September 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Status report on single letter domain names
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sept. 14, 2005

Sept. 14, 2005

Dear all, As requested on the most recent GNSO call, attached is a status report on single letter domain names. All the best, Maria -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS tf Preliminary Report open for Public Comment 12 Sept. to 2 October 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sept. 13, 2005

Sept. 13, 2005

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] The Combined WHOIS task force (1,2 & 3) Preliminary Report on a policy recommendation and advice on a procedure for handling conflicts between a registrar/registry's legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tf-prelim-rpt-12sep05.htm is published at: http://www.icann.org/ http://www.gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ Public comments are invited from 12 September to 2 October 2005, a period of 20 days. Please submit comments to: <gnso-whoisprivacy-cmts(a)icann.org> The archives of the comments are available at: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whoisprivacy-cmts> Thank you in advance for your time spent considering this issue and commenting. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder of Issues Report request from January 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 12, 2005

Sept. 12, 2005

Hello All, Here is another work item that we should be aware of and include in the planning for next 4 months and next 12 months: >From the minutes of 13 January 2005: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm "Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of gTLD registries and registrars. Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate " Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Apologies from Hagen Hultzsch for terms of reference call
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 8, 2005

Sept. 8, 2005

-----Original Message----- From: Hultzsch Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2005 7:26 PM To: michael(a)palage.com; Bruce Tonkin Mike & Bruce, Sorry for my late travel related reply. I am unfortunately unable to join for the call today because of conflicting earlier commitments. I assume the members of the board will be informed about the results and I also assume that Liz Williams is participating in any case. ....Hagen

3 3

GNSO Council/ICANN Board teleconference MP3 recording 8 September 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sept. 8, 2005

Sept. 8, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council/ICANN Board teleconference, held on September 8, 2005 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050908.mp3 http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] RE: An idea to progress work on PDP
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 7, 2005

Sept. 7, 2005

Yes, and yes, and when I tried to have this "educated discussion" during the ERC process, "allergies" broke out. Time for a more advanced approach, as you are suggesting, Bruce. -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:39:56 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: An idea to progress work on PDP Hello Marilyn, At this stage I don't want to work on changing the bylaws of the PDP itself at this stage. However it would be a productive discussion to discuss the PDP in the context of working with the ccNSO on Internationalised domain names. Likewise, for the purposes of the Council improving the effectiveness of the PDP and following up on recommendations of the previous review - I recommend we start with the new gtld PDP - and make sure we plan the work carefully and get the Board to approve timelines that are outside of the PDP. If we are able to effectively design a process around IDNs and new gtlds, and prove that it works - lets then incorporate the process that works into the bylaws. I am reluctant to just work on the bylaws - when we don't have a working model that everyone has confidence in. Regarding the upcoming review - I agree that we should not review the whole PDP again. Instead we should focus on the elements of the PDP that were not covered in the last review. The last review focussed on the operation of the Council and its task forces. It did not cover the detail of how constituencies interact with the PDP - ie how constituencies develop their initial positions, and how constituencies interact with the remaining PDP process (ie how they discuss initial and final reports etc). I suspect we might have two different categories of policy work: - when the initial constituency positions seem to suggest a clear supermajority position - then the task force/Council can rapidly converge on an initial report. - when the initial constituency positions are widely diverging - we might need to establish a process/forum with wider constituency member participation to attempt to seek a compromise (this may need to be done at a physical ICANN meeting). The work on deleted names seems to fit into the first category - whereas the WHOIS work probably fits in to the second category. When reading the PDP process in the bylaws - it seems to assume that a task force will rapidly converge on a supermajority position - this is not possible for many controversial issues. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] Changing date of Council meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 6, 2005

Sept. 6, 2005

Hello All, I suggest we leave the regular Council meeting scheduled for 22 September as is. Unless there is a danger of not having quorum at that meeting - I think we can proceed. I realise that Olof will not be available - but we are meeting regularly at the moment anyway, and we no longer have just one ICANN staff member in the policy area. I am also not expecting any major votes on consensus policy at that meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: An idea to progress work on PDP
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 6, 2005

Sept. 6, 2005

Hello Marilyn, At this stage I don't want to work on changing the bylaws of the PDP itself at this stage. However it would be a productive discussion to discuss the PDP in the context of working with the ccNSO on Internationalised domain names. Likewise, for the purposes of the Council improving the effectiveness of the PDP and following up on recommendations of the previous review - I recommend we start with the new gtld PDP - and make sure we plan the work carefully and get the Board to approve timelines that are outside of the PDP. If we are able to effectively design a process around IDNs and new gtlds, and prove that it works - lets then incorporate the process that works into the bylaws. I am reluctant to just work on the bylaws - when we don't have a working model that everyone has confidence in. Regarding the upcoming review - I agree that we should not review the whole PDP again. Instead we should focus on the elements of the PDP that were not covered in the last review. The last review focussed on the operation of the Council and its task forces. It did not cover the detail of how constituencies interact with the PDP - ie how constituencies develop their initial positions, and how constituencies interact with the remaining PDP process (ie how they discuss initial and final reports etc). I suspect we might have two different categories of policy work: - when the initial constituency positions seem to suggest a clear supermajority position - then the task force/Council can rapidly converge on an initial report. - when the initial constituency positions are widely diverging - we might need to establish a process/forum with wider constituency member participation to attempt to seek a compromise (this may need to be done at a physical ICANN meeting). The work on deleted names seems to fit into the first category - whereas the WHOIS work probably fits in to the second category. When reading the PDP process in the bylaws - it seems to assume that a task force will rapidly converge on a supermajority position - this is not possible for many controversial issues. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] Global Policy for IPv6 - background report
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 6, 2005

Sept. 6, 2005

Thanks, Bruce. I greatly appreciate the information re this report. Important stuff for the GNSO to be aware of. -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:59:04 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Global Policy for IPv6 - background report For the information of Council members: To: ICANN SO and AC chairs The development of Global Internet Number Resource Policies is the subject of an MoU between ASO/NRO and ICANN. There are also specific ICANN Board Procedures, adopted by the Board on 15 July 2005 at the ICANN meeting in Luxemburg, for handling global policy proposals in this context. These Board procedures also state that the Board can request ICANN staff to undertake an early awareness tracking of proposals for global policies under development in the addressing community. At its meeting on 16 August 2005, the Board resolved to request such tracking of the development of a global policy proposal for allocation of IPv6 address space, already well advanced in the Regional Internet Registries, RIRs. Attached is a first background report with a status overview in table format, compiled in response to this request. It will be timely updated as developments proceed, for information to ICANN entities and the wider community. This report will also be posted on the ICANN web site shortly and I will send you a link to the web posting a.s.a.p. FYI and for notification to your membership. 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 Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

Global Policy for IPv6 - background report
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 6, 2005

Sept. 6, 2005

For the information of Council members: To: ICANN SO and AC chairs The development of Global Internet Number Resource Policies is the subject of an MoU between ASO/NRO and ICANN. There are also specific ICANN Board Procedures, adopted by the Board on 15 July 2005 at the ICANN meeting in Luxemburg, for handling global policy proposals in this context. These Board procedures also state that the Board can request ICANN staff to undertake an "early awareness" tracking of proposals for global policies under development in the addressing community. At its meeting on 16 August 2005, the Board resolved to request such tracking of the development of a global policy proposal for allocation of IPv6 address space, already well advanced in the Regional Internet Registries, RIRs. Attached is a first background report with a status overview in table format, compiled in response to this request. It will be timely updated as developments proceed, for information to ICANN entities and the wider community. This report will also be posted on the ICANN web site shortly and I will send you a link to the web posting a.s.a.p. FYI and for notification to your membership. 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