August 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] GNSO Council meeting proposed dates
by Your Name Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

OK with me Tony Harris > Dear Councillors, > > These are proposed dates for Council meetings till the Vancouver meetings. > > Thursday 28 July 12:00 UTC > Thursday 18 August 12:00 UTC > Thursday 21 September 12:00 UTC > Thursday 20 October 12:00 UTC > Wednesday 16 November 19:00 UTC > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you very much. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > -- > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > --

4 5

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

Dec. 15, 2005

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

2 6

Upcoming & Outstanding Action Items
by Michael D. Palage Sept. 1, 2005

Sept. 1, 2005

Dear Council Members : I just wanted to comment on the thread about 17 out of 20 recommendations from last year's independent review regarding improving the effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) which have not yet been implemented. I have been going through the independent review recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec4-22dec04.pdf) and I fully agree that not all the recommendations have been implemented. However, I believe that things are perhaps a little better than the 3 out of 20 (15%) figures that have been referenced to date. I spoke with Olof just a couple of hours ago and he mentioned that staff would be providing Council with a mapping of these 20 recommendations shortly . I look forward to reviewing this document as I am sure Council does as well. I think it is important to acknowledge the contributions that Olof, Glen and Maria are making in trying to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Council. There is a lot of heavy lifting over the next couple of months heading into Vancouver, however, I am confident that by everyone pulling in the same direction we will be able to achieve the collective goal we all seek. Looking forward to the upcoming Council call tomorrow (Sept 1) as well as the Terms of Reference Call with the Board on Sept 8th. Although I have had a number of positive replies from some board members regarding their availability for this call, some Board members have existing conflicts that will prevent them from participating. One other final inquiry, does any constituency or individual representative have any intention of submitting any comment to the Strat Plan. Unfortunately Sept 2 is the deadline for both the GNSO terms of reference and responses to the additional Strat Plan questions. Best regards, Michael D. Palage

3 3

Table of current GNSO work items
by Maria Farrell Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Dear all, At the last GNSO Council call (18 August), staff committed to proposing an improved reporting system for the Council. I attach a table detailing the current work items of the GNSO and its task force/working groups. This new format for reporting on GNSO work items gives a lot more detail of past and future actions than the work item list I've been providing for the last few months. It's intended to make it easier to track and plan the large volume of work the Council is doing. The table isn't an exhaustive response to improving the reporting and planning for the GNSO, but I hope it will be a helpful step in that direction. I tested a version of this table with the WHOIS task force a week ago and have had some positive feedback on it. However, I am sure there is plenty of room to improve this table so that it corresponds more precisely to Councillors' needs. I would appreciate your input on the table either by email or on the GNSO planning call next week. One question I would welcome your input on is if it would also be useful to capture in the table the relevant leading councillor(s) on work items where appropriate. I propose to keep this table updated and circulate it to councillors 7 days before each Council call. It may also be possible to post it on the GNSO part of the ICANN website along with each meeting's agenda. Many thanks for your patience. All the best, Maria P.S. I also plan to provide the WHOIS task force with its updated section on an ongoing basis.

2 1

Council planning call
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Hello All, Several Council members have suggested setting up a regular administrative/planning call. The purpose of the call would be to plan the work of the GNSO Council, and work with the ICANN staff manager (Olof Nordling) to allocate appropriate staff resources to this Council work. I would like to work towards: - a 4 month plan of projects that have GNSO and staff resources allocated to them - a 12 month plan that includes projects that are not able to be resourced in the current 4 month period, plus an estimate of possible work items that may arise in the next 12 months - a 3 year plan that identifies major policy issues that may arise in the next 3 years The 12 month and 3 year plans will help provide input into ICANN overall operational and strategic planning process. The 4 month plan will also prioritise projects in order of importance. We need to incorporate recommendations from the GNSO Council review into the planning process. Once we have a clearer planning framework, we can then consistently report progress against that framework. The reporting can be used to report activities to the Board and wider community (perhaps we can work towards a newsletter every 4 months for the GNSO community, as well as an annual report on projects). As Grant has raised this issue several times, and also carried out a detailed review of the ICANN operational plan, I hope that Grant will volunteer to chair a series of planning meetings. Hopefully by the Vancouver meeting we will have a document that has details for a 4 month plan, and then some short descriptions of 12 month and 3 month views. Note the planning process will not be creating any new policies, but merely planning work on policies that have been discussed within regular council meetings. The outputs of the planning process would be shared with the full Council. I recommend an initial call next week for those Councillors that wish to be involved: E.g Tuesday 6 September, Coordinated Universal Time UTC 10:00 (6:00 Washington DC, 12:00 Brussels, 20:00 Melbourne, 22:00 Auckland) Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

GNSO Review TOR + Background Information
by Liz Williams Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Colleagues Thank you to everyone who has provided comments so far. Please find attached two documents. As per input from the conference call last week, I have separated out the background information and devised another document which looks more like a more formal TOR. Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for comments to be in by Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB. He will then forward an updated document to the Board for 8 Sept once any additional comments are taken into account. On the current timeframe, this means that the Board will not receive the document seven days prior to any meeting. Any questions, come back to me. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

5 4

ToR comment
by Avri Doria Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Hi, On reading it through something struck me on 4.1, and 4.2. In addition to analyzing the constituencies for openness and transparency, I think they could also be reviewed for inclusiveness and representativeness. In my talks around ICANN i have heard comments and criticisms on these isssues. For example, questions I have heard include: - are there a significant number of SMEs and commercial interests from the economic south? - does the IPR constituency include the perspectives of academic IPR specialists and those who subscribe to the ideals of the creative commons? - has there been sufficient outreach to NGOs operating in the LDC world in the NCUC? - what percentage of the worlds ISPs are represented? are all regions of the world represented? The representativeness and inclusiveness of the constituencies seems to have been called out in the 2004 review and should probably be an explicit goal in the 2006 review. Thus I recommend adding the words inclusive and representative to 4.1 an 4.2 a.

1 0

RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

This struck me as something I don't really think is right.... So, I need some clarification here.... I was the chair of the Transfers Task Force. I don't recall that we agreed that the consensus policy does not apply to sponsored TLDS. Sponsored TLDs are always subject to consensus policy. The sponsor has some additional responsibilities, but consensus policy applies to sponsored TLDS. Otherwise, we would have a chaotic situation where "one offs" were negotiated willy nilly without any community consensus and support. Not good for the Internet. Not good for ICANN. Not good for users. And not good for Council. More broadly, as it relates to ICANN overall, IF we are being put out of business as the "consensus policy body" and replaced by private contractual negotiations where there is no public notice, and things are done "privately as contractual negotiations", I'd like to have that discussed publicly within the Council, and within the community so there is clarity and either 1) that approach is supported 2) that approach is rejected. I think that was what the community asked for in Luxembourg, as it relates to the .net negotiations. The relationship to sponsored TLDS not being subject to consensus policies concerns me because it sounds like a "negotiation" -- and as someone who both supports the success of sponsored TLDS and supports ICANN's overall success, I don't support sponsored TLDS not being accountable to consensus policies. IF we need to tweak the consensus policy to "fit" sponsored TLDS, it needs to be a general tweak, not a one off TLD by TLD. Policy simply can't be enforced in that latter model. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:04 AM To: Olof Nordling; ross(a)tucows.com; Marilyn Cade Cc: Maria Farrell Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations Agreed. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-dow123(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling > Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2005 7:02 PM > To: ross(a)tucows.com; 'Marilyn Cade' > Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; 'Whois TF mailing list' > Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy > recommendations > > Ross et al, > My reading of this is that the overarching distinction is > between generic TLDs and country code TLDs - hence the split > of DNSO once upon a time into GNSO and ccNSO. Generic TLDs > can in turn be sorted in the following subsets; sponsored, > unsponsored, restricted and unrestricted (which can be > combined in a 2x2 matrix - well, in principle at least). > So, I think it's right to keep it simple and refer to generic > TLDs, unless we wish to carve out a subset from the > application. That was done in the transfers policy, where it > was explicitly stated that it should not apply to sponsored TLDs. > Just my 2 Eurocents > Regards > Olof > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-dow123(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:34 PM > To: Marilyn Cade > Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; 'Whois TF mailing list' > Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy > recommendations > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > We should probably pick this up w/in council. My personal > preference is to keep it simple and only refer to generic top > level domains. > > On 30/08/2005 3:25 PM Marilyn Cade noted that; > > I like it! And by relying on the bylaws we are in good space except > > for > one > > thing. :-) The 'sponsored TLDS' are still in the g space. but not > specified > > in the bylaws. We all know/and operate accordingly, that they are > "generics" > > but with a special "sponsorship". > > > > > > > > Should we say.. e.g. sTLDs and gTLDs? > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: owner-gnso-dow123(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Maria Farrell > > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:18 PM > > To: 'Whois TF mailing list' > > Subject: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy > > recommendations > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > On today's WHOIS task force call, it was agreed to develop > some text > > that makes it clear that the recommendation on national laws refers > > only to the gTLD space. Also, task force members wanted > this to be a > > standardised text that can be put in all task force reports > to make it > > clear to all readers that the work of the GNSO is limited > to the gTLD space. > > > > > > > > Here is a suggestion I've drafted, drawing on the bylaws: > > > > > > > > "Article X, Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws > > (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X ) states "the > Generic Names > > Supporting Organization (GNSO), (which) shall be responsible for > developing > > and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to > generic > > top-level domains. This preliminary task force report and the > > consensus policy recommendation therein refers only to the > generic top > > level domain space. " > > > > > > > > Comments and suggestions gratefully received. > > > > > > > > If and when we have a final version of this standardised text, I'd > > suggest forwarding it on to the GNSO Council so that we can have a > > full agreement > to > > start adding the text to all task force reports that come > through the PDP. > > > > > > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > > - -- > > > > > > > -rwr > > > > Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross > Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: > http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) > > iD8DBQFDFLSP6sL06XjirooRAih1AJ4vTreVh8g21cT4GpUUf2X+/tuSkACfXnQh > PKspilijLtG1P16G4ABiEvY= > =LJU0 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >

2 1

RE: [council] Administrative matters
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Hello Alick, Thank you for reminding us of recommendation 10 from the GNSO Council review. This will be placed on the agenda for the GNSO planning call. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ From: Alick Wilson [mailto:alick.wilson@xendra.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:47 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Bruce Tonkin Subject: RE: [council] Administrative matters I have just been reviewing Liz Williams' GNSO Phase One paper again and I note that the following Recommendations from Patrick Sharry's review: Recommendation 10: The Chair of the GNSO Council and the VP Supporting Organizations should establish a service level agreement between the GNSO Council and ICANN management that specifies the amount and type of support that is to be provided. Where possible, this should include measures (eg turnaround times for legal opinion, delivery of reports by agreed dates, minutes posted within a certain number of days). The Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces. The VP Supporting Organizations and Chair of GNSO Council should meet quarterly to review performance measures and report these to the President. I suggest that this service level agreement be a high priority item for the first administrative call. Bruce, would you please ask staff to prepare a draft SLA for consideration and discussion on the first administrative call. I note the recommendation says that 'The Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces'. As a precursor to this consultation, I request that the staff review the timelines imposed by the PDP process and incorporate draft targets in the draft SLA which are consistent. Bruce, please confirm that you are OK with this and that you have actioned it as requested.

2 1

Draft agenda for Council meeting on new gtlds
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Hello All, Following on from Olof's paper on past decisions and documents http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-TLDs-16aug05.pdf, , and my posting to the Council on 15 August: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01249.html (where I have created a table of NamesCouncil/GNSO Policy, Board decisions, and staff work - attached again to this posting for reference). Here is a draft agenda: (1) Outcome of the initial introduction of new TLDs ==================================================== - Current Policy supports the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, subject to evaluation of initial introduction - choices (a) Undertake a PDP to determine policy on whether to introduce new tlds (b) Undertake a review of the current policy and see if this policy should change based on the evaluation of new TLDsw I personally recommend we choose option (b) - I treat this part of the process as a policy review in the same way we are reviewing the Transfers Policy and WHOIS Data Reminder Policy. Option (b) would review the initial reasons for introducing new gtlds, and the evaluation report on new gtlds, and determine whether the policy should be changed. (2) Policy development tasks - managed via a PDP ================================================ 2.1 Objective Criteria for accepting new TLD applications - use criteria used for .net tender, original introduction as a starting point - consider whether to place limits on the strings that can be used at the top level 2.2 Allocation method if there are more applications than can be managed in a single round - options may include first-come/first-served, ballot system, auction, or combination 2.3 Key conditions in ICANN agreement with registry operator - use current key conditions in registry agreements as a starting point (e.g must use ICANN accredited registrars, must treat registrars equitably etc) Options - run as separate PDPs, or a single PDP (with sufficient time to collect constituency and public input). (3) Internationalised Domain Name (IDN) pilot ============================================= - standards for IDNs have arisen since the initial introduction of new TLDs - I recommend that the introduction of IDN strings in the root be treated separately to the process of continuing to roll out new ASCII based gtlds - I recommend that ICANN initiate a limited introduction of IDNs in the root as a pilot project in collaboration with input from the ccNSO and GNSO - an implementation committee could be established to propose a pilot program with criteria to be evaluated - this proposal would be subject to public review Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0