October 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Domain Name Marketplace Workshop -- Council and constituency members' participation strongly encouraged
by Denise Michel March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Your participation in the Domain Name Marketplace Workshop, scheduled for 9:30-12:30 on 27 June in the Salle des Ministres, is strongly encouraged. The workshop will enable ICANN stakeholders to share information about changes and trends in the domain name market. Specifically, it was organized to: provide additional information on the numerous ways value is derived from domain names and how the domain name marketplace has changed in recent years; answer questions about the appropriateness of some of these activities; and help ensure that policy decisions and potential contractual amendments are made with an understanding of the broader impact that such changes may have on market activities. The proposed agenda is posted at <http://icann.org/meetings/marrakech/dn-workshop-27jun06.htm>. Audience members will have opportunities to raise issues, ask questions, and interact with the panel. If you are unable to participate, please share your comments and questions regarding topics covered in the workshop via email to <dn-market-comments(a)icann.org>. Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN denise.michel(a)icann.org

2 3

Strategic Planning Consultation Week of 2 Nov
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 31, 2006

Oct. 31, 2006

See below - please provide any feedback to Kurt regarding proposed teleconference for strategic planning : From: Kurt Pritz Dear All: As part of its strategic planning process ICANN recently posted an issues paper describing areas of concern and focus voiced by the ICANN community (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-13sep06.htm) The issues paper was developed through consultations at the ICANN meeting in Marrakech and through other forums. Based upon those consultations and feedback received since that time, ICANN plans to write a draft Strategic Plan for presentation at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Sao Paulo. In order to accomplish that, a draft Strategic Plan, based on the issues paper and the input described above will be released in the next week. In order to obtain meaningful feedback on the draft plan, ICANN plans to hold consultations about the draft plan by teleconference in the near future. The consultations will be public; effort will be made to take comments in selected languages if requests for that are made. Multiple consultations will be held to accommodate schedules and time zones. We plan that the consultation will occur the week of 2 November (although the consultation can take place the following week). With your permission, we will take the liberty of establishing times for the call after receiving some guidance from you on how participation can best be solicited from the supporting organisation or advisory committee that you are associated with (i.e., through an existing mailing list, through an announcement from you, or some other means). Please contact me directly with potential timing and also with suggestions you may have about meeting format. Thanks in advance with you efforts concerning this. Sincerely, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey, California USA

1 0

2007 ICANN Nominating Committee request
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 30, 2006

Oct. 30, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: Donna Austin Sent: Friday, 27 October 2006 3:40 PM Subject: 2007 ICANN Nominating Committee Dear All It is still intended to hold the first face to face meeting of the 2007 Nominating Committee on 8 and 9 December 2006, in Sao Paulo. Could you please provide me with an update of any appointments to the NomCom by your organizations as soon as possible so travel arrangements can be made to ensure a useful attendance of the first meeting in Sao Paulo. Thanks Donna Donna Austin Coordinator Nominating Committee

1 0

Photographs from New Zealand
by Ross Rader Oct. 28, 2006

Oct. 28, 2006

I have finally managed to put my photo's from New Zealand online. You can find them in slideshow format here: http://www.byte.org/blog/_archives/2006/10/28/2455474.html Enjoy, -ross

1 0

Visas for Brazil
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 28, 2006

Oct. 28, 2006

Dear Council members, There have been several requests from Council members about visas for Brazil and the help that ICANN could give in this respect. GNSO Council members from the following countries will need visas for the ICANN meetings in Sao Paulo - Australia, Canada, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Togo, Mexico and the United States. Council members from Argentina, France, Germany, Sweden, South Korea, Italy, Israel, Great Britain / UK, and New Zealand may enter the country for up to 90 days without a visa. On behalf of our meeting host in Sao Paulo, Hartmut Glaser has offered to help facilitate the visas for the GNSO Council. He will be notifying the various consulates of the people attending the ICANN meeting who will be coming to them for visas. We hope this will make the process easier. We need to provide him with the following information for each council member requiring a visa so that He can send the data to the Brazilian Consulate before you submit your visa application. The required information is: Complete Name, Nationality and Country/Passport Number. If you could please provide this information to: Tanzanica King <tanzanica.king[at]icann.org> Communications and Operations Specialist +1 310 823 9358 (main) +1 310 301 5804 (direct) this will expedite the process. Please copy me, <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> We will in turn be providing you with an invitation letter from ICANN and a separate invitation letter from the local hosts. You should check the local consulate's requirements before submitting your visa application. For instance in the United States, they require a completed visa application form, filled out, dated and signed by the applicant; a passport valid for a minimum of (6) six months from the date of intended arrival in Brazil, with at least one blank page available; one recent 2"x2" passport-photo, front view, white background and a copy of a round trip ticket or booked itinerary showing travel to/from Brazil, confirming purchase of the ticket and passenger's name, itinerary, flight no. and arrival/departure date. Additionally, in Los Angeles, either the passport holder or a passport service must submit the visa request. For example, a staff member cannot take the visa forms to the Consulate for the staff - a service must be used. It can also take up to 10 working days to obtain the visa. The information on our hosts' site can be found at http://www.icannsaopaulo.br/info-vistos.htm. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Verisign IDN TLDs
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 26, 2006

Oct. 26, 2006

I am not sure whether I can post to the Council list or not so I am including Bret and Marilyn because they specifically sent me messages on this issue and give them permission to forward this on if it does not go to the full Council list. Also, let me apologize for the delay of my response. As you have possibly already learned: VeriSign is not operating an internationalized top level domain name (TLD)registry or registrar. The service offered by the Digital Brand Management Service (DBMS) business unit of VeriSign, Chinese internationalized TLD domain name registrations, is offered by CNNIC, the registry operator for the .cn TLD. VeriSign’s DBMS business unit is offering such registrations as a provider of brand and identity management services across the globe. Chuck Gomes VeriSign Information Services ________________________________ From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:00 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Gomes, Chuck Subject: Verisign IDN TLDs Council Members (with a copy to Chuck Gomes), I note, via the GA list and the ALAC mailing list, that Verisign has launched what appear to be new TLDs in an alternate root, or some resolution equivalent. The Verisign web site contains the following announcement: VeriSign Now Offering Chinese Character Extensions VeriSign Digital Brand Management Services is now offering the following Chinese character extensions: * .中国 (.china) * .公司 (.company) * .网络 (.network) Domain names cannot exceed 20 characters (each constituting element is considered as one character). For further details, please contact your VeriSign Digital Brand Management Services Account Team or Enterprise Customer Support. http://www.verisign.com/Resources/Digital_Brand_Management_Services_Resourc… Given the fact that we are currently working on a process for new TLDs, including new IDN TLDs, this is curious timing. I wonder if we could request a briefing, first in writing and then at the next council call, from Verisign about what it is doing technically with these new “TLDs.” The At Large has raised this as an issue to be addressed within the ALAC, and I expect that Council will want to look at it as well. -- Bret

2 1

Fwd: [alac] VeriSign offering Chinese IDN-TLDs?
by Bret Fausett Oct. 26, 2006

Oct. 26, 2006

An explanation from Verisign's Pat Kane on the Chinese TLD issue. The company is reselling CNNIC offerings, not operating as a registry. I withdraw my request that this be placed on the agenda for an upcoming council meeting. Bret P.S. An ALAC thread on this issue can be read here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/thrd41.html#02399 Begin forwarded message: > ----- Forwarded message from "Kane, Pat" <pkane(a)verisign.com> ----- > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:50:51 -0400 > From: "Kane, Pat" <pkane(a)verisign.com> > Reply-To: "Kane, Pat" <pkane(a)verisign.com> > Subject: RE: [idn-pac] VeriSign Now Offering Chinese Character > Extensions > To: hongxue(a)hkucc.hku.hk, Tina Dam <tina.dam(a)icann.org> > > Dear Hong, > > These naming extensions are actually CNNIC naming products. > > Digital Brand Management Services (DBMS) is making these available to > it's brand security customers as it does with many domain and keyword > naming products. DBMS is a business unit of VeriSign that offers a > proven portfolio of digital brand security services, including domain > name management, global brand expansion services and digital brand > monitoring solutions. > > These extensions themselves are not VeriSign offerings. > > Regards, > > Pat > > Patrick Kane > Director of Business Operations and Policy > VeriSign Naming Services > pkane(a)verisign.com > +1.703.948.3349 > > >

1 0

ICANN News Alert service
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 25, 2006

Oct. 25, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/communications/news_alerts.html ICANN has today launched an ICANN News Alert service. You can subscribe through the following link http://www.icann.org/communications/news_alerts.html Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Revised .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG Registry Agreements Posted for Public Comment
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 25, 2006

Oct. 25, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org;] [To: announce[at]gnso.icann.org;regional-liaisons(a)icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Revised .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG Registry Agreements Posted for Public Comment 24 October 2006 On 18 October 2006, ICANN's Board adopted the following resolution concerning the proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements that had been posted for public comment on 28 July 2006: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm Resolved (06.__), after having considered the public comments and the responses from the registries, the President and the General Counsel are hereby requested to renegotiate the proposed agreements relating to: competition-related concerns (in particular price increase restrictions); traffic data and review mechanisms resulting from the introduction of new studies or additional information. Below are links to the revised proposed registry agreements. The "clean" version shows the proposed new language, and the "redlined" version is marked to show the specific revisions from the version first posted on the ICANN website on 27 June 2006. The key changes to the document include a new restriction on the use of "traffic data" in the context of the operation of .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG as "thick" registries (meaning they publish additional registrant- supplied contact details in their public WHOIS services), and the acceptance of a 10% cap on price increases along the lines of the .NET and proposed .COM registry agreements. ICANN invites comments on these proposed revised agreements through 9 November 2006. ICANN's Board is scheduled to consider the proposed revisions and any public comments at its meeting on 14 November 2006. .BIZ Revised Proposed Registry Agreement (clean) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/revised-biz-clean-20061024.pdf Revised Proposed Registry Agreement (redline) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/revised-biz-redline-20061024.pdf .INFO Revised Proposed Registry Agreement (clean) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/revised-info-clean-20061024.pdf Revised Proposed Registry Agreement (redline) .ORG Revised Proposed Registry Agreement (clean) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/revised-info-redline-20061024.pdf Revised Proposed Registry Agreement (redline) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/org/revised-org-redline-20061024.pdf Comments can be posted to: revised-biz-info-org-agreements(a)icann.org Comments can be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised-biz-info-org-agreements -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

PDP-Feb06 Terms of Reference and the "Picket Fence"
by Daniel Halloran Oct. 23, 2006

Oct. 23, 2006

Bruce, This note is with respect to the resolution from the GNSO Council on 28 September 2006: "The GNSO Council resolves: a) To instruct the PDPFeb06 task force to continue its work, to appoint an interim chair b) To instruct staff to propose a work schedule in agreement with the interim chair and Task Force this week and carry it out c) To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to list all ICANN agreements sections on consensus policy d) To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to compare and contrast the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so –called "picket fence" consensus policy areas and provide a without prejudice assessment of likelihood of in or out of scope indicating uncertainty as necessary. [1] List all ICANN agreements sections on consensus policy General Counsel's office has sent tables to the PDP-Feb06 Task Force on October 4 and October 9 providing an overview and a comprehensive listing of all the relevant agreement provisions. The complete set of contractual provisions is included in a document currently posted on the GNSO Drafts and Working Documents" page at <http:// gnso.icann.org/drafts/>. The General Counsel's office would appreciate any feedback Council members could offer to make those documents more useful for you. [2] Compare and contrast the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so- called "picket fence" consensus policy areas and provide a without prejudice assessment of likelihood of in or out of scope indicating uncertainty as necessary The Council's second request turns out to be much more complex -- in effect the Council has asked for legal opinions on hundreds of complex questions: the terms of reference for PDP-Feb06 include eleven (11) separate questions (e.g. whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry fees to ICANN, etc.), and some versions of the "picket fence" of policy topics for which a Registry Operator has an ongoing contractual obligation to comply with New or Revised ICANN Specifications and Policies include ten (10) or more different categories of topics. The "compare and contrast" exercise the Council requested requires first speculating what sort of recommendation might come out of the PDP on each of the eleven questions, and then hypothesizing whether or not such a recommendation might fall under one or more of the ten or so categories of topics for consensus policies. This task is further complicated by the fact that there is no one formulation of "the" picket fence, but instead the topics for consensus policies vary from contract to contract. Some contracts (.AERO, .COOP, .MUSEUM, .NET, and the proposed new contracts for .BIZ, .COM, .INFO and .ORG) also include not just a list of subjects that are agreed to be within the "picket fence" set of topics for policies but also a list of topics that are expressly agreed to be outside the "picket fence" of topics for policies. Recent agreements have identified five main policy areas where a Registry Operator has a contractual obligation to comply with new or revised policies: (1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet or DNS; (2) functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services; (3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names). This compares with the six main topics of PDP-Feb06: 1. Registry Agreement Renewal 2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies 3. Policy for price controls for registry services 4. ICANN fees 5. Uses of registry data 6. Investments in development and infrastructure The majority of the topics above seem to relate to the framework of the registry agreement itself, rather than to the set of five topics areas where a Registry Operator must comply with new or revised policies after the signing of the agreement. The topics above would appear to be most relevant in the development of a new framework registry agreement for future negotiations. The Council's resolution indicated that these requested legal opinions could be offered by the ICANN General Counsel's office "without prejudice," but in reality there is no such thing as a "policy-development privilege" ... any statements that ICANN's lawyers make on a public mailing list about the interpretation of ICANN's contracts or the applicability of ICANN's policies could be admissible if relevant in any current or future litigation involving ICANN. The initial Issues Report for PDP-Feb06 <http:// gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/issues-report-02feb06.pdf> included the General Counsel's opinion that the focus of the PDP as initially framed by the Council was not "properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO." The Council subsequently restated its intended focus in its adopted terms of reference <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/tor- pdp-28feb06.html>, but it remains difficult to speculate whether or not particular hypothetical recommendations that could be made by the task force would be within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the "picket fence" of topics for policies in ICANN's agreements. In light of the variations in the Registry Agreements and the lack of a specific policy recommendation to the ICANN Board, the General Counsel's office cannot provide any more specific information at this time. I hope the above information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of any other assistance. Best regards, Daniel Halloran Deputy General Counsel ICANN

2 2