August 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Review: Phase One Paper
by Liz Williams Aug. 16, 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

Dear Colleagues I have attached a paper which reflects the first phase of consultation and feedback about the GNSO Review Terms of Reference. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed ideas either by email or on the telephone. The GNSO Review is at Item 2 on the agenda for the 18 August call. The agenda item refers specifically to the timeline for the GNSO Terms of Reference. This paper provides the timeline and more detailed information. After the 18 August call, I will prepare an information paper for distribution to the Board. I will then incorporate their feedback into a Second Phase paper. You will note that we have quite tight deadlines to meet the Board's requirements for notification of items for the Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. If you have any further questions or need clarification on anything my numbers are below or you can email me. Kind regards. Liz Dr Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

3 5

timeline for papers for consideration in a Council meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 16, 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

Hello All, > On the issue of a time line for Council consideration of any agenda item. I had > thought that the 7 day timeline for Council was for matters that were being > considered for a vote by Council. The 7 day timeline applies to papers for consideration in separate agenda items, as well as notice of significant motions. ie the papers are provided at the time the agenda is issued. The approach taken here is that members of the Council should have time to read a paper and discuss it with their constituencies prior to a Council call. We would normally probably spend 30 minutes or so discussing a significant paper. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Registry Services Changes: Final Comment Period closes 26 August 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 16, 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note the announcement and request for final comments on: http://www.icann.org/ Registry Services Changes – Final Report Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry This procedure, developed through the GNSO Policy Development Process, has been unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council as a Supermajority Recommendation for consideration and adoption by the Board as Consensus Policy. The Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/final-rpt-registry-approval-… describing this procedure has been posted since 10 July on the GNSO web site. A final public comment period is now opened in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, Article 3, Section 6. Following this period, the Recommendation will be submitted to the Board for decision. The deadline for comments is Friday 26 August 2005. Comment can be made to: registry-services-report(a)icann.org. The archive of comments is available at: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/registry-services-report/>. Thank you in anticipation for the time taken to comment. Kind regards, -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Progress on new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 16, 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

Hello Avri, > > - the evaluation of the first phase of the proof-of-concept was > > completed in July 2004 > > Was the pointer to this evaluation included in Olof's report. Yes - see section 10 of Olof's report: >From the report by Miriam Shapiro (Summit Strategies International) "Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues", 10 July 2004 http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf > And who approved it? The report was presented at the ICANN public forum in Kuala Lumpur. http://www.icann.org/meetings/kualalumpur/captioning-public-forum-23jul0 4.htm I don't see a record of the report being formally accepted or acted upon in the Board minutes. It has never been discussed within the GNSO. > > > Other then the recommendation that is should be bottom up and > user driven, a good idea, has the council made done any work > on the structure of evolving namespace? The conclusion of the work discussed in: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.h tml Was that the namespace should not be "structured". Ie it was left to third parties to propose appropriate names. However I gather than in the process of reviewing the latest round of "sponsored" TLDs, the choice of the new strings was the most sensitive topic. This essentially moves from technical coordination (e.g ensuring DNS stability and security) to content issues with respect to the content of the string. E.g should <insert country name or region name> be allowed, and if so, who should be allowed to run it? E.g should <insert minority group name> be allowed, and if so, who should be allowed to run it? E.g should <insert sensitive moral topic name> be allowed? So it may be that instead of asking whether the namespace should be structured, we should ask whether any strings should not be allowed in the root. Unfortunately an answer to this question generally moves us into content issues. Perhaps we need a dispute resolution approach for when a new TLD is proposed. Note that the WIPO-II recommendation with respect to country names etc is another example of moving into the content area. From: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.ht m "You will recall that this Second WIPO Process concerned the relationship between domain names and five types of identifier, namely, International Nonproprietary Names for pharmaceutical substances (INNs), the names and acronyms of international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), personal names, geographical identifiers and trade names. The Member States of WIPO recommended that two such identifiers should be protected against abusive registration as domain names, namely, the names and acronyms of IGOs and country names (being one particular type of geographical identifier). Details of the two recommendations of the Member States are set out in the ensuing paragraphs." > > I understand there are operational constraints on how many > could be introduced at a time. But I don't have this > information. Is this info avaialble, or does someone need to > research that operational constraint. > This is an area where there have been a few statements from groups such as the IAB, and the SSAC but there is not an easily accessible description of the problem. We can ask staff to collect this information for us. To give a high level answer. The issues are: - how to manage adding new tlds to the root (ie the approval process) - how to maintain the TLDs in the root (general IANA issue) - the additional load placed on root servers from new TLDs With respect to the last point, the load is not linear with the number of new TLDs. It is more related to the "use" of the new TLDs - ie how many end user devices will be using a particular new TLD, and how effective is the DNS resolver software at caching answers etc. I gather from earlier discussions with root server operators, that a significant proportion of their traffic is a result of misconfigured software on end user equipment. > > If the outcome is > > that only a limited number of new TLDs can be introduced at a time - > > > Seems almost certain that it would be. No matter how big the > limit, there are organizational scalability issues that would > prevent too many from happening, in a controlled and stable > manner, in any given unit of time. Exactly. > > > then we need to consider how they will be allocated (e.g ballot, > > auction, first-come first served). > > If we define criteria for a successful application, then it > seems reasonable to take them on a first come, first served > as long as it meets criteria. Using a ballot, leaves the > selection open to subjective and interest driven decisions. Experience with operations within new gtlds is that first-come first-served does not work when many valid applications are ready at the same time. E.g if 1000 people meet the criteria for .web, then they will slam the registration system to be first. > > As for an auction, this might be a good idea if the proceeds > were to be used for appropriate charitable purposes, such as > capacity building and education. But it might prevent the > less well heeled from obtaining TLDs. I am personally > uncomfortable with only granting new TLDs to the richest applicants. > Yes those are some of the issues with auctions. Ie what happens to the funds, and how do you support those with less money. It is possible to use a combination of techniques (e.g I understand the USA has a green card lottery process in addition to its normal stringent processes for getting permanent residency). Regards, Bruce

1 0

Last review of the DNSO
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 16, 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

Hello All, When reviewing the GNSO, it is worth reflecting on the documents from the review of the DNSO - conducted in 2000 and 2001. See: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html and 28 Jan 2001: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010128.TFreview-report-v2.0a.html Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Friday, 12 August 2005 7:48 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Review: Phase One Paper Dear Colleagues I have attached a paper which reflects the first phase of consultation and feedback about the GNSO Review Terms of Reference. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed ideas either by email or on the telephone. The GNSO Review is at Item 2 on the agenda for the 18 August call. The agenda item refers specifically to the timeline for the GNSO Terms of Reference. This paper provides the timeline and more detailed information. After the 18 August call, I will prepare an information paper for distribution to the Board. I will then incorporate their feedback into a Second Phase paper. You will note that we have quite tight deadlines to meet the Board's requirements for notification of items for the Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. If you have any further questions or need clarification on anything my numbers are below or you can email me. Kind regards. Liz Dr Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Review: Phase One Paper
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 16, 2005

Aug. 16, 2005

Just going through some of the old DNSO archives. Here is a report from Working Group E that talks about outreach etc: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000621.NCwge-report.html It is relevant both in terms of assisting constituencies to grow participation, but also with respect tot he ICANN strategic plan with respect to outreach. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Friday, 12 August 2005 7:48 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Review: Phase One Paper Dear Colleagues I have attached a paper which reflects the first phase of consultation and feedback about the GNSO Review Terms of Reference. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed ideas either by email or on the telephone. The GNSO Review is at Item 2 on the agenda for the 18 August call. The agenda item refers specifically to the timeline for the GNSO Terms of Reference. This paper provides the timeline and more detailed information. After the 18 August call, I will prepare an information paper for distribution to the Board. I will then incorporate their feedback into a Second Phase paper. You will note that we have quite tight deadlines to meet the Board's requirements for notification of items for the Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. If you have any further questions or need clarification on anything my numbers are below or you can email me. Kind regards. Liz Dr Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

1 0

Progress on new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 15, 2005

Aug. 15, 2005

Hello All, I have been reviewing the paper produced by Olof on past decisions relating to new TLDs. There is certainly a lot of work done on this topic already. I have also found some additional decisions from the GNSO Council around May and June 2003 as an outcome of the GNSO Council gTLDs committee. I have attached a table that may assist the Council track the major policies and decisions. The basic flow of the table is that the GNSO Council has made policy recommendations to the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board has approved these recommendations as ICANN policy, and directed staff to take various actions to implement the policies. There seem to be two main threads in the decisions. The first thread is as follows: - the Names Council/GNSO support introducing new TLDs, but requests that the ICANN community first start with a proof of concept, and evaluate the outcome of that proof of concept, before moving ahead with the introduction of more TLDs - The ICANN Board authorises a proof-of-concept round, and then a further extension of that proof-of-concept for additional sponsored TLDs - the evaluation of the first phase of the proof-of-concept was completed in July 2004 The second thread starts around Dec 2002, and assumes that new TLDS will be created: - The GNSO Council is asked by the Board whether to structure the evolution of the generic top-level namespace - the GNSO responds that interested parties should be free to propose names and the process should be market driven (ie the market decides what new names to add). - the GNSO recommends that a Policy Development Process be used to establish a set of objective criteria for new TLDs - in October 2003, the Board asks the ICANN staff to come up with the process for addiing new TLDs - subsequently the staff have produced a report detailing the input necessary to develop the process, and also created a set of questions that need to be addressed The Council has not been actively involved since 2003. I believe that we first need to complete the first thread: - ie should we continue to introduce new TLDs based on the outcomes of the proof-of-concpet round? (to answer this question we should review the original reasons for/against introducing new TLDs, allow a short comment period for other (or new) reasons for/against to be supplied, review the output of the evaluation) With respect to the second thread, it is clear that the GNSO intended that interested parties be able to submit proposed names. I think we should focus first on developing an objective criteria for new applications. In parallel we could look at the question of how many new TLDs (and whether to introduce them in phases). If the outcome is that only a limited number of new TLDs can be introduced at a time - then we need to consider how they will be allocated (e.g ballot, auction, first-come first served). I would like to hear the views from others on this list on this issue. It seems to me that once we have discussed this material, that the next step would be a joint teleconference with interested members of the Board and the Council to agree on the next steps. Regards, Bruce

2 1

RE: [council] New TLDs - resolution and document overview
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 15, 2005

Aug. 15, 2005

Hello Olof, Please add the Council resolution of 22 May 2003: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030509.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v4.h tml Decision: In response to the question asked of it by the Board, the GNSO council concludes: * Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. * Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria to be met in any future expansion. * The development of this set of objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together with the responses of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be forwarded to the Board in June. Updated report: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.h tml >From minutes of Council meeting on 24 June 2003 (Montreal): http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-minutes.html Decision 4: The GNSO Council advises the ICANN Board that the namespace should be market driven and that organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use to DNS users. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] New TLDs - resolution and document overview
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 15, 2005

Aug. 15, 2005

A minor correction to the report below. Section 9, should read: Resolutions of the Board meeting in Carthage, Tunisia 31 October 2003 Regards, Bruce ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 10:42 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New TLDs - resolution and document overview Dear all, As agreed during the Council conference call last Thursday, please find as attachment a new draft version of the overview of resolutions and documents relating to the topic of new TLDs. Hope you find it useful. ...and NOW the electric power at the Brussels office just went out! Better send this off before my laptop's battery falters! Very best regards Olof

1 0

Response from Deputy General Counsel on "clear and conspicuous"
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 12, 2005

Aug. 12, 2005

-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Halloran [mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org] Sent: Friday, 12 August 2005 4:02 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Whois TF mailing list Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation Bruce, As we discussed, this will confirm that John Jeffrey and I have reviewed and approved the use of the phrase "clear and conspicuous" in the "Updated consensus recommendation on improving notification to Registered Name Holders of the public access to contact data via the WHOIS service" <http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ council/msg01159.html>. We'll stand by to review any possible questions the task force might develop on the "waiver" issue discussed below. I hope this will be helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Best regards, Daniel Halloran Deputy General Counsel ICANN On Aug 9, 2005, at 18:44 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > Hello Jordyn, > > I did receive a call from Dan Halloran of the ICANN General Counsel's > office with respect to the WHOIS recommendation. I expect a response > from him shortly on the "clear and conspicuous" notice terminology. > > Is it possible for the task force to frame a specific question on the > concern about the impact of the proposed recommendation on privacy > rights? I can then send this to the General Counsel's office for > advice. > > Perhaps a member of the task force can set out the reasons for the > concern on the WHOIS mailing list. > > The intent of the current recommendation is to better inform > registrants of a current obligation. > > As I understand the current obligation, registrars are required to > publish some information via the WHOIS service (clause 3.3 of the > RAA), registrars are required to provide notice to registrants of the > purposes for which the data is intended and the internet recipients of > that data (clause 3.7.7.4 of the RAA), and registrars are required to > get > registrants to agree to this (clause 3.7.7.5 of the RAA). If the > recommendation waives any existing rights of the registrant then this > needs to be considered carefully. > > With reference to: > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3 > > > Note that with respect to clause 3.7.7.4 - "shall provide notice", > Dan did inform me that having this information in a privacy policy, or > sent via email, or displayed at the time of registration, would meet > that requirement. It is not currently necessary to include the > "notice" > within the terms and conditions. Registrars have significant > flexibility on how they choose to meet this obligation in the > RAA. It > seems prudent not to actually interfere with this flexibility with > respect to clause 3.7.7.4. Thus the new WHOIS recommendation should > be read in the context of a separate clause within 3.7.7. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > Chair, GNSO > > >> >> On 09/08/2005 6:29 PM Jordyn A. Buchanan noted that; >> >>> As we discussed on today's call, a concern has been raised that the >>> recommendation on Notice to registrants, currently before the >>> Council, may be viewed as some kind of waiver of >>> >> registrant's privacy rights. >> >>> This was not the intent of the recommendation, and not >>> >> something that >> >>> we had originally considered within the task force. As a >>> >> result, we >> >>> agreed on today's call that I would send a note to Bruce and the >>> Council requesting further consideration of this issue. >>> >>> Here's the request I propose to send. Please let me know >>> >> (quickly) >> >>> if anyone believes this doesn't correctly reflect our >>> >> agreement from >> >>> the call today: >>> >>> Dear Bruce: >>> >>> In discussions of the Whois TF this week, a concern was >>> >> raised that >> >>> the current proposal relating to improving notice to registrants >>> regarding the use of their contact details in the Whois >>> >> system may be >> >>> viewed as a waiver of registrants privacy rights. It was not the >>> intent of the task force that the recommendation act as any >>> >> sort of >> >>> waiver, but this was not an issue that we considered during >>> >> the work of the task force. >> >>> We do believe that this is an important issue, however, >>> >> and believe >> >>> that it would be premature for the Council to adopt the policy >>> recommendations without considering it. As a result, I am >>> >> writing to >> >>> request that the Council either: >>> >>> a) Refer the recommendation back to the Task Force for further >>> consideration of this specific issue; alternatively, the >>> >> Council may >> >>> want to consider this specific issue itself, or >>> >>> b) Delay adoption of this recommendation until such time as >>> >> the full >> >>> range of issues currently being considered by the task force have >>> resulted in a broader set of recommendations that may render this >>> issue moot. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jordyn A. Buchanan >>> Chair, Whois TF >

3 2