January 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Sophia B 26 Jan '06

26 Jan '06

Thanks Tina, for the prompt response. Sophia On 26/01/06, Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Hi Sophia, as it is a bit late in Cary's time zone I thought I would offer > the answer to your first question. > > The committee is fairly new and the upcoming meeting in February will be > its > second meeting. The list of membership is available online at: > http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-23nov05.htm > > Please note that membership may change over time as additional needs are > arising in this area. > > Kind regards, > Tina Dam > Chief gTLD Registry Liaison > ICANN > > Office: +1-310-301-5838 > Cell: +1-310-862-2026 > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Sophia B [mailto:sophiabekele@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:47 PM > To: Cary Karp > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Tina Dam; John C Klensin; Patrik > Fältström > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs > > > Cary, > > Thanks for the update. Could I kindly ask for your confirmation on > these two matters: > > 1) I understand that the President Committe is fairly new, may I > ask > who is represented on the committee? > 2) I was also not aware that John was involved in the 'testbed' > scenario until I saw the attachment you sent, based on some of his > responses > in the Council meeting. Would he be working on that with you. > > Many thanks ahead, > Sophia > > On 26/01/06, Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum> wrote: > > > We formally requested an issues report on IDN's in > Vancouver. However > > we were informed that there was some other work going on > via the > > President's committee and also work within the IAB that > would help in > > the development of that report. > > > > I expect we should have the report for our meeting in > Wellington, but as > > IDN's is a large and very specialised topic I don't see > that being on > > the agenda for the meeting in Washington. > > The President's Committee was planning to meet earlier this > week but > was rescheduled to 8 Feb. In the interim, the version of > the > IAB > "nextsteps" draft to which John Klensin and Patrik > Fältström > made > reference during our last meeting will be released. I will > post notice > of its availability and suggest that the Council members > review it > with a thought to its discussion at our own next meeting > (hereby > proposing a corresponding agenda item). Since the > President's > Committee will be meeting two days thereafter, we may wish > to use the > opportunity to communicate our own recent thinking. > > Also, at the two most recent Council meetings reference was > made to > the development of an experiment for determining suitable > means for > the support of IDN on the top-level of the DNS. Upon > listening to the > MP3s of those meetings I note that we failed to make an > adequate > distinction between the IAB draft and the outline of the > experiment > prepared directly by John. I have therefore (with John's > permission) > attached a copy of the latter document to the present > message. > > /Cary > > > > > > > > -- > Sophia Bekele > Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 > Mob:925-818-0948 > sophiabekele(a)gmail.com > SKYPE: skypesoph > www.cbsintl.com <http://www.cbsintl.com/> > > > > > -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele(a)gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com

1 0

Notice of motion regarding statements of interest
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hello All, Following the various discussions on the mailing list around conflict of interest, I would like to propose the following motion to ensure we have something in place in the short term while the issue is considered further by the many experts on the Council in this area. The motion merely requires Council members to declare their interests publicly and does not cover issues of abstaining or voting in relation to interests. Proposed motion: "That the GNSO approves the following statement of interest policy: (1) At least annually each Council member, and liaison to the GNSO Council, provide a standing statement for publication setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of the ICANN legal entity. (2) With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Council, each Council member should disclose any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the member to be considered to have a material Financial Interest (as defined in the ICANN Board's Conflict of Interest policy), or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the ICANN legal entity has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement." If you would like to second this motion - please post a note to the Council list. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

5 4

Regarding public comment processes
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hello All, Mawaki Chango has raised the general issue that those that attend an event in person and make public comments could gain an advantage over those that participate through email or web public comment forums. I tend to agree that those that have the budgets (and/or time) to attend physical meetings - whether they are for IETF, ISOC, WSIS, Internet Governance Forum, or ICANN do have a richer opportunity to both learn from other participants and also convey their views on a particular topic. Although telecommunications technology in general has improved the ability for people to interact remotely - nothing is close to the value of a face-to-face meeting. As discussed before, ICANN, GNSO, and various constituencies (e.g registrars) do hold physical meetings in different locations of the world. The best we can do is try to move those around to give as many as possible an opportunity to be involved at least once a year. Our formal processes however are srtuctured in a way to help provide fairness in terms of taking into account public input. Any comments made at the microphone at ICANN meetings are transcribed and form part of the public record. When the staff prepare reports on public comments they take into account both the written comments received via the email and web based public forums, as well as the transcribed verbal comments at public forums. It is sad that presently the quality of material submitted to the email and web based public comment processes is low. I have noticed that the ICANN culture at public meetings is for speakers to carefully prepare their statemetns on their laptop while they are stting in the audience, and then read from those statements at the public mike. However rarely do they email this material to the email or web forums. I am sure we would save a lot of time at public events if people could email their detailed comments in advance, and just cover the highlights in any verbal presentation. For the new gtld policy process we have tried a couple of new things. One is to formally seek papers on the topic, and the other is to advetise in the press that we are conducted this work and encourage contributions. So - I believe that as a principle when we are having a physical meeting we should at least allow the opportunity for members of the public to speak on an issue, but these comments should be assessed on an equal basis with formal written material. We will also have any papers that have been submitted formally, and have the ability to ask the authors of those papers to give a short summary of their paper and allow the opportunity for questions. This was discussed in January when we discussed the call for papers. This is no requirement for the authors to be present in-person. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Regarding regional meetings
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hello All, There has been the suggestion of running various regional meetings, or providing a video/audio hookup between regional centres. These certainly sound like good ideas. It is difficult at this stage to devote ICANN resources to operate multiple regional meetings in parallel, but I would certainly encourage the Regional At-Large Organisations (see http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ ) and local members of constituencies to cooperate in running their own local forums on ICANN issues in languages that are appropriate for that region. The output of such forums can be summarised (or transcribed) and provided in written form as part of the formal consideration of public comments in the policy development process. If parts of the GNSO or ALAC choose to organise such a meeting at the same date/time as the Washington meeting or the Wellington meeting, we can certainly investigate how to cost effectively provide some sort of communications link - even if it is just for a short time for each region to summarise the discussion that has taken place during the day on the topic. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Motions prior to a Council meeting
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hello All, Wherever possible it helps to have a motion in written form (with a proposer and seconder) that addresses agenda items prior to the meeting. This saves time during the meeting and ensures that the Council discussion is focussed on a particular proposal. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Date for meeting in Washington area - 24/25 Feb 2006
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hello All, Thanks for all the contributions and suggestions around this meeting. >From reviewing the dates when people are available or not available, I have selected Friday 24 February and Saturday 25 February 2006. It seems that several Council members are involved in either the 3GSM World Congress (http://www.3gsmworldcongress.com/) from 13-16 Feb in Barcelona, or the Internet Governance Forum (http://www.intgovforum.org/) from 16-17 Feb in Geneva. So this event is about a week later allowing time for members to get work done between meetings. The meeting is also being held sufficiently in advance of the Wellington ICANN meeting to ensure that we can progress the work. I will ask Glen de Saint Géry to investigate options for hotels and venues to see if we can get a suitable group rate. With respect to the location chosen in the world. This is always a hard decision. Both ICANN and the GNSO try to rotate the locations of physical meetings around as much as possible. The GNSO last held a separate meeting in Amsterdam in February of 2005, and ICANN held meetings in Mar del Plata, Argentina, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, and Vancouver, Canada during 2005. We will be meeting in the Southern Hemisphere again in Wellington, New Zealand. On this occasion I have chosen Washington, DC as I will be available on the USA East Coast at that time, and there is at least a critical mass of members of the GNSO community that are located nearby (ie within a 1000 kilometres or so) that are available to assist in organising an event at such short notice. We have yet to meet in Germany - and Frankfurt certainly sounds like an appropriate place for when we next arrange a meeting. I think when we get onto the topic of policy related to internationalised domain names, it would certainly be good to pick a location where English is not the dominant language. While I am sure that with further discussion we can optimise the dates and location further, I think it is also important for all parties to be able to arrange their travel schedules to lock down a date and location as soon as possible. For those that can't attend in person, we will do out best to arrange for some sort of Internet based audio and video feed - although it is doubtful that it will be of the standard of a full ICANN meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington
by Bruce Tonkin 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

Hello Mawaki, Are you suggesting sometime in the period Thurs 23 Feb 06 to Sunday Feb 26? Regards, Bruce > > For any physical, ad hoc meeting, would it be too much to ask > for considering any day between Thursday and Sunday > inclusive; at least there is a chance I could make it. In the > first half of the week, there is none. > Thanks > > Mawaki > > --- Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info> wrote: > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for > Feb 2006 in > > Washington > > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:05:00 -0500 > > From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info> > > To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce... > > > > the 21st of February would be a very difficult date to make as the > > previous week is the IGF (internet governance forum) in Geneve and > > many of us will be tied up in this as well as other related > forums for > > most of the week ending the 17th. > > > > this would mean that many people would have to take additional time > > the following week away (i.e. 2 weeks in a row) from their > respective > > offices. > > > > there is also a major telephony conference in barcelona the week > > preceeding the 21st whch some may be attending as well.. > > > > I would propose the 27th & 28th of February as good alternative > > dates.. > > a meeting in that week would still allow adequate time for > preparation > > (i.e. one full month) for wellington. > > > > Ken Stubbs > > > > > > > > Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > > > >Hello All, > > > > > >The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the > > agenda > > >for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006. > > > > > >However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making > > >arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call. > > > > > >Purpose of meeting > > >================== > > >- using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff - > > carry out > > >further drafting work on a policy position > > >- if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues > > >identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting - > > carry > > >out further work to complete constituency position statements and > > begin > > >to draft proposed policies > > >- provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the > > >reports published so far > > > > > >Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues, > > a > > >physical meeting may assist progress. > > > > > > > > >Location of meeting > > >=================== > > >- the Washington region has several major gtld registries and > > registrars > > >- it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern > > Hemisphere > > >- we have local contacts that can assist with logistics > > > > > > > > >Planning so far > > >=============== > > >- current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006 > > >- locations under consideration include > > > -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself > > > -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington > > > > > > > > >A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further > > public > > >comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage > > with > > >respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new > > gtlds. > > >Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further. > > > > > >A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper > > in > > >terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find > > available > > >accommodation at short notice. This might be a better location > > for the > > >planning meetings. Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may > > be > > >able to host a drafting meeting. > > > > > >It is possible that a combination of both might work best. E.g > > one > > >morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the > > time near > > >the airport. > > > > > > > > >Participation > > >============ > > >- given that many Council members will be planning to attend the > > ICANN > > >meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time > > or > > >budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each > > >constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be > > >Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in > > >Washington. I expect that most constituencies will have members > > within > > >a reasonable radius of Washington. > > > > > > > > >Further input needed > > >===================== > > > > > >I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues > > around > > >the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes > > with > > >other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences > > >regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the > > city > > >itself. > > > > > >Regards, > > >Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
by Ute Decker 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

Bruce, Tom, all, I will likely not attend in DC, but could of course attend a meeting in Frankfurt. No objections to 21 Feb (and around). Ute -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de] Sent: 24 January 2006 08:45 To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington Bruce, all, how about relocating the meeting to Frankfurt. I haven't ask but I'm sure DENIC would certainly provide us with a meeting accomodation. The DENIC headquarter is about 15 Minutes away from the airport and in walking reach of several adequate hotels. Best, tom Am 24.01.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin: > Hello All, > > The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the agenda > for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006. > > However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making > arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call. > > Purpose of meeting > ================== > - using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff - carry out > further drafting work on a policy position > - if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues > identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting - carry > out further work to complete constituency position statements and begin > to draft proposed policies > - provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the > reports published so far > > Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues, a > physical meeting may assist progress. > > > Location of meeting > =================== > - the Washington region has several major gtld registries and registrars > - it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern Hemisphere > - we have local contacts that can assist with logistics > > > Planning so far > =============== > - current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006 > - locations under consideration include > -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself > -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington > > > A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further public > comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage with > respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new gtlds. > Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further. > > A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper in > terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find available > accommodation at short notice. This might be a better location for the > planning meetings. Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may be > able to host a drafting meeting. > > It is possible that a combination of both might work best. E.g one > morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the time near > the airport. > > > Participation > ============ > - given that many Council members will be planning to attend the ICANN > meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time or > budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each > constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be > Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in > Washington. I expect that most constituencies will have members within > a reasonable radius of Washington. > > > Further input needed > ===================== > > I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues around > the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes with > other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences > regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the city > itself. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

6 5

RE: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington
by Ross Rader 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

I may possibly be attending the gsma conference in spain, but would not be able to attend a meeting in or around the 28th. The 21st works much better for me. Ross Rader, ross(a)tucows.com ...sent via my mobile handset -----Original Message----- From: "Ken Stubbs"<kstubbs(a)afilias.info> Sent: 23/01/06 23:21:19 To: "names council"<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:05:00 -0500 From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Bruce... the 21st of February would be a very difficult date to make as the previous week is the IGF (internet governance forum) in Geneve and many of us will be tied up in this as well as other related forums for most of the week ending the 17th. this would mean that many people would have to take additional time the following week away (i.e. 2 weeks in a row) from their respective offices. there is also a major telephony conference in barcelona the week preceeding the 21st whch some may be attending as well.. I would propose the 27th & 28th of February as good alternative dates.. a meeting in that week would still allow adequate time for preparation (i.e. one full month) for wellington. Ken Stubbs Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Hello All, > >The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the agenda >for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006. > >However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making >arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call. > >Purpose of meeting >================== >- using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff - carry out >further drafting work on a policy position >- if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues >identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting - carry >out further work to complete constituency position statements and begin >to draft proposed policies >- provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the >reports published so far > >Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues, a >physical meeting may assist progress. > > >Location of meeting >=================== >- the Washington region has several major gtld registries and registrars >- it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern Hemisphere >- we have local contacts that can assist with logistics > > >Planning so far >=============== >- current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006 >- locations under consideration include > -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself > -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington > > >A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further public >comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage with >respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new gtlds. >Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further. > >A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper in >terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find available >accommodation at short notice. This might be a better location for the >planning meetings. Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may be >able to host a drafting meeting. > >It is possible that a combination of both might work best. E.g one >morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the time near >the airport. > > >Participation >============ >- given that many Council members will be planning to attend the ICANN >meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time or >budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each >constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be >Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in >Washington. I expect that most constituencies will have members within >a reasonable radius of Washington. > > >Further input needed >===================== > >I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues around >the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes with >other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences >regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the city >itself. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
by Ross Rader 24 Jan '06

24 Jan '06

Bruce - both the proposed date and locale work for me. It would be helpful to nail this down as quickly as possible so that we can each lock in at the best fares. Note also that there are several hotels close to the dulles airport that we could use for our meetings. Ross Rader, ross(a)tucows.com ...sent via my mobile handset -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin"<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Sent: 23/01/06 22:37:35 To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org"<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington Hello All, The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the agenda for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006. However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call. Purpose of meeting ================== - using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff - carry out further drafting work on a policy position - if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting - carry out further work to complete constituency position statements and begin to draft proposed policies - provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the reports published so far Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues, a physical meeting may assist progress. Location of meeting =================== - the Washington region has several major gtld registries and registrars - it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern Hemisphere - we have local contacts that can assist with logistics Planning so far =============== - current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006 - locations under consideration include -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further public comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage with respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new gtlds. Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further. A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper in terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find available accommodation at short notice. This might be a better location for the planning meetings. Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may be able to host a drafting meeting. It is possible that a combination of both might work best. E.g one morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the time near the airport. Participation ============ - given that many Council members will be planning to attend the ICANN meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time or budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in Washington. I expect that most constituencies will have members within a reasonable radius of Washington. Further input needed ===================== I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues around the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes with other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the city itself. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0