January 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Ad promotion of Call for Papers on new gTLDs
by Olof Nordling 11 Jan '06

11 Jan '06

Dear all, FYI - in order to promote the Call for Papers to an audience beyond the faithful readers of the ICANN website, we are placing ads in international press, due to be published on Friday this week. Very best regards Olof

5 8

RE: [council] Ad promotion of Call for Papers on new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Jan '06

10 Jan '06

Hello Cary, > > At least in the academic frame of reference (is there any > other where papers are an established production format?) the > incentive to respond to a formal call for papers depends > directly on the attractiveness of the publication venue. It also usually depends on the credibility of a peer review process so that the academic can count it as an official publication. If we need to cater for this market specifically - one approach is to create an online journal, where the best papers submitted on GNSO issues are published - with an appropriate peer review process. In any case, all papers will be published online and archived. A selection of substantive papers will be presented via oral presentation. Both an audio file and a full transcript of any oral presentations will be made for the public record. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council revised draft minutes 28 Nov 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 10 Jan '06

10 Jan '06

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find a further revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver on 28 November 2005. 1. The end of the sentence: "situations as they arise." has been added to item 7: Consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force 2. Olof Nordling was present at the meeting. Please let me know if there are other changes to be made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 28 November 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C - remote participation Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes Antonio Harris - ISCPC - proxy to Tony Holmes (joined meeting after roll call) Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars (joined meeting after roll call) Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - remote participation Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.- remote participation Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - remote participation Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 17 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Diane Schroeder - General Manager, Conferences, Administration & Finance Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Michael Palage - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Quorum present at 9: 12 PST. Two MP3 recordings of the second part of the meeting (not very clear) http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council20051122.mp3 http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO2-20051122;MP3.mp3 Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference. Approval of Agenda Diane Schroeder addressed the meeting informing the Council of an important time modification to the schedule for the GNSO Public Forum and GNSO Council meeting on Friday 2 December 2005 in Vancouver. Marilyn Cade proposed ending the meeting early to prepare for the joint meeting with the ICANN Board in the afternoon. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed Philip Sheppard as chair for the election process. Motion carried unanimously Decision 1: Philip Sheppard chaired the GNSO Council meeting for the election process. Item 3: Election of GNSO Council chair - Bruce Tonkin has been nominated and seconded - term from 18 Nov 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 Jan 2006) Philip Sheppard proposed: Whereas Bruce Tonkin had been nominated by Ken Stubbs and seconded by Ross Rader as GNSO Council chair for the period from 18 November 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 January 2006) Recommended that Bruce Tonkin be elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006). Philip Sheppard called for a formal roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. No vote was recorded for Tony Harris who joined the meeting late. Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin was elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006). Philip Sheppard formally handed the chair to Bruce Tonkin. Item 4: Approval of minutes - GNSO Council teleconference - 13 October 2005 - GNSO Council teleconference - 20 October 2005 Maureen Cubberley moved the adoption of the minutes. The motion carried. Niklas Lagergren abstained Decision 3: The GNSO Council minutes of 13 October 2005 and 20 October 2005 were adopted. Item 5: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as .travel, .jobs. .mobi etc) - update on questions to structure the evaluation Olof Nordling commented that the document elaborated the need for further evaluation of recently introduced gTLDs and proposed an approach for this, focused to inform ongoing work on policy aspects regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. Discussions on an evaluation of the ongoing sTLD round were under way with the consultant that performed the main evaluation of the “proof-of-concept” round for ICANN. It was recommended that the GNSO Council stated that questions relating to selection criteria, allocation methods and contractual conditions were of particular relevance in this context. The document proposed a draft list of questions to this end. The report was designed to give the GNSO Council the information necessary to discuss and decide on ways to proceed with additional evaluation aspects of assigned new TLDs. Maureen Cubberley referred to page 8 of the report, 'consideration for additional review', and commented that there was a need for emphasis on the process of decision making that informed the evaluation. It was essential to look at the content of the recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sponsored round of gTLDs . Bruce Tonkin pointed out that the new gTLD process was under discussion, and that the evaluation was driven by a process several years ago. There were two issues, one, how to improve the process and the second, should new gTLDs be introduced. Marilyn Cade noted from the Business Constituency’s perspective, that clear guidance was given for the recent round of gTLDs to be sponsored. Sponsored was discussed in depth yet there appeared to be a limited match in the case of some of the applicants. Further guidance and criteria on ‘sponsored’was required. Maureen Cubberley commented that ambiguities in the RFP led to the issue. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the project manager (Miriam Sapiro) produce a ‘lessons learnt’ paper, a quick follow up of the report in terms of the outcome, which should not be wider but intended as input to a subsequent wider process and that an "independent external review" be carried out by someone different from the project manager. ACTION Council was encouraged to examine the list of questions and provide further questions to Miriam Sapiro. Further it was suggested that Miriam Sapiro do a presentation at the GNSO Public Forum on Friday 2 December 2005. Item 6: Policy Development Process for new gtlds - discuss issues report - decide whether to commence a PDP Bruce Tonkin referred to the ICANN Bylaws. Section 2. Creation of the Issue Report Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an "Issue Report"). Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following: Section 2. Creation of the Issue Report had been completed Section 2 e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council should initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Staff Recommendation"). Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the PDP is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue: The staff manager, Olof Nordling had recommended that a PDP be initiated. Bruce Tonkin proposed that at the current meeting the Council vote to commence a PDP. Marilyn Cade, seconded by Tom Keller proposed: Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work The vote was by show of hands. The motion carried unanimously. No abstentions Decision 4: Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work Item 7: WHOIS: Final task force 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 - vote on final recommendation as completed by the WHOIS task force on 19 Oct Bruce Tonkin noted that the "advice" as set forth was not consensus policy. Niklas Lagergren stated that the task force Final Report was supported unanimously by the WHOIS task force. Ross Rader, a member of the task force raised a procedural question that after the task force had already voted on the final report, it should be made precise that reference was to the gTLD WHOIS service and did not refer to the protocol, the RIR WHOIS service or the country code WHOIS service. Tom Keller seconded by Niklas Lagergren proposed that: The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD Whois service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure. Bruce Tonkin called for formal roll call vote. The motion carried. 26 Votes in support Abstention from Avri Doria: Reason: Does not believe goes far enough in protecting privacy Decision 5 The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure. Item 8: Policy development for IDNs - discuss background document - decide whether to formally request an issues report section 1 - Raising an Issue section 2 - Creation of the Issue Report Bruce Tonkin referred to the background document which listed the existing resolutions, workshops, and information on the President’s Advisory Committee, of which Cary Karp was a member, and suggested that the GNSO request the staff to produce an issues report on the policy issues using the document as a basis. Bruce added that there should be clarity for the community what the policy aspects for the GNSO were. Cary Karp commented that attention should not only be to constrain 2nd level of the DNS, the top level and the 3rd and 4th level of the DNS should also be considered. If control was invoked as a term of delegation the domain space could not be policed, which means that anything not permitted should be folded into the underlying possible standards. The first generation would be a normative framework that expected anything to be done but allowed policy constraint to guide. Cary further clarified that internationalization meant changing the system to make it useable in the polyglot world we live in while making it work with Cambodia, for example, is localization. An Arabic version of.com is a localization. The concern is the translated versions of the gtld labels. Discussion followed on the motion to be drafted. Due to the complexity of the topic and in order for constituency discussion, Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling the following motion to be voted on at the GNSO Council meeting on Friday 2 December 2005: Tabled motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space. WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to the issue of localised IDN equivalents of existing gTLDs and ccTLDs, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report. The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered. Bruce Tonkin proposed revisiting the process of the PDP on new gTLDs. and outlined the proposed work: January to June - PDP on New gTLDs - PDP on IDNs - WHOIS task force - considered to drain a lot of resources Bruce Tonkin noted that with respect to issues such as WHOIS that will likely need to evolve over several years, it may be more efficient to spend a limited time on the issue each year, rather than tie up GNSO community and staff resources for the whole year, e.g. each year concentrate 3 months on an issue and spend 2 days face to face, then leave it alone and pick it up again. There was general agreement on: - scheduling new gTLDs work program with significant face to face interaction time. - using new technologies, such as wikis and blogs to encourage community participation - setting up a group outside Council with expertise to support running a wiki on the new gTLD issues for the community beyond the council. - creating a structured mechanism to gather data Bruce Tonkin recommended that the Council as a whole deal with the new gTLD PDP using mailing lists, wiki, and a 2 day face to face meeting. Each new effort should take into account the GNSO Council review recommendations looking at what has gone before and what can be improved. The proposed IDN PDP would be managed by a task force of experts and the constituencies should work on identifying new people with particular skills. Agenda Item deferred: Item 8: WHOIS task force - progress on purpose and definitions of contacts Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 11: 45 PST. Next GNSO Council meeting in Vancouver, Friday 2 December 2005 at 10:30 PST see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 17 Jan 2006
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Jan '06

10 Jan '06

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 17 January 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 2 Dec 2005 and 21 Dec 2005 Item 2: Update on new gTLD policy development process - advise constituency representatives Item 3: Update on WHOIS poloicy development - preliminary report on purpose of WHOIS - current work Item 4: IETF draft on IDN issues - discuss document authored by John Klensin and Patrik Fältström - see http://www.iab.org/documents/drafts/draft-iab-idn-nextsteps-00.txt Abstract: This note describe issues raised by the deployment and use of Internationalized Domain Names. It describes problems both at the time of registration and those for use of those names for use in the DNS. It recommends that IETF should update the IDN related RFCs and a framework to be followed in doing so, as well as summarizing and identifying some work that is required outside the IETF. In particular, it proposes that some changes be investigated for the IDNA standard and its supporting tables, based on experience gained since those standards were completed. Document status: This document reviews the IDN landscape from an IETF perspective and presents the recommendations and conclusions of an IAB-convened ad hoc committee charged with reviewing IDN issues and the path forward (See Section 6). Its recommendations are recommendations to the IETF, or in a few cases to other bodies, for topics to be examined and actions to be taken if those bodies, after their examinations, consider those actions appropriate. Neither the IAB nor the members of the ad hoc committee have yet reached consensus that this document is ready for final publication. However, the IAB concluded that it was appropriate to expose it, as a working draft, for community comment and feedback. Such comments should be sent to iab(a)iab.org (relevant material will be forwarded to the IAB IDN Ad Hoc committee). Item 5: Update on status of proposed .com agreement Item 6: Next steps on policy issues related to proposed .com agreement E.g - policy for renewal of gtld agreements - funding model policy (possible new policy) - policy for capping fees that a registry can charge - exclusions in agreements from future consensus polices or changes in consensus polices Item 7: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Regarding funding model via registries/registrars
by Bruce Tonkin 10 Jan '06

10 Jan '06

Hello All, I have been reviewing the funding provisions in the registry agreements. I have checked the existing .com and .biz agreements. If registrars don't approve being invoiced directly, then ICANN may charge registry operators. But there is a fee cap as follows: "The Total Registry-Level Fee Cap shall be US$ 5,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002; shall increase by 15% each fiscal year thereafter; and may be increased by a greater amount through the establishment of Consensus Policies as set forth in Definition 1 and Section 3 of this Agreement." (From http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01. htm , Section II, 7 D ) The current .net agreement caps the fees to: "The per-registrar component of the Variable Registry-Level Fee shall be specified by ICANN in accordance with the budget adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors for each fiscal year, but the sum of the per-registrar fees calculated for all registrars shall not exceed the total Per- Registrar Variable funding established pursuant to the approved 2004- 2005 ICANN Budget" and a maximum transaction fee of 15 cents per year. The proposed .com agreement would effectively result in an amount well above the total cap in the current .com, .biz, .net agreements, and it is permissible for the registry operator to pass on the ICANN transaction fees to registrars. Based on the current .com and .biz agreements, you could argue that increasing the cap should be subject to a policy process related to funding. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council teleconf. revised draft minutes 21 December 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 09 Jan '06

09 Jan '06

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find a revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference on 21 December 2005. Olof Nordling has been added to the list of attendees present at the meeting. Please let me know if there are other changes to be made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 21 December 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth (if necessary) Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - Cary Karp June Seo - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - proxy to Lucy Nichols (if necessary) Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC.- absent - apologies - proxy to Mawaki Chango Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 17 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Michael Palage - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 19 : 07 UTC. MP3 recording Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference. Approval of agenda Bruce Tonkin welcomed the new councillors, Sophia Bekele Nominating Committee Appointee, Mawaki Chango - NCUC representative and June Seo - gTLD registries representative. Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard. Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 - nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005 - election to be held during the meeting Philip Sheppard stated that Bruce Tonkin, the only nominee at close of nominations on Friday 16 December 2005, accepted his nomination by Lucy Nichols, seconded Ken Stubbs, to be the GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. Philip Sheppard proposed a roll call vote of affirmation to elect Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. The motion carried. Unanimous vote of acclamation 25 votes in favour, one abstention Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Ross Rader's vote and proxy held for Maureen Cubberley were votes recorded on line due to telephonic connectivity issues. Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process - public comment period opened on 6 December 2005 Bruce Tonkin stated that each constituency needed to identify a person to collect input to the policy development process on new gTLDs and notify the GNSO Secretariat accordingly. In addition Council members should reflect on proactive means of obtaining input from members of the communities not directly involved in the GNSO and input from the Council. It was important to gather input on the terms of reference to open questions and then seek the commonalities. Marilyn Cade referred to her proposal on the Council mailing list setting out a process, previously used in task forces and public meetings, where a request was posted for interested individuals, organizations, (could be a constituency) to submit an outline, sign up for a specific time to address their responses to a particular set of questions, take clarifying questions, and have the material transcribed and posted on the website. This allowed for input from people with expertise in particular areas in contrast to the input from the public comment process. The proposal further suggested 2 such events before the end of January 2006 and an extension of the current public comment period to the end of January 2006. <Finally, I offer the following proposal for fellow Councilors to consider regarding the gTLDS policy process: The Council should invite all constituencies to prepare their statements for contribution, BUT in ADDITION, and in parallel, other mechanism should be used to inform the policy development process. I describe a recommendation below that I've previously mentioned in less detail. 1) Given that we are losing about two weeks due to holiday, I propose that Council formally announce an extension in the initial comment process to extend it to the end of January. This would give more time to the Constituency statements, and also allow the following process to take place for more input into the policy development process. 2) I propose that Council direct the staff director, Olof Nordling, to manage a process on behalf of Council that would be structured consultation and input into the process. All of our constituencies and the broader community could undoubtedly benefit from the opportunity to hear from experts, rather than just gather opinions or make statements. Thus, I would suggest that the following guidelines be followed [or some modified version developed] 3) The Council should host two phone conferences with the following structure/format. a) Organizations, individuals, and interested parties should be invited to make presentations related to the questions that are contained in the ToR, and provide any other statements that they consider relevant. 20 minute slots would be reserved for anyone who submits a "white paper/PowerPoint" to the Staff Director. NOTE: This would NOT be a place for the Constituency Statements, since those will come into the process anyway, but offers a way to get unique contributions. For instance, outreach to the SSAC, to OECD, etc. might be useful to suggest that they may want to make a "presentation". b) the calls should be transcribed via a conference call transcription service and the transcripts would be posted c) all white papers or PowerPoint presentations would be made available and posted d) Do others think that there should also be 3 - 4 three minute slots at the end of each of the conference calls for "open mike" statements from those who don't bother to submit a white paper/PowerPoint? I would suggest that the presentations be limited to 15 minutes and a 5 minute clarification q and a be allowed. Given the time between here and Wellington, I would suggest that two calls be held, broken into two segments of 2 hours each. It is important to remember the constituencies and the ALAC will have their own consultation process to undertake as well, and thus, if we can do these calls in the early part of January, that would be most helpful. Again, I am proposing that we also recognize that the PDP time frames do not work, especially taking into account the holiday period and we formally extend the time frame now for the preparation of the initial submission of information to the Staff Manager. I also think that Council needs to be very realistic about the need to take extensive input; we may find that we need to have more than one round of input and discussion of the inputs to the questions, for instance. Finally, we need to discuss how best to establish a mechanism to have consultation with the other SOs, and with the GAC and SSAC. As I recall, that is part of our responsibility. We may want to schedule discussion sessions of 1-2 hours in Wellington, for instance. > There was general agreement among the Councillors for a call for papers with clearly formulated expectations, moderated conference calls with a web based forum, allowing people to identify, if they wished, to address their responses, an acknowledgement that all requests for presentation may not be possible to accommodate, but that all material would be posted on the website for the public, read by the Councillors and summarised by the staff who would produce a Staff Manager's report. The Council as whole would undertake the work and would benefit from all the input during the proposed face to face March meeting in Wellington. Ross Rader proposed that agreement on details should be referred to the planning committee. Proposed time line: 31 January 2006 - extension for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs - constituency statements due and conference call 1st week February - conference call The Initial report should be considered as an evolving draft until Wellington. Suzanne Sene remarked that it would be difficult to produce a document by a government organization even by the end of January 2006. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard proposed a procedural motion: Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process. Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process. Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following. Bruce Tonkin noted that each constituency should be thinking about what process the constituency should use to inform the constituency statements such as, teleconferences and different ways within the constituencies to get broad coverage. The constituencies were encouraged to try methods that they have not used in the past to make sure the statements were as broad and representative of all views as possible and focused on substantive and reasoned comments on the issue areas in the Terms of Reference on new gTLDs. .Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard proposed a procedural motion: The due date for constituency statements be extended until 31 January 2006. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Decision 3: The due date for constituency statements be extended until 31 January 2006. Action Item: Each constituency needs to identify a person to collect input to the policy development process on new gTLDs and notify the GNSO Secretariat accordingly. Item 4: Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) issues report Olof Nordling stated that Maria Farrell was the person identified to focus on developing the IDN Issues Report. Tina Dam reported that the version 2.0 of the IDN Guidelines approved in November 2005, were discussed in Vancouver and the working group would reconvene to consider the Vancouver input and whether there should be further revisions to the IDN Guidelines. In parallel, the Best Current Practice track for the IDN Guidelines would move forward and there would be opportunity for public input. The working group and the President's Advisory Committee would provide feedback and updates to the ICANN Board. The community had made enquiries about the functionality of the IANA registry. Based on the previous IDN committee consultations, a briefing paper had been developed for the President's Advisory Committee where positive changes had been recommended. Initial discussions have taken place amongst technical experts regarding IDNs at the top level and the relation to the Issues Report requested by the GNSO council in Vancouver. The plan is to move forward the experiment on IDNs at the top level, but a framework is needed around how it would happen and what issues should be solved. The experiment could possibly show whether d name or a records in the root, or neither would be a good technical solution. The evaluation of the report was as important as the initial framework and the result would feed back into the ccNSO, GNSO and the GAC policy processes. There was no current timeline for the Issues Report as it was to some extent dependent on the experiment. In the mean time, while waiting for the technical results, Tina suggested identifying initial issues and start work on process. Cary Karp commented that currently, before the policy development process started the suitability of candidate technologies for that purpose were being tested and referred to the recent Internet Architectural Board (IAB) report "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names". Bruce Tonkin, supported by most of the councillors, proposed that staff should be encouraged to start identifying and documenting policy questions and issues related to IDNs. Bruce Tonkin proposed further discussion on IDNs as an agenda item on the next council call, 17 January 2006, and suggested inviting the authors, John Klensin and Patrick Falstrom, of the "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names" to participate in the discussion. Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting The Secretariat read out the email from Diane Schroeder with the broad outline of the meeting schedule for Wellington New Zealand. 31 March, Friday Board Meeting 30 March, Thursday Public Forum (am) 29 March, Wednesday GNSO & CCNSO Council meetings & Public Forum (pm) 28 March, Tuesday Workshops, GAC, GNSO Public Forum - potential Board/GNSO Council dinner 27 March, Monday Constituency Day, CCNSO & GAC 26 March, Sunday GAC, GNSO Council Prep 25 March, Saturday GAC, GNSO Council Prep Item 6 Any other business a. Follow up on .com settlement GNSO resolution Bruce Tonkin commented that as GNSO Council chair he would formally send the resolution of 2 December 2005 to Dr. Vint Cerf, ICANN Board chair. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 20:40 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference 17 January 2006 at 19:00 UTC see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Draft minutes - revised - Vancouver meeting 28 Nov. 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 09 Jan '06

09 Jan '06

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find a further revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver on 28 November 2005. the end of the sentence: "situations as they arise." has been added to item 7: Consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force Please let me know if there are other changes to be made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 28 November 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C - remote participation Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes Antonio Harris - ISCPC - proxy to Tony Holmes (joined meeting after roll call) Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars (joined meeting after roll call) Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - remote participation Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.- remote participation Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - remote participation Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 17 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Diane Schroeder - General Manager, Conferences, Administration & Finance Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Michael Palage - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Quorum present at 9: 12 PST. Two MP3 recordings of the second part of the meeting (not very clear) http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council20051122.mp3 http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO2-20051122;MP3.mp3 Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference. Approval of Agenda Diane Schroeder addressed the meeting informing the Council of an important time modification to the schedule for the GNSO Public Forum and GNSO Council meeting on Friday 2 December 2005 in Vancouver. Marilyn Cade proposed ending the meeting early to prepare for the joint meeting with the ICANN Board in the afternoon. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed Philip Sheppard as chair for the election process. Motion carried unanimously Decision 1: Philip Sheppard chaired the GNSO Council meeting for the election process. Item 3: Election of GNSO Council chair - Bruce Tonkin has been nominated and seconded - term from 18 Nov 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 Jan 2006) Philip Sheppard proposed: Whereas Bruce Tonkin had been nominated by Ken Stubbs and seconded by Ross Rader as GNSO Council chair for the period from 18 November 2005 until one month after 2005 AGM (4 January 2006) Recommended that Bruce Tonkin be elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006). Philip Sheppard called for a formal roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. No vote was recorded for Tony Harris who joined the meeting late. Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin was elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 18 November 2005 until one month after the 2005 ICANN Annual General Meeting (4 January 2006). Philip Sheppard formally handed the chair to Bruce Tonkin. Item 4: Approval of minutes - GNSO Council teleconference - 13 October 2005 - GNSO Council teleconference - 20 October 2005 Maureen Cubberley moved the adoption of the minutes. The motion carried. Niklas Lagergren abstained Decision 3: The GNSO Council minutes of 13 October 2005 and 20 October 2005 were adopted. Item 5: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as .travel, .jobs. .mobi etc) - update on questions to structure the evaluation Olof Nordling commented that the document elaborated the need for further evaluation of recently introduced gTLDs and proposed an approach for this, focused to inform ongoing work on policy aspects regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. Discussions on an evaluation of the ongoing sTLD round were under way with the consultant that performed the main evaluation of the “proof-of-concept” round for ICANN. It was recommended that the GNSO Council stated that questions relating to selection criteria, allocation methods and contractual conditions were of particular relevance in this context. The document proposed a draft list of questions to this end. The report was designed to give the GNSO Council the information necessary to discuss and decide on ways to proceed with additional evaluation aspects of assigned new TLDs. Maureen Cubberley referred to page 8 of the report, 'consideration for additional review', and commented that there was a need for emphasis on the process of decision making that informed the evaluation. It was essential to look at the content of the recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sponsored round of gTLDs . Bruce Tonkin pointed out that the new gTLD process was under discussion, and that the evaluation was driven by a process several years ago. There were two issues, one, how to improve the process and the second, should new gTLDs be introduced. Marilyn Cade noted from the Business Constituency’s perspective, that clear guidance was given for the recent round of gTLDs to be sponsored. Sponsored was discussed in depth yet there appeared to be a limited match in the case of some of the applicants. Further guidance and criteria on ‘sponsored’was required. Maureen Cubberley commented that ambiguities in the RFP led to the issue. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the project manager (Miriam Sapiro) produce a ‘lessons learnt’ paper, a quick follow up of the report in terms of the outcome, which should not be wider but intended as input to a subsequent wider process and that an "independent external review" be carried out by someone different from the project manager. ACTION Council was encouraged to examine the list of questions and provide further questions to Miriam Sapiro. Further it was suggested that Miriam Sapiro do a presentation at the GNSO Public Forum on Friday 2 December 2005. Item 6: Policy Development Process for new gtlds - discuss issues report - decide whether to commence a PDP Bruce Tonkin referred to the ICANN Bylaws. Section 2. Creation of the Issue Report Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an "Issue Report"). Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following: Section 2. Creation of the Issue Report had been completed Section 2 e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council should initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Staff Recommendation"). Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the PDP is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue: The staff manager, Olof Nordling had recommended that a PDP be initiated. Bruce Tonkin proposed that at the current meeting the Council vote to commence a PDP. Marilyn Cade, seconded by Tom Keller proposed: Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work The vote was by show of hands. The motion carried unanimously. No abstentions Decision 4: Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work Item 7: WHOIS: Final task force 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 - vote on final recommendation as completed by the WHOIS task force on 19 Oct Bruce Tonkin noted that the "advice" as set forth was not consensus policy. Niklas Lagergren stated that the task force Final Report was supported unanimously by the WHOIS task force. Ross Rader, a member of the task force raised a procedural question that after the task force had already voted on the final report, it should be made precise that reference was to the gTLD WHOIS service and did not refer to the protocol, the RIR WHOIS service or the country code WHOIS service. Tom Keller seconded by Niklas Lagergren proposed that: The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD Whois service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure. Bruce Tonkin called for formal roll call vote. The motion carried. 26 Votes in support Abstention from Avri Doria: Reason: Does not believe goes far enough in protecting privacy Decision 5 The GNSO votes in favour of the following consensus policy recommendation from the WHOIS task force CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service, ICANN should: Develop and publicly document a procedure for dealing with the situation in which a registrar or registry can credibly demonstrate that it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from fully complying with applicable provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via the gTLD WHOIS service. Create goals for the procedure which include: Ensuring that ICANN staff is informed of a conflict at the earliest appropriate juncture; Resolving the conflict, if possible, in a manner conducive to ICANN's Mission, applicable Core Values and the stability and uniformity of the Whois system; Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via the gTLD WHOIS service; and Preserving sufficient flexibility for ICANN staff to respond to particular factual situations as they arise. The GNSO recommends the ICANN staff consider the advice given in the task force report as to a recommended procedure. Item 8: Policy development for IDNs - discuss background document - decide whether to formally request an issues report section 1 - Raising an Issue section 2 - Creation of the Issue Report Bruce Tonkin referred to the background document which listed the existing resolutions, workshops, and information on the President’s Advisory Committee, of which Cary Karp was a member, and suggested that the GNSO request the staff to produce an issues report on the policy issues using the document as a basis. Bruce added that there should be clarity for the community what the policy aspects for the GNSO were. Cary Karp commented that attention should not only be to constrain 2nd level of the DNS, the top level and the 3rd and 4th level of the DNS should also be considered. If control was invoked as a term of delegation the domain space could not be policed, which means that anything not permitted should be folded into the underlying possible standards. The first generation would be a normative framework that expected anything to be done but allowed policy constraint to guide. Cary further clarified that internationalization meant changing the system to make it useable in the polyglot world we live in while making it work with Cambodia, for example, is localization. An Arabic version of.com is a localization. The concern is the translated versions of the gtld labels. Discussion followed on the motion to be drafted. Due to the complexity of the topic and in order for constituency discussion, Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling the following motion to be voted on at the GNSO Council meeting on Friday 2 December 2005: Tabled motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space. WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to the issue of localised IDN equivalents of existing gTLDs and ccTLDs, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report. The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered. Bruce Tonkin proposed revisiting the process of the PDP on new gTLDs. and outlined the proposed work: January to June - PDP on New gTLDs - PDP on IDNs - WHOIS task force - considered to drain a lot of resources Bruce Tonkin noted that with respect to issues such as WHOIS that will likely need to evolve over several years, it may be more efficient to spend a limited time on the issue each year, rather than tie up GNSO community and staff resources for the whole year, e.g. each year concentrate 3 months on an issue and spend 2 days face to face, then leave it alone and pick it up again. There was general agreement on: - scheduling new gTLDs work program with significant face to face interaction time. - using new technologies, such as wikis and blogs to encourage community participation - setting up a group outside Council with expertise to support running a wiki on the new gTLD issues for the community beyond the council. - creating a structured mechanism to gather data Bruce Tonkin recommended that the Council as a whole deal with the new gTLD PDP using mailing lists, wiki, and a 2 day face to face meeting. Each new effort should take into account the GNSO Council review recommendations looking at what has gone before and what can be improved. The proposed IDN PDP would be managed by a task force of experts and the constituencies should work on identifying new people with particular skills. Agenda Item deferred: Item 8: WHOIS task force - progress on purpose and definitions of contacts Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 11: 45 PST. Next GNSO Council meeting in Vancouver, Friday 2 December 2005 at 10:30 PST see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Council report required for the Board on the recently approved WHOIS recommendation
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Jan '06

09 Jan '06

Hello Olof, > > As I read it, the judgment in what way Art 3.6.1 (apologies > for switching the numbers around in my previous mail) is > applicable to a proposal should be made before it is > submitted to the Board - not by the Board (otherwise there is > a procedural loop). Our assessment was that this proposal did > not "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or > third parties, including the imposition of any fees or > charges", meaning that the posting requirements etc in the > sub-paragraphs are not applicable. Agreed. > > There are no other requirements for postings prior to Board > treatment, really. As to the Board report, a 21 day posting > is not required as such and would potentially be in conflict > with Annex A, article 13: > "13. Board Vote > a. The Board will meet to discuss the GNSO Council > recommendation as soon as feasible after receipt of the Board > Report from the Staff Manager." I don't think that the two concepts are directly in conflict. I think release of a key document 21 days prior to the Board meeting has two benefits - provides time for the Board to properly read the document, and ensures that the Board meets its transparency requirements of ensuring that the community has amply time to see what issues are before the Board. I don't see it as a "requirement", but do see it as a reasonable objective from the point of view of best practice. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

FW: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Jan '06

09 Jan '06

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:01 PM Subject: Motion from GNSO Council regarding the proposed .com agreement To: Chair, ICANN Board From: Chair, GNSO Council Hello Vint, Please pass onto the Board the following motion passed by the GNSO Council in its meeting in Vancouver on Friday 2 Dec 2005. "Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern; Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation between ICANN and Verisign; Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement; Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO; The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 3

GNSO Council draft minutes Vancouver meeting 2 December 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 08 Jan '06

08 Jan '06

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council Vancouver meeting on 2 December 2005 below in plain text. Please let me know whether you would like me to make any changes. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen 2 December 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. -( proxy to Marilyn Cade) Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C - remote participation Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries June Soe - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - proxy to Ken Stubbs Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. Mawaki Chango - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Robin Gross Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - remote participation Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 18 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison Michael Palage - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 11: 15 PST. Real Time Captioning Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this meeting Item 1: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 - initiate formal call for nominations Bruce Tonkin noted that Council needed to elect a chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006. Action: GNSO Secretariat, following the meeting, initiated a call for nominations. Item 2: Terms of reference for new TLDs (staff recommendation from issues report) 1. Should new top level domain names be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable. 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains a. Using the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users. c. Examine whether distinctions between restricted, unrestricted, sponsored and unsponsored top level domains are necessary and how the choice of distinctions meets the interests of relevant stakeholders. d. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet. e. Examine whether additional criteria can be developed to normalize and simplify the administrative process of selecting and implementing new top level domains. 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds of top level domain name application processes, develop modified or new criteria which simplify and standardize the allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names. b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots and comparative evaluation processes to determine the most predictable and stable method of implementing additions to the Internet root. c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers. 4. Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop modified or new contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds. b. Examine whether additional contractual conditions are necessary to improve ICANN's contractual compliance regime to provide predictability and security of registry services. c. Examine whether a registry services code of conduct, in addition to contractual conditions, would improve a compliance regime which is easily understandable and recognizes differences in approaches to offering registry services whilst, at the same time, ensuring the stability and security of the Internet. Bruce Tonkin stated that at the GNSO Council meeting on 28 November 2005 in Vancouver the council had agreed to initiate policy in this area. "Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed. The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work" The terms of reference for new gTLDs would benefit from the input received in the GNSO public forum and the constituency meetings. Discussions and modifications focused on making the terms of reference enabling without too much detail which could impede exercising judgment during the process, taking into account the whole picture, trying to accelerate the process and being mindful of creating policy that would guide contracts. Ross Rader, seconded by Avri Doria and Marilyn Cade proposed the modified "Terms of Reference for New gTLDs" 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable. 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains a. Taking into account the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users. c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names. b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability. c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers. 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds. b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services. c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services. The motion was unanimously carried by show of hands. 27 votes in favour (Marilyn Cade voted Philip Sheppard's proxy in favour, Philip being temporarily absent). Decision: 1 "Terms of Reference for New gTLDs" 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable. 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains a. Taking into account the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users. c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names. b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability. c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers. 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds. b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services. c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services. Marilyn Cade, seconded by Ross Rader proposed a procedural motion: that the policy development process on the "Terms of Reference for new gTLDs" be managed by the GNSO Council as a committee of the whole according to the provision made in the ICANN bylaws, section 8, a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote and show of hands. Decision 2: That the policy development process on the "Terms of Reference for new gTLDs" be managed by the GNSO Council as a committee of the whole according to the provision made in the ICANN bylaws, section 8, a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report Ross Rader, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed a procedural motion: To request ICANN staff to assist the Council to arrange two full meeting days before the meeting in Wellington and before the meeting in Morocco on the policy development process on new gTLDs. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote and show of hands. Decision 3: To request ICANN staff to assist the Council to arrange two full meeting days before the meeting in Wellington and before the meeting in Morocco on the policy development process on new gTLDs. Marilyn Cade noted for the record that the council had acknowledged that there was a problem in the policy development process time line, documented in section 5 of the GNSO Council evaluation. and a pending work item which Council had not yet addressed. In view of this Council should acknowledge that an extended working time line was required, establish a realistic work expectation and advise the ICANN Board that the Council would be seeking an exception to the bylaws. It was clarified that the Council would be working as a task force in a policy development process and that the output of the days will be the development made on the working drafts as opposed to a full minuted GNSO Council session. Item 3: Issues report on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Proposed motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN is to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space. WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to the issue of localised IDN equivalents of existing gTLDs and ccTLDs, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered. Bruce Tonkin commented that the motion arose from discussions over the past few months where a strong desire was expressed by both country code managers and operators of generic top-level domains to be able to support and continue to support the internationalization of the domain name space. The Council, as the policy body, with the policy development process mechanism for making recommendations to the ICANN Board, considered it important to start identifying the policy issues as early as possible. Appropriate decisions as to the next steps can be made with the issues clearly identified in an issues report. One of the outcomes of the Internationalized Domain Name workshop on 30 November 2005 wasthe desire to have IDNs in the top level. International domain names were recognized as one of ICANN's goals and it was important to liaise and interact with the ccNSO to deal with the topic. Dialogue and interaction with all other fora, in particular with the President's Advisory Committee which was a point of interaction with those communities external to the ICANN process, was strongly encouraged. The complexity of the issue and the time lines set out in the ICANN bylaws were specifically acknowledged in order to avoid unrealistic timelines and expectations Lucy Nichols, seconded by Tom Keller proposed the following motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN is to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to internationalization of the domain name space, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report; WHEREAS the GNSO Council recognizes and wishes to inform and be informed by the technical efforts currently under way in other organizations which are represented on the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs; WHEREAS the GNSO Council acknowledges the timelines in the ICANN bylaws, and recognizes the recommendation from the GNSO Council review to revise those timelines, and given the complexity of this issue, the GNSO Council will develop an appropriate work plan that meets the needs of the ICANN community. The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO Council recommends that the staff engage appropriate expert resources to assist in the preparation of the Issues Report. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered. Council voted by show of hands. The motion carried with 25 votes in favour and 1 abstention which counted for 2 votes. . Ross Rader abstained from voting and commented that he supported the intent of the motion and the outcomes that would arise from it, but the reason for abstaining from the vote was a philosophical problem, he was uncomfortable with explicitly passing a motion that urged Council to ignore the bylaws. Decision 4: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN is to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to internationalization of the domain name space, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report; WHEREAS the GNSO Council recognizes and wishes to inform and be informed by the technical efforts currently under way in other organizations which are represented on the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs; WHEREAS the GNSO Council acknowledges the timelines in the ICANN bylaws, and recognizes the recommendation from the GNSO Council review to revise those timelines, and given the complexity of this issue, the GNSO Council will develop an appropriate work plan that meets the needs of the ICANN community. The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO Council recommends that the staff engage appropriate expert resources to assist in the preparation of the Issues Report. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered. Item 4: Vote of thanks for outgoing Council members Bruce Tonkin on behalf of the Council, thanked the following Council members who were leaving: Philip Colebrook Alick Wilson Niklas Lagergren for their work on the Council and called for a formal vote of thanks from the Council which would be mentioned in the GNSO Chair's presentation to the ICANN Board at the public forum. The motion carried unanimously Decision 5: Vote of thanks for outgoing Council members Philip Colebrook Alick Wilson Niklas Lagergren Item 5 Any Other Business: Philip Sheppard referred to a proposed compromise motion relating to the Verisign settlement posted to the Council list on December 2, 2005 from the Commercial and Business Users constituency for discussion by Council. Draft GNSO Council motion on the proposed Verisign settlement v2 Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern, Whereas the GNSO Council supports the principle of a settlement of litigation between ICANN and Verisign, Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement, Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO. The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes. All the council members were requested to make a full disclosure of their potential interests or involvement in any issues relating to the dot com agreement. Conflict of Interest Policy Section 4, Duty to Abstain, 4.1, states: 4.1 No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct financial interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote. 4.2 In the event of such an abstention, the abstaining Director shall state the reason for the abstention, which shall be noted in the minutes of the Board of Directors. Further clarification on a point of order was that there was quorum for the meeting, the GNSO Council was in session and that quorum related to the meeting, not to the topic. . Alick Wilson declared independency with no conflict of interest and held a proxy vote for Bruce Tonkin Bruce Tonkin, employed by Melbourne IT declared that Melbourne IT would be affected by the outcomes of the proposed dot com agreement and the company was a 10% share holder of the dot biz. registry operator. Tom Keller, working for a German registrar, would be affected by the dot com agreement, and the company was a shareholder in Afilias registry. Lucy Nichols, was not aware of any immediate conflict, but disclosed that Nokia Corporation where she worked was part of the joint venture for dot mobi. Cary Karp, representative of the gTLD registry constituency, declared a conflict of interest. Ken Stubbs, representative of the gTLD registry constituency, declared he was a director of Afilias. Ken Stubbs disclosed that June Seo, a representative from the gTLD registry constituency, was an employee of Verisign. Ross Rader works for Tucows, a shareholder of Afilias Corporation, a registry and reserved the right to put other conflict of interests, should there be any, on the table at any time. Bret Fausett, a nonvoting liaison, representing the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) disclosed that his family trust owned a de minimus amount of stock in Tucows, Neustar and Verisign. Council members who had no conflict of interests holding proxy votes: Alick Wilson, and Avri Doria, held proxies for Bruce Tonkin Norbert Klein held proxy for Tom Keller, Niklas Lagergren held proxies for Ross Rader and Lucy Nichols Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, and Maureen Cubberley had no conflict in the issue. Bruce Tonkin clarified that the decision was up to individual councillors, after they had declared their conflict of interest, whether they felt that they could discuss the topic, with the advice that any councillor who wished not to participate could pass a proxy to an appropriate person. Bruce Tonkin handed over the chair of the actual discussion to Philip Sheppard. Philip Sheppard, in the chair, accepted the proposed friendly amendment and Cary Karp moved to call the question. The motion was put to a role call vote. The motion carried: 21 votes in favour, 2 against that count for 4 votes, one abstention that counts for 2 votes. Decision 6: Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern; Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation between ICANN and Verisign; Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement; Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO; The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes. Philip Sheppard, thanked the transcribers, and passed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 1: 20 PST. Next GNSO Council teleconference, Wednesday 21 December 2005 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0