August 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [Fwd: [council] Call for participation in working group to re view 3 month report on transfers policy and define the work items for the 6 month report]
by Grant FORSYTH Aug. 10, 2005

Aug. 10, 2005

Ross I volunteered previously to represent the BC in this effort and confirm that again now. Regards Grant Forsyth Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs TelstraClear Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads Private Bag 92143 AUCKLAND ph +64 9 912 5759 fx + 64 9 912 4077 Mb 029 912 5759 -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Tuesday, 09 August, 2005 10:00 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [Fwd: [council] Call for participation in working group to review 3 month report on transfers policy and define the work items for the 6 month report] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone; The transfers review working group will be holding its first call next week. Before we send out call-in details and finalize the date, I would like to reiterate the call for participation that Bruce set out below. If someone from your constituency would like to participate, please let me know as soon as you possibly can so that we can include them in our activities. Much thanks in advance, - -rwr - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Call for participation in working group to review 3 month report on transfers policy and define the work items for the 6 month report Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:56:57 +1000 From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello All, As reported in the minutes of the Council meeting on 12 May 2005. The Council decided form a working group with a representative group of volunteers from the GNSO to review the staff Transfers report in order to seek clarification, further information and provide guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council. This is a call for volunteers that wish to participate and work with the ICANN staff. Ross Rader has volunteered to act as chair of this working group. See below for a description of the working group task. GNSO Council members should forward the names of volunteers to the GNSO Secretariat within 7 days, and the GNSO Secretariat will then arrange a time for a teleconference with the working group and ICANN staff. The aim should be to report to the Council at the GNSO Council meeting in Luxembourg. The GNSO Council will then use the report as a basis to request the staff to carry out specific tasks necessary to produce the 6 month report. Regards, Bruce Tonkin I Background ============ Recommendation 28 of the Consensus Policy on Transfers: (http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm ) states: (I have replaced references to the DNSO and Names Council with the new terms) "That the implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically that; a. ICANN Staff analyse and report to the GNSO Council at three, six and twelve month intervals after implementation with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants, ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through the process. b. Pursuant to which, the GNSO Council may instruct the staff to; i. Continue bi-annual reviews in a manner consistent with the aforementioned requirements, or; ii. Report again to the GNSO Council in an additional twelve month time frame. c. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the Names Council to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff." The ICANN staff have produced a 3 month report dated 14 April 2005, available at: http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf The report is based on public comments received, statistics from registry operator reports, and questions and complaints received by ICANN staff. Note also that the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee is preparing a report on domain name hijacking, and one of its possible recommendations which was discussed in the ICANN meeting in Mar Del Plata was making it mandatory for a losing registrar to send a notification to the Registrant (this is presently optional for the losing registrar). Note that it is still the gaining registrars responsibility to authenticate the registrant, and receive authorisation. II Working Group task ====================== The task of the working group is to: (1) review the content of the report of 14 April 2005 with respect to: i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants, ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through the process. (2) Identify the work items for the 6 month review. In particular determine what additional information and analysis is required to assist the GNSO in determining whether any refinements are required for the policy. Note this analysis may include a similar process to that used in the recent analysis of the practices of registrars with respect to requirements of registrars to provide information on the purpose for data collection and information on the recipients of the data. In this analysis an ICANN staff member documented the business processes used by the top 10 registrars, and a 10 other registrars chosen randomly. This analysis could complement the anecdotal evidence provided from public comments and queries received by ICANN staff. III Deliverable ================ The working group should produce a report to the GNSO Council with recommendations to the GNSO Council for work to be done by ICANN staff in the 6 month review. - -- - -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC99Xh6sL06XjirooRAqCpAJwM0KkA6S9wSwZyAHQVr9oPhsI1JQCfbC7s k2en+yJWUM3a5uF25cV39WQ= =xd4l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Fwd: [council] Call for participation in working group to review 3 month report on transfers policy and define the work items for the 6 month report]
by Ross Rader Aug. 8, 2005

Aug. 8, 2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone; The transfers review working group will be holding its first call next week. Before we send out call-in details and finalize the date, I would like to reiterate the call for participation that Bruce set out below. If someone from your constituency would like to participate, please let me know as soon as you possibly can so that we can include them in our activities. Much thanks in advance, - -rwr - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Call for participation in working group to review 3 month report on transfers policy and define the work items for the 6 month report Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:56:57 +1000 From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello All, As reported in the minutes of the Council meeting on 12 May 2005. The Council decided form a working group with a representative group of volunteers from the GNSO to review the staff Transfers report in order to seek clarification, further information and provide guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council. This is a call for volunteers that wish to participate and work with the ICANN staff. Ross Rader has volunteered to act as chair of this working group. See below for a description of the working group task. GNSO Council members should forward the names of volunteers to the GNSO Secretariat within 7 days, and the GNSO Secretariat will then arrange a time for a teleconference with the working group and ICANN staff. The aim should be to report to the Council at the GNSO Council meeting in Luxembourg. The GNSO Council will then use the report as a basis to request the staff to carry out specific tasks necessary to produce the 6 month report. Regards, Bruce Tonkin I Background ============ Recommendation 28 of the Consensus Policy on Transfers: (http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm ) states: (I have replaced references to the DNSO and Names Council with the new terms) "That the implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically that; a. ICANN Staff analyse and report to the GNSO Council at three, six and twelve month intervals after implementation with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants, ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through the process. b. Pursuant to which, the GNSO Council may instruct the staff to; i. Continue bi-annual reviews in a manner consistent with the aforementioned requirements, or; ii. Report again to the GNSO Council in an additional twelve month time frame. c. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the Names Council to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff." The ICANN staff have produced a 3 month report dated 14 April 2005, available at: http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf The report is based on public comments received, statistics from registry operator reports, and questions and complaints received by ICANN staff. Note also that the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee is preparing a report on domain name hijacking, and one of its possible recommendations which was discussed in the ICANN meeting in Mar Del Plata was making it mandatory for a losing registrar to send a notification to the Registrant (this is presently optional for the losing registrar). Note that it is still the gaining registrars responsibility to authenticate the registrant, and receive authorisation. II Working Group task ====================== The task of the working group is to: (1) review the content of the report of 14 April 2005 with respect to: i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants, ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through the process. (2) Identify the work items for the 6 month review. In particular determine what additional information and analysis is required to assist the GNSO in determining whether any refinements are required for the policy. Note this analysis may include a similar process to that used in the recent analysis of the practices of registrars with respect to requirements of registrars to provide information on the purpose for data collection and information on the recipients of the data. In this analysis an ICANN staff member documented the business processes used by the top 10 registrars, and a 10 other registrars chosen randomly. This analysis could complement the anecdotal evidence provided from public comments and queries received by ICANN staff. III Deliverable ================ The working group should produce a report to the GNSO Council with recommendations to the GNSO Council for work to be done by ICANN staff in the 6 month review. - -- - -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC99Xh6sL06XjirooRAqCpAJwM0KkA6S9wSwZyAHQVr9oPhsI1JQCfbC7s k2en+yJWUM3a5uF25cV39WQ= =xd4l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: [council] RE: New TLDs - resolution and document overview
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 8, 2005

Aug. 8, 2005

Hello Olof, Another document of interest in this context is the attached paper from SSAC, also available at http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/doc00004.doc Thanks for posting this paper from SSAC. This work was done by SSAC in 2003 in response to the issues raised with the support for new TLDs in existing Internet application software. It is interesting that the SSAC recommendations are similar to those discussed in the last Council call in response to the issues raised by Ken Fockler in the GNSO Public Forum in Luxembourg. The SSAC recommendations were: RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ICANN should develop an advisory regarding support for new TLDs for display on their website, and the GNSO constituencies should publicise this advisory through their membership and customer bases. 2. ICANN should recommend that the IAB consider issuing an informational RFC advising of the issue, and publicising this through the IETF technical community. 3. Internet infrastructure providers that have their own customised software for Internet service provision should test the capability of the software to support new TLDs, and correct problems quickly where they are found. 4. Internet software application developers should be encouraged to review their software for support of new TLDs. Where problems are found, application developers should upgrade their software, and provide these updates to their user base. 5. A central repository of known commonly used software that has compatibility problems (e.g., DNS resolver software used by common operating systems) with new TLDs, and instructions for how to upgrade the software should be created. This repository would facilitate Internet infrastructure providers and software application developers to provide necessary software updates to users of the Internet to resolve known compatibility issues. 6. ICANN should examine compatibility problems with the introduction of new TLDs in 2001 as a topic in its Proof of Concept study.

1 0

RE: New TLDs - resolution and document overview
by Olof Nordling Aug. 8, 2005

Aug. 8, 2005

Dear all, Another document of interest in this context is the attached paper from SSAC, also available at http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/doc00004.doc Best regards Olof _____ From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:42 PM To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: 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

FW: Registry Services Changes - Recommendation from the GNSO for a consensus policy decision - final public comment posting
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 7, 2005

Aug. 7, 2005

This has been posted on front page of ICANN website: http://www.icann.org/ ________________________________ From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, 6 August 2005 1:40 AM To: 'Hans Petter Holen'; Bruce Tonkin; ceo(a)auda.org.au; sharil(a)cmc.gov.my; steve(a)shinkuro.com; junsec(a)wide.ad.jp; vb(a)bertola.eu.org Cc: 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Daniel Halloran'; 'Jeffrey John'; 'Tina Dam' Subject: Registry Services Changes - Recommendation from the GNSO for a consensus policy decision - final public comment posting To: ICANN SO and AC chairs A final public comment forum will be opened today on the ICANN website concerning the following: 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 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." As stated above, the Final Report is already available on the GNSO website at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/final-rpt-registry-approv al-10july05.htm It is also attached to this mail for added convenience. I will send you a link to the web posting a.s.a.p. FYI and for notification to your membership for possible reactions. Best regards Olof ____________________________________ Olof Nordling Manager, Policy Development Coordination ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7870 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>

1 0

New TLDs - resolution and document overview
by Olof Nordling Aug. 5, 2005

Aug. 5, 2005

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

2 1

RE: [council] GNSO Review
by Niklas_Lagergren＠mpaa.org Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

I very much share Philip's concerns as expressed below as well as the starting point he suggests to assess the GNSO's structure and methods. Periods of introspection are always useful - we should certainly avoid the trap of floccinaucinihilipilification* - but we should not think that we have to start from scratch here. Lots have been done already. Cheers, Nik * For the non-English speakers among us, please note that this word IS included in the "Oxford English Dictionary" (I just had to use it once :-)). _____ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: jeudi 4 août 2005 9:22 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Review Before we all get carried away on great and good ideas on this review, can we agree on the scope of the review? We have already done an ICANN evolution and reform process (ERP) - no one I HOPE - wants to repeat that in the context of the GNSO ? We have already done a GNSO Council review and agreed actions as a result - no one I HOPE - wants to duplicate that ? Therefore the scope question is surely: Given the purpose of the GNSO, Given the current structures / networks / methodology, How effective are these structures / networks and methods? Anything more - such as comparison to other models - I suggest is out of scope. That may be relevant if we conclude structures / networks / methods are broken or useless, but that should inform a second tier of work ONCE the ineffective bits are identified. If there is a proposal to repeat the evolution and reform process work for the GNSO, I plan a long holiday. Philip

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes 28 July 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 28 July 2005. Please let me know what changes you would like me to make. Thank you very much, Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New "Reference Document" page on GNSO website
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, There is a new page on the GNSO website, GNSO Reference Documents: http://www.gnso.icann.org/reference-documents.htm It can be found in the left hand side menu under "Documents" between the FAQ and the Mailing Lists. (see menu below) Information Master Calendar (Minutes, MP3 recordings of GNSO Council & Whois Task force and important deadlines can be found here) Announcements Issues Request for Comments Policies FAQ Documents Mailing Lists DNSO Site Archive Acronyms Elections GNSO Reference Documents In summary, there are quick links to: 1. ICANN bylaws <http://www.icann.org/general/corporate.html> 2. GNSO Policy-Development Process <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA> The GNSO Council Constituencies <http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#X-5> and Nominating Committee appointees: <http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/> 3. ICANN's Major Agreements and Related Reports <http://www.icann.org/general/agreements.htm> ccTLD Agreements Registry and Sponsorship Agreements Registry and Sponsors Monthly Reports Registrar Accreditation Agreements/MoUs 4. ICANN's Consensus Policies: <http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm> a. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy b. Whois Data Reminder Policy c. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy d. Whois Marketing Restriction Policy e. Restored Names Accuracy Policy f. Expired Domain Deletion Policy Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Some initial thoughts on GNSO review
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

Hello All, Some of the questions I have in terms of the GNSO constituency structure are: - should some constituencies merge to form larger constituencies with more participation? - should there be additional constituencies to cover viewpoints that are not currently being addressed (e.g application developers - such as browsers, email that are affected by GNSO decisions)? - how should companies that have a variety of interests engage with the GNSO structure? (e.g Melbourne IT is a registrar, provides other Internet services, is a business user of the Internet, is concerned about protection of its intellectual property, and provides services to assist corporates to protect their online brands - thus it could conceivably join 3 of the constituencies. There are staff (and divisions of staff) at Melbourne IT that would have different interests, and thus may want to become involved in constituencies that match their interest.) Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1