October 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Regarding GNSO IDN working group
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 23, 2006

Oct. 23, 2006

Hello Mawaki, The archives of the working group are available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/ The initial intent was to review the issues report and identify how to proceed. Part of the issue was how to separate or combine the work that might be done by the GNSO versus the ccNSO. Two teleconferences were held (in different timezones). The summary of the discussions is available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00008.html Recordings of those teleconferences can be accessed in the usual place: http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/ There was a physical meeting of the working group in Marrakech. A summary of that meeting is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00012.html Part of this discussion focussed on whether there was support for the development of a table of IDN-ccTLDs, and treat all other IDNs as new gTLDs. The physical meeting formed the basis for a presentation at the IDN workshop the following day: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00009.html, which basically outlined how a policy development process might work. The work shifted to looking a proposed terms of reference for a PDP on IDNs - this work moved to the Council. This was on the assumption that a separate PDP would be formed and the Council needed to approve initiating the PDP based on an agreed terms of reference. If a PDP was initiated it would be expected that the working group would then form the basis for a PDP task force, and operate under the processes set down in the ICANN bylaws. There was further discussion of IDNs during the new gTLD meeting in Amsterdam and it was agreed that as much as possible IDNs should be treated in a similar way to the work on new gTLDs. The exception is around allowable strings. During the last Council meeting, it was decided that the additional policy work required for IDN-gTLDs beyond that already covered by the new gTLD work, was not yet sufficiently defined. Thus the GNSO IDN working group would be reformed to consider more recent work (e.g recent IETF papers, outcomes of the technical tests etc), and whether additional work should be done via a PDP (ie there are significant policy issues), or done via expert working groups. You are most welcome to join this working group if you wish to follow that work. Note I understand that the ccNSO is ramping up its work on this topic, and the chair of the ccNSO requested a meeting with the GNSO in Brazil (not sure where that will fit in the schedule yet). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] IDN Laboratory Testing Progress
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 22, 2006

Oct. 22, 2006

See http://www.root-servers.org/ for a list of root server operators. As Avri points out, Autonomica are involved in the operation of the I root server. Johan Ihrén from Autonomica is a member of ICANN's SSAC. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] IDN Laboratory Testing Progress
by Mawaki Chango Oct. 20, 2006

Oct. 20, 2006

Come on Avri, then you're being (or would be) impressed by a phantom: there is no such thing as an IDN TF (in fact it wa ssupposed to be a WG) at the council level; it has never produced any work, neither has it been asked any contribution to the slightest IDN issue. The council (gTLD committee or IDN "WG" if you will) was supposed by the agenda to discuss IDN in amsterdam, and not only be reported to by ICANN staff, but nobody seemed to have noticed and much less been bothered by the fact that we didn't. I'm guessing council members who have anything relevant to say about this could just refer to the various public fora that are being opened out there, while the ICANN policy body is dead silent on so many policy issues raised by IDN, except the famous TORs. Even then, these are only discussed as an appendix to the new gTLD PDP, and are being iterated by the staff (hey, Olof!) without serious, thorough discussion of IDN issues in their own right by any GNSO Council group. Oh, in case anyone is wondering, I have no personal agenda, hidden or open, on IDN; I just take it as a test for our workings and working methods when it comes to openness, transparency and diversity -- and just watching. Keep all well, Mawaki ----- Original Message ---- From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:42:34 AM Subject: Re: [council] IDN Laboratory Testing Progress On 20 okt 2006, at 09.49, GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG wrote: > ICANN is very pleased to be able to announce the engagement of > Autonomica AB Does anyone know if there is any information on this group. Their web page <http://www.autonomica.se/> was somewhat short of details. Also, how was the selection made? I suppose I should just be impressed that the IDN TF got this far this fast. a.

1 0

IDN Laboratory Testing Progress
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 20, 2006

Oct. 20, 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/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm IDN Laboratory Testing Progress 19 October 2006 ICANN continues to make progress toward laboratory testing for strings corresponding to internationalized top level labels (IDNs). The purpose of the laboratory tests were described during the ICANN meeting in Morocco held earlier this year ICANN and they are being designed and conducted under the guidance of the ICANN Presidents Advisory Committee for IDNs. ICANN is very pleased to be able to announce the engagement of Autonomica AB to develop, conduct and report the results of the laboratory test. The test will include insertion of a Punycode string into the "root" as replicated in a laboratory environment. The purpose of these tests is to clarify and document any issues that may arise, if any, when inserting puny-code strings representing top level domains into the root zone. Among ICANN's core values is the technical security and stability of the DNS. Therefore, laboratory technical tests of the viability of internationalized top level levels and the effect they may have on the DNS is being done before insertion of such labels in the root servers. After the performance of the laboratory test and after appropriate consultation with interested entities, a live root test will be initiated. The live root test process and making participation publicly available is being discussed by the President's Advisory Committee for IDNs. The committee will publish a recommendation in this regard as soon as it is finalized. It is important to note that participation in these tests are not mandatory nor will participation create a favouable position when IDN TLDs are designated. As soon as the test design and framework has been developed by Autonomica, it will be made available online at http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/. ICANN welcomes replications of the test and will post any results online for public review and for comparison opportunities. The agreement between ICANN and Autonomica plans to complete the laboratory test and report the results by the ICANN meeting in Sao Paolo. After that reporting a determination will be made in a collaborative manner as to whether it is considered technically appropriate to initiate a test of punycode string directly in the root zone. The criteria and list of the strings that will be used for the testing purposes is being worked on by a sub-group of the Presidents Advisory Committee for IDNs and the paper describing this initiative will be published shortly. For more IDN relevant information and announcements please see http://www.icann.org/topics/idn. About Autonomica AB: Based in Stockholm, Sweden, Autonomica provides technical support in the fields of the Domain Name System, Electronic Mail, and Internet Exchange Point Technologies. The firm's staff often provide advice to and works with the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

FW: WHOIS task force update for GNSO Council meeting on 19 Oct
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 20, 2006

Oct. 20, 2006

________________________________ From: Jordyn Buchanan Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 12:58 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: Re: WHOIS task force update for GNSO Council meeting on 19 Oct Hi Bruce: Here's a quick update: - We've been continuing to work using the "OPOC proposal" as a template; working through a number of issues that were identified around the Marrakech meeting - Recently, the IPC proposed a second, alternative approach which we're calling the "special circumstances proposal". We're currently trying to provide this proposal with the same level of consideration as we gave the OPOC proposal. - However, we're also trying to wrap up the work of the Task Force. The goal is to have a draft preliminary report for discussion within the TF by the end of October, and to have it published for public comment by mid-November. - I expect that the preliminary report will address all of our remaining terms of reference items, so I would hope that after the public comment period we will put together a final report for the Council, at which point I expect the work of the Task Force to be complete. Jordyn

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 19 October 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 19, 2006

Oct. 19, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on October 19, 2006 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20061019.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Google Alert - Internationalized Domain Names
by Sophia B Oct. 19, 2006

Oct. 19, 2006

Per Cary's mention, Sophia Microsoft plays catchup with IE7 Computer Business Review - UK ... While IE7 is currently only available in English, the browser does support internationalized domain names -- web addresses registered in non-ASCII characters ... < http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=F1861DAE-FEE0-4C4D-9D53-265B… >

1 0

Status Update from PDP Feb06 Interim Chair
by Avri Doria Oct. 19, 2006

Oct. 19, 2006

As the members of the GNSO council have been informed in the past, due to various exigencies, the PDF Feb 06 Task force fell behind in meeting its scheduled deliveries. However, because of the GSNO council's request to the Board that the Board delay the pending contract renewal decisions until their first meeting after the Sao Paolo meeting and because of the importance of providing GNSO input by the time of the Sao Paolo meeting the TF decided to implement an accelerated schedule. The accelerated work plan was first discussed and approved by the task force members, without dissent, on 13 September and was confirmed and implemented on 29 September. The primary question that arose concerning the accelerated work plan during the discussion concerned the David Maher's (Registry constituency) question of whether the work of the Task Force vis a vis contract terms was at all appropriate and should not be terminated as opposed to being accelerated. The GSNO council, at its meeting of 28 September, confirmed to the Task Force that it should continue the work and should attempt to complete it as quickly as possible. This acceleration plan involved creating two Rapporteur Groups, each of which is responsible for completing the initial work on three (3) of the TOR items. Specifically: -- Rapporteur Group A lead by Marilyn Cade: TOR 1 (Registry Agreement Renewal); TOR 2 (Registry Agreements and Consensus Policy) & TOR 5 (Registry Data) -- Rapporteur Group B lead by Jonathan Nevett: Report on progress with TOR 3 (Price controls); TOR 4 (ICANN fees) & TOR 6 (Infrastructure and development) Each of the Rapporteur groups recruited participants from all of the constituencies as well as nomcom appointees. Participation in the Rapporteur Groups was not restricted to Task Force or council members in an attempt to share the work among a greater number of participants. An invitation for participation was also extended to both the GAC and ALAC based on their liaison relationship to the GNSO council. All of the Rapporteur group meetings are open. Once the Rapporteur groups complete their October work, the plan calls for Task Force to consider and deliberate the proposed recommendations and to determine the degree of support within the Task Force for each of the proposed recommendations. Once this is completed the Task force report will be sent to the GNSO council for consideration. Based on this parallel working method, the following schedule was drafted and published: 13 October -- RG A meeting 13 October -- RG B meeting 17 October -- RG A meeting 18 October -- TF meeting -- mid way review 19 October -- RG B meeting 24 October -- RG A meeting 27 October -- RGs send in finalised & collated text/recommendations 2 November -- TF meeting to discuss draft recommendations 7 November -- Release draft Task Force Report to TF members 14 November -- TF meeting to agree Task Force Report to send to GNSO Council 21 November -- Proposed GNSO Council call to discuss Task Force Report and agree next steps which would include a 20 day public comment period. After public comment period is completed, produce Final Report. Note that this schedule does take the work of the PDP beyond the Sao Paolo meeting, but does make the Task Force Initial report available to the community and the Board during the Sao Paolo meeting. It should also be noted, that this 'accelerated' process, while ignoring the months already spent on the PDP Feb 06 discussions, attempts to meet the schedule for a PDP that is laid out in the by-laws. --- On October 18, the TF held a meeting and did the midway status review of the Rapporteur groups as indicated in the schedule. Each of the rapporteur groups reported that they were using a similar methodology in that they were creating a working document that contained draft recommendations based on discussion of the expert materials, constituency reports and other input. These recommendations will be subjected to a straw ballot within the Rapporteur Groups before being passed on to the full Task Force for deliberation. Each of the Rapporteur groups reported that they were well under way with formulation for recommendations for 2 out 3 of the TOR items being discussed in the respective groups, with the third under discussion. Both groups reported that they were on schedule and would be able to meet the target delivery date of 27 October. There were several concerns that were brought up during the discussion on the status of the plan and the schedule: 1. The paper requested by the council on 28 September which would '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.' has not yet been delivered. While not quite a gating factor for the work of Rapporteur Group A or B, this report is considered critical to the RG A's ability to make a fully informed recommendation on TOR 2 relating to Registry Agreements and Consensus Policy. A request was to be relayed to Dan Halloran, who was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments, to schedule a meeting to discuss the report as soon as possible. While this meeting would not be an official Task Force meeting, all Task Force members, as well as Rapporteur Group members and Council members would be invited to take part in this discussion. 2. Ken Stubbs of the Registry constituency reported that the schedule was overly tight and that there was concern that there would not be adequate opportunity for a full and complete deliberation of the Rapporteur Group recommendations if the Task Force was to meet the 2 week deliberation schedule and complete delivery of the report to the GSNO council by 14 November. The general response to this concern was that all attempts would be made to schedule as much time for deliberation as possible before taking a measure of support on the recommendations and attempting to complete the Task force report. It was recommended that participants from all constituencies participate as fully as possible in the Rapporteur group process in preparation of the recommendations coming before the Task Force as a whole. 3. Milton Mueller of the Non commercial consituency reported that the intensity of the October schedule made it difficult for participants to fully participate in the process. He also asked whether it was possible that some of the issues might be too complicated to resolve on this timetable, for example the relation between fees and ICANN budget, and asked whether any thought could be given to separating some issues off into a separate policy process. The response was that the group should try to complete the discussions on all issues according to the proposed schedule. If during the deliberations it became necessary to separate an issue for further consideration and the possibility of another PDP process, then that action could be taken at that time. 4. Marilyn Cade of the Business Constituency mentioned a concern that not all of the expert opinion had been sufficiently discussed by the Task Force as a whole. She offered the example of the expert opinion on price caps. The response was that the Rapporteur Groups should discuss the specific expert opinion related to their assigned work items and that they should present any of the expert opinion that went into their recommendations to the Task Force as a whole when the deliberation period commenced. It is also recommended that all Task Force members read the expert opinion documentation in anticipation of the Task force discussions. ---- Concluding note: due to the proximity of the Task Force status meeting to the GNSO Council meeting - less then 24 hours and before the release of minutes, this status report has not been reviewed by any of the Task Force or Rapporteur Group members. Additionally, it does not attempt to serve the purpose of minutes of the PDP Feb 06 status meeting of 18 October, but rather tries to bring out the most relevant considerations. All errors and omissions are, therefore, my own. a. Acting as Interim Chair of PDP Feb06

2 1

Economic Study of Proposed Registry Agreements
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 19, 2006

Oct. 19, 2006

>From the ICANN Board meeting on 18 Oct: http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-18oct06.htm Economic Study of Proposed Registry Agreements Whereas, proposed new registry agreements between ICANN the operators of the .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG registries have been posted for public comment and presented to the Board. Whereas, the proposed new agreements were the subject of a substantial number of comments, especially concerning competition-related issues such as differential pricing. Whereas, ICANN's Core Values include: * Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. * Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment. * Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest. Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the proposed new agreement, and the public comments and the registry responses, and finds that approval of the proposed new agreements would be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet community, provided that ICANN and the registry operators are able to agree to appropriate revisions to the proposed agreements to address competition-related issues such as differential pricing. Whereas, the GNSO is currently conducting a policy-development process that includes study of some of these issues, but ICANN has pressing operational questions relating to its bilateral contracts with registry operators that need to be resolved, separate from any generally applicable new policies on this subject that might be recommended through the GNSO process. Whereas, the domain registration market is very complex and producing reliable analysis and findings will require high-levels of economic expertise. Resolved (06.___), the President is directed to commission an independent study by a reputable economic consulting firm or organization to deliver findings on economic questions relating to the domain registration market, such as: * whether the domain registration market is one market or whether each TLD functions as a separate market, * whether registrations in different TLDs are substitutable, * what are the effects on consumer and pricing behavior of the switching costs involved in moving from one TLD to another, * what is the effect of the market structure and pricing on new TLD entrants, and * whether there are other markets with similar issues, and if so how are these issues addressed and by who? 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.

1 0

Adopted Resolutions from ICANN Board Meeting
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 19, 2006

Oct. 19, 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/minutes/resolutions-18oct06.htm Adopted Resolutions from ICANN Board Meeting 18 October 2006 Corporate Officer Signing Authorities Whereas, the organization has grown, and the resulting demands on the President & Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have increased and made it less practical for the President & CEO to handle day-to-day demands of business operations whilst performing the broader external functions facing ICANN. Whereas, the annual budget and resulting expenditures have increased in amount and frequency over time. Whereas, increasing the signing authorization levels would improve the efficiency of handling day-to-day business operations. Whereas, the Chief Financial Officer in consultation with the Board Audit and Finance Committees, has prepared a proposed statement of “Financial Control Procedures: Corporate Officer Signing Authorities” dated 17 October 2006. Whereas, the Audit and Finance Committees have reviewed the proposed statement of “Financial Control Procedures: Corporate Officer Signing Authorities” and determined that the provisions are reasonable in relation to other similar not-for-profit organizations based on size of the organization and total annual revenues, and provide appropriate financial control while regulating the related risk. The Audit and Finance Committees have determined the proposed procedures would be beneficial to the organization and recommend that the provisions set forth in the statement be adopted by the full Board of Directors. Resolved (06.__) that the statement of “Financial Control Procedures: Corporate Officer Signing Authorities” dated 17 October 2006 is hereby adopted. Payment of Legal Expenses Whereas, ICANN has had significant needs for legal services during the month of July 2006 and August 2006, including general legal advice and several pending lawsuits involving ICANN. Whereas, Jones Day have provided extensive legal services to meet these needs. Whereas, ICANN has received invoices from Jones Day totaling US$116,762.52 in connection with legal services provided to ICANN during July and August 2006. Whereas, the General Counsel and the Chief Financial Officer have reviewed the invoices and determined that they are proper and should be paid. Resolved (06.__), the President is authorized to make payments to Jones Day in the amount of US$116,762.52 for legal services provided to ICANN during July and August 2006. sTLD Agreement with .ASIA (DotAsia Organisation Limited) Whereas, on 4 December 5, 2005, the board authorized the President and General Counsel to enter into negotiations relating to proposed commercial and technical terms for the .ASIA sponsored top-level domain (sTLD) with the applicant, DotAsia Organisation Limited, Whereas, on 18 July, 2006, ICANN announced that negotiations with the applicant for the .ASIA sponsored top-level domain had been successfully completed, and posted the proposed .ASIA sponsored TLD registry agreement on the ICANN website, Whereas, the Board has determined that approval of the agreement, and delegation of a .ASIA sponsored top-level domain to DotAsia Organisation Limited would be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet community, Resolved (06.___), the proposed agreement with DotAsia Organisation Limited concerning the .ASIA sTLD is approved, and the President is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement. Economic Study of Proposed Registry Agreements Whereas, proposed new registry agreements between ICANN the operators of the .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG registries have been posted for public comment and presented to the Board. Whereas, the proposed new agreements were the subject of a substantial number of comments, especially concerning competition-related issues such as differential pricing. Whereas, ICANN's Core Values include: Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest. Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the proposed new agreement, and the public comments and the registry responses, and finds that approval of the proposed new agreements would be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet community, provided that ICANN and the registry operators are able to agree to appropriate revisions to the proposed agreements to address competition-related issues such as differential pricing. Whereas, the GNSO is currently conducting a policy-development process that includes study of some of these issues, but ICANN has pressing operational questions relating to its bilateral contracts with registry operators that need to be resolved, separate from any generally applicable new policies on this subject that might be recommended through the GNSO process. Whereas, the domain registration market is very complex and producing reliable analysis and findings will require high-levels of economic expertise. Resolved (06.___), the President is directed to commission an independent study by a reputable economic consulting firm or organization to deliver findings on economic questions relating to the domain registration market, such as: whether the domain registration market is one market or whether each TLD functions as a separate market, whether registrations in different TLDs are substitutable, what are the effects on consumer and pricing behavior of the switching costs involved in moving from one TLD to another, what is the effect of the market structure and pricing on new TLD entrants, and whether there are other markets with similar issues, and if so how are these issues addressed and by who? 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. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0