization that registers a specific domain name. This individual or organization holds the right to use that specific domain name for a specified period of time, provided certain conditions are met and the registration fees are paid. This person or organization is the "legal entity" bound by the terms of the relevant service agreement with the Registry operator for the TLD in question." ******************************************************************** The constituency statements should ideally be consistent with the ICANN bylaws - GNSO Policy-Development Process. http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA Section 7, d. Collection of Information. 1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council meeting proposed dates
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 18, 2005

July 18, 2005

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 3

gTLD registries Presentation at GNSO public forum
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 18, 2005

July 18, 2005

Forwarded from From: Marie.Zitkova, gTLD registries constituency chair (See attached file: GNSO Public Forum Rerport July 12.ppt) -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Correction to the proposed dates for Council meetings
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 18, 2005

July 18, 2005

Dear Councillors, A correction in the proposed dates for Council teleconferences till the Vancouver meetings. Thursday 21 September 12:00 UTC should read Thursday 22 September 12:00 UTC Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com July 17, 2005

July 17, 2005

Glen I am unable to make the 28th July due to a prior company commitment and will be on vacation on the 18th August In both cases I give my proxy to Tony Harris and then Greg Ruth. I note that all the calls except one are scheduled to start at 12.00 UTC. Whilst some European's may find that an advantage, for me it often causes major problems and I would appreciate more flexibility in the arrangements. Attending calls during the evening/early morning is often easier to arrange for all of us with busy professional lives. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: 15 July 2005 10:17 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates 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

1 0

Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates
by Marilyn Cade July 17, 2005

July 17, 2005

I am not sure that we don't need some extraordinary meetings, given the work load. I will look further at the schedule and prob. Propose two I hour sessions on part. Topics. ------Original Message------ From: CABASE-Antonio Harris Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org To: Gnso. Secretariat To: GNSO Council Sent: Jul 15, 2005 05:56 Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates 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 > > -- Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] White paper on new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin July 14, 2005

July 14, 2005

Hello Philip, > > On profit / not for profit My point was that it is difficult to judge a proposal solely because it is non-profit or for-profit, just as it is difficult to judge a proposed TLD on the basis of being sponsored or non-sponsored. I have heard concern in some parts of the community that whenever a new TLD is created or a cctld is re-purposed, many registrants in that TLD feel compelled to protect their "brand" in that new TLD. Some parts of the community feel more comfortable if a TLD has some restrictions that narrow the potential set of registrants (e.g .aero). This does not seem to me to be an issue of sponsored versus unsponsored, but whether a TLD should be restricted to a defined set of registrants or open to anyone to register. The former model does remind me a bit of the system of exclusive clubs (e.g some golf clubs) which had tight constraints on new members (e.g male only from a particular cultural background), versus clubs which are open to any new members (e.g public golf courses). In the long run, the public golf courses seem to do better. Of course clubs can still be created for specific purposes, without being overly restrictive on accepting new members. A related issue is that if ICANN decides to allow a new TLD because it is constrained in someway (e.g .name with third level names), how does the new TLD evolve to respond to the market (ie how do the constraints change). The ICANN model is not scalable if it wants to become involved in all aspects of the operation of a TLD (e.g what qualifications are required to register in .pro). It is preferable for ICANN to focus on the security and stability aspects of a new TLD, and check that changes don't impact on the security and stability aspects. It seems to me that ICANN should not be getting involved in picking a TLD on the basis of its registrants, but should be more concerned about ensuring that the new TLD works (ie meets Internet standards), meets a minimum level of reliability (ie has a service level agreement), and has a back-up (should either the technical or financial backing of the TLD change). This is not to say that there are not legitimate legal concerns about mis-use of domains names (which includes "passing off", phishing etc), and these concerns do need solutions. Again these are my personal views only, and it would be good to establish an appropriate forum for debate. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

2pm Council/Whois meeting room A
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 14, 2005

July 14, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] There is a combined Council/Whois task force meeting this afternoon, Thursday, that starts at 14:00 in room A. The telephone bridge number: Toll number + 1 210 795 2239 Toll Free number 866 421 8839 Pass code 7396192 Look forward to seeing you there! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Summary of public comments from GNSO public forum
by Bruce Tonkin July 13, 2005

July 13, 2005

Hello Maria, Please have a go at summarising the public comments received during the GNSO public forum. Especially the open mike session. Hopefully the transcript of the session is available to assist. I think it is important that members of the GNSO Community see value in contributing public comments. The GNSO Council needs to take action in response to constructive suggestions, questions, and comments. I think the Council should formally review the comments received, and report on what action it has taken. The Council can forward an appropriate paper to the Board on the outcomes of the public forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] White paper on new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin July 13, 2005

July 13, 2005

Hello Philip, Thank you for sharing this document with the Council. I wish to be clear that I personally disagree with many of the conclusions about new TLDs and the support for sponsored TLDs derived from the core values of ICANN. In particular I disagree with the current "sponsored" terminology. Sponsored and unsponsored - sounds like trying to distinguish for-profit from non-profit organisations. Some for-profit organisations lose money, and some non-pprofit organisatios make a lot of money (ie their bank balances progressively increase and they are free to spend on luxuries). These are my personal views - but I would be surprised if there was support for these concepts from the registrars constituency. The real point is that the Council is not yet engaged in using its processes to manage a structured debate on policies issues within the GNSO Community. I will forward your presentation to the registrars constituency for now, and will continue to work on working constructively with the ICANN Board, ICANN staff, and ccNSO Council in providing some structure to the process for introducing new TLDs. Before beginning this process, it is important to be clear about what is the current "ICANN Consensus Policy" on this subject, and determining what additional policy is required. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1