July 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: REMINDER GNSO Council call 28 July dial-in and proxy
by Marilyn Cade 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

I may be 10 minutes late on the call. I give my proxy to Grant and to Philip with instructions to support the new registry process. The discussion should first cover the impact of the contracted terms in net and other registries, have on the consensus policy developed by the Council. It would be helpful to have the General Council explain that to the full Council, of course. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:27 AM To: Marilyn Cade Subject: REMINDER GNSO Council call 28 July dial-in and proxy Dear Marilyn, REMINDER GNSO Council call on Thursday, 28 July 2005, at 12:00 UTC. It is very important to please give your proxy, with instructions how you would like to vote, if you cannot attend as there will be a vote on: Item 8: Consideration of final report on process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. - for decision Please let me know who has your proxy. Thank you, Glen See below for the agenda. Dial-in information: USA Toll Free Number: 800-475-0212 USA Toll Number: +1-210-234-0004 (UIFN) + 800-3537-6216 (See below for UIFN international access codes and carriers.) LEADER: MS GLEN DE SAINT GERY PASSCODE: COUNCIL For security reasons, the passcode and the leader's name will be required to join your call. UIFN INTERNATIONAL ACCESS CODES & CARRIERS ========================================== Country Access Code Carrier AUSTRALIA 0011 OPTUS AUSTRALIA 0011 TELSTRA BELGIUM 00 BELGACOM DENMARK 00 TELE DANMARK FRANCE 00 FRANCE TELECOM GERMANY 00 DEUTSCHE TELECOM HONG KONG 001 HONG KONG TELECOM HONG KONG 001 PCCW IRELAND 00 TELECOM IRELAND JAPAN 001 KDDI JAPAN 0033 NPT JAPAN 0061 C&W IDC JAPAN 0041 JAPAN TELECOM MALAYSIA 00 TELECOM MALAYSIA MALAYSIA 53 ITFS NEW ZEALAND 00 TELECOM NEW ZEALAND SINGAPORE 001 SINGAPORETEL SWITZERLAND 00 SWISS TELECOM UNITED KINGDO 00 BT UNITED KINGDO 00 CABLE AND WIRELESS (5:00 Los Angeles, 8:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) Draft Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes Item 2: Staff report - legal text for WHOIS recommendation - policy status of new gTLDS (review Board and GNSO Council decisions) - summary of public comments received during the GNSO Public Forum Item 3: Actions arising from ICANN Board meeting - domain name hijacking report - GNSO review Item 4: Actions arising from IDN workshop - Cary Karp to request any action required from the GNSO Council Item 5: Actions arising from GNSO Public Forum in Luxembourg Item 6: Creation of working group to review implementation of current WHOIS policies related to Accuracy (e.g WHOIS data reminder policy, and WHOIS problem reporting system) - Niklas Lagergren proposed as chair (note this would be a similar process to that used to review the implementation/compliance with the transfers policy) Item 7: Consideration of revised consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system - updated text due from Bruce Tonkin in response to comments received so far - legal text required from ICANN legal team Item 8: Consideration of final report on process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. - for decision Item 9: Any other business Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council teleconference - Thursday 12 May 2005
by Bruce Tonkin 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 12 May 2005 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00 Los Angeles, 8:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) Item 1: Approval of minutes Item 2: Approval of new terms of reference for combined WHOIS task force, and approval of membership and voting rules Item 3: Process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. - review revised preliminary report for publication for public comment Item 4: Transfers policy report - discuss staff report, and provide guidance for the 6 monthly review Item 5: Update on ICANN strategic and operational planning process Item 6: Any other business

3 2

RE: GNSO Council call Thursday 28 July Dial-in details
by Marilyn Cade 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Bruce, a few topics, but realizing we can't get to all of them in our short working time, I note them for consideration and suggest that we figure out what is urgent, and what can be deferred to a working session to deal with more of the administrative management issues. Development of working session/retreat with the Board and Council under AOB. Consideration of needed time, agenda, purpose, etc. [Sorry, I should have noted earlier that it wasn't already covered and emailed earlier. Have been traveling and snowed under. Just caught that was missing]. I also note that we need to address what steps the Council will take to achieve its goal of getting the staff position for the Senior VP of policy actualized, per the input we have been providing. More on the Administrative Management side: I'd also like to add in the topic of a program committee, cutting across the SOs. While there seemed to be "agreement", there was then an announcement that the Board would do a survey of individuals re their views. That isn't really a substitute for a program committee that includes the SOS and ALAC in planning. Such a survey, if useful, would be input into such a program committee. I understand that there is interest for some on the board in applying the conflict of Interest, etc. to the elected reps of councils/appointed reps from NomComm. It would be good to invite the relevant Board member to a future discussion before they are moving to finalization, so that they can have an interactive discussion with the Council. -----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:14 AM To: Marilyn S Cade Subject: GNSO Council call Thursday 28 July Dial-in details Dear Marilyn, There will be a GNSO Council call on Thursday, 28 July 2005, at 12:00 UTC. If you are not able to attend, please let me know who has your proxy. See below for the agenda. Dial-in information: USA Toll Free Number: 800-475-0212 USA Toll Number: +1-210-234-0004 (UIFN) + 800-3537-6216 (See below for UIFN international access codes and carriers.) LEADER: MS GLEN DE SAINT GERY PASSCODE: COUNCIL For security reasons, the passcode and the leader's name will be required to join your call. UIFN INTERNATIONAL ACCESS CODES & CARRIERS ========================================== Country Access Code Carrier AUSTRALIA 0011 OPTUS AUSTRALIA 0011 TELSTRA BELGIUM 00 BELGACOM DENMARK 00 TELE DANMARK FRANCE 00 FRANCE TELECOM GERMANY 00 DEUTSCHE TELECOM HONG KONG 001 HONG KONG TELECOM HONG KONG 001 PCCW IRELAND 00 TELECOM IRELAND JAPAN 001 KDDI JAPAN 0033 NPT JAPAN 0061 C&W IDC JAPAN 0041 JAPAN TELECOM MALAYSIA 00 TELECOM MALAYSIA MALAYSIA 53 ITFS NEW ZEALAND 00 TELECOM NEW ZEALAND SINGAPORE 001 SINGAPORETEL SWITZERLAND 00 SWISS TELECOM UNITED KINGDO 00 BT UNITED KINGDO 00 CABLE AND WIRELESS (5:00 Los Angeles, 8:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) Draft Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes Item 2: Staff report - legal text for WHOIS recommendation - policy status of new gTLDS (review Board and GNSO Council decisions) - summary of public comments received during the GNSO Public Forum Item 3: Actions arising from ICANN Board meeting - domain name hijacking report - GNSO review Item 4: Actions arising from IDN workshop - Cary Karp to request any action required from the GNSO Council Item 5: Actions arising from GNSO Public Forum in Luxembourg Item 6: Creation of working group to review implementation of current WHOIS policies related to Accuracy (e.g WHOIS data reminder policy, and WHOIS problem reporting system) - Niklas Lagergren proposed as chair (note this would be a similar process to that used to review the implementation/compliance with the transfers policy) Item 7: Consideration of revised consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system - updated text due from Bruce Tonkin in response to comments received so far - legal text required from ICANN legal team Item 8: Consideration of final report on process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. - for decision Item 9: Any other business Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Summary of GNSO Public Forum in Luxembourg, 12 July 2005
by Maria Farrell 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Dear all, Ahead of this week's GNSO Council conference call(agenda item 2), please find below a summary of the GNSO Public forum held in Luxembourg on 12 July. All the best, Maria Summary GNSO Public Forum Luxembourg, 12 July 2005 Order of the meeting: 1 Overview from the chair of the Whois task force, Jordyn Buchanan on developments since the last meeting in Mar del Plata (April 2005) and current and future issues for input from the public forum. 2 Open mike for comments on Whois work 3 Presentations from the chair of each of the constituencies of the GNSO 4 Open mike for general comments An email address was set up to allow comments during and immediately after the public forum so that individuals had more than one way to provide their input. Most constituency statements are available online at <http://gnso.icann.org/> http://gnso.icann.org/ . This document summarises by topic the discussion that took polace during the open mike session. Alternative enforcement mechanisms/graded sanctions Jordyn Buchanan (Chair, WHOIS Task Force; Register.com, USA) encouraged the GNSO to take up a policy development process to create enforcement mechanisms in ICANN's contracts to give the new compliance hires tools other than terminating contracts. Bruce Tonkin (Chair, GNSO Council; Melbourne IT, Australia) agreed and noted that the topic had been under council discussion for some time. The council would work cooperatively with ICANN operational staff to see if there are sufficient resources for a policy effort in that regard and also to provide suggestions to start that process. The council would seek staff input on what sanctions would be useful and then institute a PDP. Support for GNSO Public Forum Two speakers - Thomas Roessler (W3C, Luxembourg) and Mark McFadden (Secretary of the ISPCP Constituency; University of Wisconsin, USA) welcomed the open mike aspect of the Public Forum and hoped it would become a regular feature. Bruce Tonkin responded with thanks and said that the comments made during the public forum would be summarized and presented to the board's own public forum. .NET agreement Bhavin Turakhia (Chair, Registrars Constituency; LogicBoxes.com, India) said the .NET agreement was not consistent with the PDP on the process for introducing new registry service being dealt with by the GNSO. He hoped that the .NET agreement could be re-opened and modified and also that the GNSO process is not undermined particularly regarding .COM and other registries to which it should be applied. Becky Burr (Independent consultant, USA) said that she had represented two sTLD applicants and had in this capacity done a comparison of the .MOBI and .NET contr5acts to see if .NET had received any extra concessions. Aside from the price cap issue, the modifications regarding consensus policy are inherent in the contract itself and do nothing to change it. Verisign did not get anything that mobi or jobs didn't get. The limitations there are limitations on the fundamental bargain which is the definition of a consensus policy. Modifying the standards for consideration of proposed registry services is not within the itemized list of topics which may be the subject of policy making. Unless an issue goes to the stability and security of the internet, it's not going to be within the scope of consensus policies. Bruce Tonkin responded that there were certainly differences about the merits of particular changes, and that not all the changes that surprised people were material changes. The issue had been that the changes were a surprise and there had been no opportunity to hear input such as Becky's. Later in the public forum the .NET issue was returned to: Becky Burr said she understood concerns about process but said that the difference between the contract posted for public comment and the final contract was due to the critical process of negotiating the contract. If ICANN had to publish a contract before it, get comments on it and award only that contract, their hands would be tied in a negotiating sense. Jordyn Buchanan responded that this was separate from posting material changes for review by the community prior to the signature of the contract and acceptance by the board. It seems reasonable that final copies of contracts be posted for community review prior to their signature as opposed to posting a draft agreement that may be subject to significant changes. Regarding substance, many of the changes made were ultimately not significant, but one of them - the limitation to apply a consensus policy to registry services approval process - seems crazy to suggest that it's not a substantive change, especially as the GNSO Council has a PDP underway on that very issue. That PDP was also initiated at the request of ICANN staff so it is bizarre to suggest now that somehow that's not a policy issues. Bruce Tonkin said that he had asked ICANN's general counsel to answer a question in the Council meeting to follow about whether there should have been a PDP or not. Marilyn Cade said that her memory was that consensus policy, i.e. a requirement of consensus policy in order to change contracts, was developed in order to ensure that burdensome policies not be applied to the contracted parties without consensus policy. Change meant that in representing business users there were safeguards in the ability to trust that no significant changes would happen to protect users as well as affected parties. Any change in the role or capability of consensus policy would be extremely troubling. Bret Fausett asked Becky Burr about the value of having different registries subjected to different consensus policies. Or, if it's the same consensus policy, then why not move to some standardized language? Becky Burr responded that we do have standardized language about consensus policy and Marilyn seemed to be talking about the pricing cap issue which should be taken off the table. The definition of consensus policy is in the bylaws, and in addition to that is a definition of security and stability. Verisign had a contractual limitation about consensus policy in its contract, including the .NET contract, that was much narrower. We need to distinguish between policy and consensus policy. ICANN can develop any policy it wants that applies to the way it operates - it can't call all of them consensus policies. Bruce Tonkin said the changes had not been explained by ICANN staff and suggested drawing a distinction between the concern about process and whether the changes had merit or not. There is a difference between policy and consensus policy. Best practices/outreach and information regarding string length of TLDs Ken Fockler (independent consultant, Canada) asked if the GNSO was the appropriate body to deal with doing outreach and education on string length where (e.g. .info and .museum) the TLD string is longer than three characters. Ken asked if the issue was a concern of the GNSO, whether it should be raised again and if it was still a problem. Bruce Tonkin responded that as ICANN's budget grows, so does the expectation for services such as information and awareness raising on issues like this and also IDNs. He hoped the GNSO could create a best practices area on its website that would spread information on issues like this to application developers. The issues was of relevance and importance to the GNSO and had been analysed to some degree by the ISPCP constituency. Tony Holmes (Council member, ISPCP Constituency, British Telecom, UK) said that ISPs had taken part in the dialogue that tried to resolve the problem but that it was difficult because there wasn't a particular body or trade association in the software world to get the message out to. The problem has reduced, but more through osmosis than any particular action. Additional support is needed to get the message of how to treat longer string length TLDs. This is a good time to discuss posting this information on the ICANN website with ICANN staff. Bruce Tonkin suggested tying the website work in as a specific measure to be undertaken in response to the operational plan's general aim to improve the website. He invited people to think about what other elements could be included. Bret Fausett (ALAC liaison to the GNSO Council, USA) recalled that ICANN had issued an advisory on the string length issue several years ago and suggested that announcements of new TLDs (exceeding 3-letter strings) be accompanied by this initial advisory. This would keep improving awareness of the issue. Ken Stubbs (Registry Constituency member of GNSO Council; Afilias, USA) said ICANN should work more closely with the educational community in providing seminars for educators as well as material in that area. Relevant consortiums and trade associations might be identified and given a point of contact at ICANN where a specific programme can be rolled out. Tony Harris (ISPCP Constituency member of the GNSO Council; CABASE, Argentina) suggested comptia.org as one such association. Maria Zitkova (Chair of Registry Constituency; SITA, Switzerland) said she had been involved with the issue and that following the Mar del Plata meeting, IANA published a list of all existing TLDs on the IANA website in a simple text format that is downloadable by applications. This could also be pointed to in any announcements. Tony Holmes said the issue of awareness should be prioritized with greater urgency than the category of updating the website and posting additional information. Strategic planning and operational planning Mark McFadden said that there had been in the past six months a significant partnership between the community and the staff on strategic planning but that this had broken down in recent weeks. He asked the council to respond to that breakdown and talk about how it will be repaired. He asked councilors other than those involved in that partnership to speak to the issue. Marilyn Cade responded to echo Mark's comment and note that the council take seriously the need to partner with staff to continue the improvements to the process brought about in Amsterdam and after. The council should return to its thinking that led to generating the Amsterdam forum on the strategic plan and reestablish that leadership work within the cross supporting orgnaisation work and work with the staff. The US Dept. of Commerce's statement on the relationship between ICANN and the USG Milton Mueller (Chair of the Non-Commercial Constituency; Syracuse University, USA) asked if the council had any reaction to or would like to express an opinion on the US Dept. of Commerce's recent statement. No Council member responded. Structural problems with ICANN Ross Rader (Registrar Constituency member of the GNSO Council; Tucows, Canada) asked Milton Mueller to enlarge on his statement during the constituency reports that ICANN had structural problems. Milton Mueller said he meant the tension between staff and GNSO regarding what is policy and what is part of the contract. There has always been an intense amount of ambiguity, going very far back and the issue recurs every time a significant policy decision is made. Milton had frequently viewed the staff as having too much latitude to ignore policy directives from below - even though ICANN promotes itself as a bottom-up organization - sometimes viewing that as cynical and others as inherent to the structure of ICANN that management has certain incentives while the GNSO has others. Bringing that back to the WSIS discussion, there is not a clear separation - despite the report - that governments do public policy and the private sector and civil society do technical coordination.

1 0

GNSO Council/Whois combined tf meeting Luxembourg draft minutes 14 July 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the draft minutes of the Whois combined task force and the GNSO Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 14 July 2005. Please let me know if you would like anything changed. Thank you. 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 tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Bruce I also think we should discuss the current policy development interaction between Council, Staff and Board. It became obvious during the Luxembourg meeting that some of the actions undertaken by all parties are not well understood or co-ordinated. Suggest we look at what is working well and what isn't. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 20 July 2005 22:19 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates Hello Kiyoshi, > > So, when are we going to have our retreat with Staff and the > Board? IMHO, it is urgent for us to start thinking, reacting > and behaving as a team. > Lets discuss on the next Council call. It is important to work out the topics for discussion with the Board. For now, the topics are: - new gtlds (identify the critical policy question/s for work in the GNSO) - review of the GNSO (develop terms of reference) I think we need to do some preparation work before meeting with the Board. I also recommend that in Vancouver, we meet jointly with the Board, ccNSO Council, and ASO Council to review critical policy activities of ICANN. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council teleconference on Thursday 28 July 2005
by Bruce Tonkin 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 28 July 2005 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00 Los Angeles, 8:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) Item 1: Approval of minutes Item 2: Staff report - legal text for WHOIS recommendation - policy status of new gTLDS (review Board and GNSO Council decisions) - summary of public comments received during the GNSO Public Forum Item 3: Actions arising from ICANN Board meeting - domain name hijacking report - GNSO review Item 4: Actions arising from IDN workshop - Cary Karp to request any action required from the GNSO Council Item 5: Actions arising from GNSO Public Forum in Luxembourg Item 6: Creation of working group to review implementation of current WHOIS policies related to Accuracy (e.g WHOIS data reminder policy, and WHOIS problem reporting system) - Niklas Lagergren proposed as chair (note this would be a similar process to that used to review the implementation/compliance with the transfers policy) Item 7: Consideration of revised consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system - updated text due from Bruce Tonkin in response to comments received so far - legal text required from ICANN legal team Item 8: Consideration of final report on process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. - for decision Item 9: Any other business

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates
by Bruce Tonkin 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Hello Kiyoshi, > > So, when are we going to have our retreat with Staff and the > Board? IMHO, it is urgent for us to start thinking, reacting > and behaving as a team. > Lets discuss on the next Council call. It is important to work out the topics for discussion with the Board. For now, the topics are: - new gtlds (identify the critical policy question/s for work in the GNSO) - review of the GNSO (develop terms of reference) I think we need to do some preparation work before meeting with the Board. I also recommend that in Vancouver, we meet jointly with the Board, ccNSO Council, and ASO Council to review critical policy activities of ICANN. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Copy of GNSO presentation at the ICANN Board's public forum in Luxembourg
by Bruce Tonkin 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

ÐÏà¡±á>þÿ "$þÿÿÿ#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿèŒé(àà ò/È0ÒÕL·DArialŒSŸ0Œ0ÒT©T©Ô-ÜŸ0ÜÕ€@ÿÿ¥.© @£nÿý?" dÿd@ÿÿïÿÿÿÿÿÿ @@``ððšL' ð0A¿ÀÅAÿ@ñ÷ðóÐwº°öÊ;ÇÊ;úgþý4KdKd:ôŸ0þÿÿŠÿÿÿpûppû@<ý4dddd ¡k0T©°-ÿ<ý4BdBd Ãl0T©80º___PPT10 pµpµ?ÙÚ %ðóš%Generic Names Supporting Organisationš#Dr Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO CouncilóšGNSO PurposešÂResponsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains com,net,org,biz,info,aero,coop,museum, pro,name,jobs,travel,mobi etc¡¢!Ãª,{%óšCurrent Activities ²WHOIS Improve information in registration agreements regarding requirement to make contact information available to the public Waiting for draft legal text for registrar agreements Approval process for changes to gtld agreements new registry services process Final report currently before the Council Impact of recent changes to .net agreement¡T¯PU¯PUó šCurrent Activities WHOIS next steps Define purpose of WHOIS Define purpose of various contacts Registrant, admin, tech, billing Determine what collected data should be public Determine how to access data that is not public Determine how to improve process for correcting data Determine how to manage conflicts between ICANN contract requirements and local laws as they relate to making contact data public ¡V<!<!ó šNew activities bNew gtlds Confirm current consensus policy Determine what new policies are required to assist staff to implement the consensus policy Enforcement mechanisms Need more than just termination of registrar agreement IDNs review outcomes of IDN workshop Domain Name Hijacking review outcomes of SSAC report¡t Z|ZZ7Z^Z |7^ª,ËZóš GNSO PlanningšJ4 month plan with ICANN policy staff Agreed priorities 12 month operating plan relating to policy work and implementation of new GNSO policies with ICANN staff Provides input to ICANN operating plan 3 year plan for policy development Strengthen constituency participation Provides input to ICANN strategic plan Independent reviews¡€%ZZiZ'Z#ZMZZ%i'#Mó šVice President of PolicyšFocus on working with GNSO, ccNSO, ASO and working on shared issues Help communicate with ICANN operations staff to assist in better decision making Need good data to help guide decision making Separate role for outreach to organisations not yet part of the ICANN community ¡6-Q-Qªòóš Outcome of constituency meetings¡!!( \Process to report on meetings this week not formalised Constituency positions and formal Council positions require formal process to endorse Can report on what I have heardó š#Outcomes from constituency meetings¡$$(šView from a majority of Council members that current strategy plan document does not yet represent the consensus view of the GNSO community Support development of strategy plan with consensus support from the GNSO community for next year View from a majority of Council members that the final .net agreement should have been published for public comment before the Board approved it.¡<bbó šOutcome of GNSO public forumšImprove education and awareness of issues with new TLDs (and IDNs) and support in application software Website improvement Links to information on announcements of new TLDs Legal explanations from members of the GNSO community on the new changes to the .net agreement¡6gF_gF_ª>3g`óšIt is getting better! ~The production of operational and strategic plans is a good initiative Additional staff starting to show benefits in better management of compliance to registrar agreements We are all working hard lets make sure we select the right things to work on, and ensure we stick to the principles of transparency and dialogue¡@Z@êø€ ï 0`ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì`ð ÿÿÿûßSÿfÌ3f`ð ÿÿÿÌÿÌÌÿ33Ì¯gÿ`ð ÞöñÿÿÿÆÿfÌš`ð ÿÿÙwwwÿÿ÷3ÌÌÿPPÿ`ð ÿÿÿZXÿÿdbmoÇÿÿÿ`ð ÿÿÿ\ßÒÌ3Ÿy`ÿÿÓ¢`ð ÿÿÿ3fÌÿÿ3fÌ°fÌÿÿç`ð ÿÿÿ3fãëñ3FKfÌÿðå`ð hk]ÿÿÿwwwÑÑËšÿÌféÜ¹`ð ffÿÿÿ>>\ÿÿÿ`Y{ffÿÌÿÿÿ`ð R>&ÿÿÿ- ßÀ{p_/ÌŽ £>ÿý?" dÿd@ÿÿïÿÿÿÿÿÿ,£|ÿý?" dÿdØ@ÿÿïÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ô " Ð@ ð`» £nÿý?" dÿd@ÿÿïÿÿÿÿÿÿ @@``P£R @ ` `£p£>£>ÖðÎððfð( ð ððÒ ð ð6p¿Àÿ ð `}ðÃ ðTš Click to edit Master title style¢!ª !ð ð ð0ìr¿Àÿ ðð `ðÃ ðšRClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level¢! ª Sð¶ ð ð0žy¿Àÿ ð^ `ðÃ ð> *¡øðž ð ð0ä~¿Àÿ ð^°ÐðÃ ð@ *¡úðž ð ð0Œ¿Àÿ ð^ `ðÃ ð@ *¡ØðH ðð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.òÂ zè> ºDefault Designî0ï0 ð ðð0ð( ð ððx ð cð$9,¿ÿð>°ÐÜðÃ, ððx ð cð$|>,¿ÿð ` à ðÃ, ððH ðð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.òÂ zè>î$ï 0ðPðð$ð( ð ððr ð Sð,,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððr ð Sð,¿ÿðð `ðÃ, ððH ðð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.òÂÐf)Fî$ï 0ðÀð0ð$ð( ð ð0ðr ð0 Sðà,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððr ð0 Sðž,¿ÿðð `ðÃ, ððH ð0ð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.jÄðÂÆî0ï 0 ðð@ð0ð( ð ð@ðx ð@ cð$x ,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððx ð@ cð$(€,¿ÿðð `YðÃ, ððH ð@ð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.jÄðÂÆî0ï 0 ðàð8ð0ð( ð ð8ðx ð8 cð$à±,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððx ð8 cð$²,¿ÿðð `ðÃ, ððH ð8ð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.jÄðÂÆî$ï 0ðð$ð$ð( ð ð$ðr ð$ SðTñ,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððr ð$ Sðüñ,¿ÿðð `ðÃ, ððH ð$ð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.òÂÀÞÜî$ï 0ððDð$ð( ð ðDðr ðD Sðø u¿ÿð `}ðÃ u ððr ðD SðÐu¿ÿðð `ŽðÃu ððH ðDð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.ŠÅà K&î$ï 0ð0ðLð$ð( ð ðLðr ðL Sðø,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððr ðL Sðù,¿ÿðð `ðÃ, ððH ðLð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.šÅ<Õ¯î$ï 0ð ð(ð$ð( ð ð(ðr ð( Sð,u¿ÿð `}ðÃ u ððr ð( Sðu¿ÿðð `ðÃu ððH ð(ð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.òÂðj¶dî$ï 0ð°ð,ð$ð( ð ð,ðr ð, Sðp$u¿ÿð `}ðÃ u ððr ð, SðH%u¿ÿðð `<ðÃu ððH ð,ð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.òÂnî0ï 0 ð ðHð0ð( ð ðHðx ðH cð$Ž&,¿ÿð `}ðÃ , ððx ðH cð$',¿ÿðð `ðÃ, ððH ðHð0Þœh¿ÿ ?ð ÿÿÿ»àã33Ì80º___PPT10ë.€Å *r<@Äp'š)p2ô8 ;Ô+80.4L=È6õÙ?Å1èŒé(On-screen ShowMelbourne ITä]> ArialDefault Design&Generic Names Supporting Organisation GNSO PurposeCurrent ActivitiesCurrent ActivitiesNew activitiesGNSO PlanningVice President of Policy!Outcome of constituency meetings$Outcomes from constituency meetingsOutcome of GNSO public forumIt is getting better!Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titlesö$_ÀãÀ]ôÚ0Bruce TonkinBruce Tonkin.ûŒ"Systemh9ä-ðûöÿ(a)Arial-. 2 <4Organisation.-ðûùÿ(a)Arial-. 2 KRoot EntryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿdOÏêª¹)è°«;ÕCÅK@ Current Userÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!DSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿPowerPoint Document(ÿÿÿÿä] ;ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ%ýÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿ'(þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ<=>?@ABCDEFGHIþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿL&ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ þÿÿÿ #"þÿÿÿ$þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ6Dr Bruce Tonkin.-ðûùÿ(a)Arial-. $2 V.Chair, GNSO Council.-ðþÿÕÍÕ.+,ù®DÕÍÕ.+,ù®ÐšÀÈÐØ à èðø päOn-screen ShowMelbourne ITä]> ArialDefault Design&Generic Names Supporting Organisation GNSO PurposeCurrent ActivitiesCurrent ActivitiesNew activitiesGNSO PlanningVice President of Policy!Outcome of constituency meetings$Outcomes from constituency meetingsOutcome of GNSO public forumIt is getting better!Fonts UsedDesign Template Sö$_ÀãÀ]ôÚ0Bruce TonkinBruce Tonkin.ûlide Titles4 $,° (a)Arial-. 2 <4Organisation.-ðûùÿ(a)Arial-. 2 Kice President of Policy!Outcome of constituency meetings$Outcomes from constituency meetingsOutcome of GNSO public forumIt is getting better!Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titlesö$_ÀãÈ?ôÚ0Bruce TonkinBruce Tonkin ;!þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿýÿÿÿ:þÿÿÿ<=>?@ABCDEFGHIþÿÿÿþÿÿÿLM ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot EntryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿdOÏêª¹)èsáCÅKÀCurrent Userÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!DSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿPowerPoint Document(ÿÿÿÿä]DocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿàà ò/È0ÒÕL·DArialŒSŸ0Œ0ÒT©T©Ô-ÜŸ0ÜÕ€@ÿÿ¥.© @£nÿý?" dÿd@ÿÿïÿÿÿÿÿÿ @@``ððšL' ð0A¿ÀÅAÿ@ñ÷ðóÐwº°öÊ;ÇÊ;úgþý4KdKd:ôŸ0þÿÿŠÿÿÿpûppû@<ý4dddd ¡k0T©°-ÿ<ý4BdBd Ãl0T©80º___PPT10 pµpµ?ÙÚ %ðóš%Generic Names Supporting Organisationš#Dr Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO CouncilóšGNSO PurposešÂResponsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains com,net,org,biz,info,aero,coop,museum, pro,name,jobs,travel,mobi etc¡¢!Ãª,{%óšCurrent Activities ²WHOIS Improve information in registration agreements regarding requirement to make contact information available to the public Waiting for draft legal text for registrar agreements Approval process for changes to gtld agreements new registry services process Final report currently before the Council Impact of recent changes to .net agreement¡T¯PU¯PUó šCurrent Activities WHOIS next steps Define purpose of WHOIS Define purpose of various contacts Registrant, admin, tech, billing Determine what collected data should be public Determine how to access data that is not public Determine how to improve process for correcting data Determine how to manage conflicts between ICANN contract requirements and local laws as they relate to making contact data public ¡V<!<!ó šNew activities bNew gtlds Confirm current consensus policy Determine what new policies are required to assist staff to implement the consensus policy Enforcement mechanisms Need more than just termination of registrar agreement IDNs review outcomes of IDN workshop Domain Name Hijacking review outcomes of SSAC report¡t Z|ZZ7Z^Z |7^ª,ËZóš GNSO PlanningšJ4 month plan with ICANN policy staff Agreed priorities 12 month operating plan relating to policy work and implementation of new GNSO policies with ICANN staff Provides input to ICANN operating plan 3 year plan for policy development Strengthen constituency participation Provides input to ICANN strategic plan Independent reviews¡€%ZZiZ'Z#ZMZZ%i'#Mó šVice President of PolicyšFocus on working with GNSO, ccNSO, ASO and working on shared issues Help communicate with ICANN operations staff to assist in better decision making Need good data to help guide decision making Separate role for outreach to organisations not yet part of the ICANN community ¡6-Q-Qªòóš Outcome of constituency meetings¡!!( \Process to report on meetings this week not formalised Constituency positions and formal Council positions require formal process to endorse Can report on what I have heardó š#Outcomes from constituency meetings¡$$(šView from a majority of Council members that current strategy plan document does not yet represent the consensus view of the GNSO community Support development of strategy plan with consensus support from the GNSO community for next year View from a majority of Council members that the final .net agreement should have been published for public comment before the Board approved it.¡<bbó šOutcome of GNSO public forumšImprove education and awareness of issues with new TLDs (and IDNs) and support in application software Website improvement Links to information on announcements of new TLDs Legal explanations from members of the GNSO community on the new changes to the .net agreement¡6gF_gF_ª>3g`óšIt is getting better! ~The production of operational and strategic plans is a good initiative Additional staff starting to show benefits in better management of compliance to registrar agreements We are all working hard lets make sure we select the right things to work on, and ensure we stick to the principles of transparency and dialogue¡@Z@êrì?õÙÈ?°]Å1 þÿÿÿ þÿÿÿ"þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿàòùOh«+'³Ù0Ü`h °Œ Üè ôäGNSO CouncilBruce TonkinBruce Tonkin30Microsoft PowerPoint@`2kÂ @×QòÂ@P1ÒCÅéGÌÿÿÿÿg Þ-y¡üÿÿÿ-úÿÿÿ-$ÿÿÿÿÿÿx x ÿÿÿÿÿÿú--'ÿÿûöÿ(a)Arial-. -2 0Generic Names Supporting .ûŒ"Systemh9ä-ðûöÿ(a)Arial-. 2 <4Organisation.-ðûùÿ(a)Arial-. 2 K

1 0

Constituency statements due 21 July on Recommendation 2
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org;liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, REMINDER: Constituency statements are required by 21 JULY 2005. http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Constituency responses are required on WHOIS COMBINED TASK FORCE Consensus Policy/Advice Recommendation 2 on conflicts between national privacy laws and registries' or registrars' contractual obligations to ICANN. (see the text below) 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 WHOIS COMBINED TASK FORCE Policy/Advice Recommendation 2 on conflicts between national privacy laws and registries' or registrars' contractual obligations to ICANN. Preamble: Task Force 2 spent over a year collecting data and working on the conflict between a registrar/registry’s legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN. Its report included the statement: “The Task Force believes that there is an ongoing risk of conflict between a registrar’s or registry’s legal obligations under local privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN. TF2 Report, Section 2.3, http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf2-preliminary.html. By vote of the Task Force, now merged, on May 24, 2005, the work of Task Force 2 is hereby divided into a recommendation for “consensus policy” accompanied by “well-developed advice for a procedure.” I. Task Force Policy for WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law 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 Whois, 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 WHOIS. 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 with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois; and d. Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. II. Text of Recommended Procedure WELL-DEVELOPED ADVICE ON A PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING WHOIS CONFLICTS WITH PRIVACY LAW Based on extensive research and negotiation among Task Force 2 together with the merged Task Force and ICANN staff, the following procedure for handling the policy recommendation set out in Section I above is set out as a Recommended Step-by-Step Procedure for Resolution of WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law. We encourage ICANN staff to use this Recommended Procedure as a starting point for developing the procedure called for in the Consensus Policy Recommendation above. Step One: Notification of Initiation of Action Once receiving notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance with the provisions of the RAA or other contractual agreement with ICANN dealing with the collection, display or distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois (“Whois Proceeding”), a Registrar/ Registry must within thirty (30) days provide ICANN’s General Counsel (or other staff member as designated by ICANN) with the following information: • Summary description of the nature and status of the action (e.g., inquiry, investigation, litigation, threat of sanctions, etc.) • Contact information for the responsible official of the registrar/registry for resolving the problem. • Contact information for the responsible territorial government agency or other claimant and a statement from the registrar/registry authorizing ICANN to communicate with those officials or claimants on the matter. If the registrar/registry is prevented by applicable law from granting such authorization, the notification should document this. • The text of the applicable law or regulations upon which the local government or other claimant is basing its action or investigation, if such information has been indicated by the government or other claimant. Meeting the notification requirement permits Registrars/Registries to participate in investigations and respond to court orders, regulations, or enforcement authorities in a manner and course deemed best by their counsel. Depending on the specific circumstances of the Whois Proceeding, the Registrar/Registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence between the parties confidential pending the outcome of the Whois Proceeding. It is recommended that ICANN respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles of transparency applicable to ICANN operations. Step Two: Consultation Unless impractical under the circumstances, we recommend that the ICANN General Counsel, upon receipt and review of the notification and, where appropriate, dialogue with the registrar/registry, consider beginning a process of consultation with the local/national enforcement authorities or other claimant together with the registrar/registry. The goal of the consultation process should be to seek to resolve the problem in a manner that preserves the ability of the registrar/registry to comply with its contractual obligations to the greatest extent possible. If the Whois proceeding ends without requiring any changes and/or the required changes in registrar/registry practice do not, in the opinion of the General Counsel, constitute a deviation from the R.A.A. or other contractual obligation , then the General Counsel and the registrar/registry need to take no further action. If the registrar/registry is required by local law enforcement authorities or a court to make changes in its practices affecting compliance with Whois-related contractual obligations before any consultation process can occur, the registrar/registry shall promptly notify the General Counsel of the changes made and the law/regulation upon which the action was based. The Registrar/Registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence between the parties confidential pending the outcome of the Whois Proceeding. It is recommended that ICANN respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles of transparency applicable to ICANN operations. Step Three: General Counsel analysis and recommendation If the local/national government requires changes (whether before, during or after the consultation process described above) that, in the opinion of the General Counsel, prevent full compliance with contractual WHOIS obligations, ICANN should consider the following alternative to the normal enforcement procedure. Under this alternative, ICANN would refrain, on a provisional basis, from taking enforcement action against the registrar/registry for non-compliance, while the General Counsel prepares a report and recommendation and submits it to the ICANN Board for a decision. Such a report may contain: i. A summary of the law or regulation involved in the conflict; ii. Specification of the part of the registry or registrar’s contractual WHOIS obligations with which full compliance if being prevented; iii. Summary of the consultation process if any under step two; and iv. Recommendation of how the issue should be resolved, which may include whether ICANN should provide an exception for the registrar/registry from one or more identified WHOIS contractual provisions. The report should include a detailed justification of its recommendation, including the anticipated impact on the operational stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique identifier systems if the recommendation were to be approved or denied . The registrar/registry should be provided a copy of the report and provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on it to the Board. The Registrar/Registry may request that ICANN keep such report confidential prior to any resolution of the Board. It is recommended that ICANN respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles of transparency applicable to ICANN operations. Step Four: Resolution Keeping in the mind the anticipated impact on the operational stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique identifier systems, the Board should consider and take appropriate action on the recommendations contained in the General Counsel’s report as soon as practicable. Actions could include, but are not limited to: • Approving or rejecting the report’s recommendations, with or without modifications; • Scheduling a public comment period on the report; or • Referring the report to GNSO for its review and comment by a date certain. Step Five: Public Notice The Board’s resolution of the issue, together with the General Counsel’s report, should ordinarily be made public, along with the reasons for it, and be archived on a public website (along with other related materials) for future research. Prior to release of such information to the public, the Registry/Registrar may request that certain information (including, but not limited to, communications between the Registry/Registrar and ICANN, or other privileged/confidential information) be redacted from the public notice. In the event that such redactions make it difficult to convey to the public the nature of the actions being taken by the Registry/Registrar, the General Counsel should work with the Registry/Registrar on an appropriate notice to the public describing the actions being taken and the justification for such actions. Unless the Board decides otherwise, if the result of its resolution of the issue is that data elements in the registrar’s Whois output will be removed or made less accessible, ICANN should issue an appropriate notice to the public of the resolution and of the reasons for ICANN’s forbearance from enforcement of full compliance with the contractual provision in question. ******************************************************************** The constituency statements should be consistent with the ICANN bylaws detailing the 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