November 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Registry Constituency appoints Chuck Gomes to the GNSO Council beginning after the ICANN AGM in Sao Paulo
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 23, 2006

Nov. 23, 2006

From: Marie.Zitkova Dear Bruce, I am very pleased to inform you that the Registry Constituency has elected Chuck Gomes, Verisign, as its representative in the GNSO Council. In accordance with the articles of our constituency, Chuck Gomes was elected as the GNSO Council representative of unsponsored TLDs by a unanimous vote of all the uTLD registries. His 2 year term will start at the conclusion of Kent Stubbs's term which ends with the close of the ICANN Annual meeting in Sao Paulo. Please note that the term of our at large/hybrid representative in the GNSO Council currently held by June Seo, Verisign, also expires at the conclusion of ICANN Annual meeting in Sao Paolo. We are currently selecting our new representative and I will announce the name of our new representative as soon we have completed the process. Best regards, Marie

1 0

RE: [council] Response from ICANN Board chair with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 23, 2006

Nov. 23, 2006

Hello Norbert, > > = = > The Board receives inputs from many sources and these inputs > are frequently conflicting in their character. The Board is > obligated to reach conclusions despite variations in the > recommendations it receives. > If the Board conclusions differ from recommendations of the > GNSO, it will be a consequence of considering all advice > received including that of the GNSO Council. I think we need to distinguish between recommendations that result from a policy development process, from simple Council resolutions. The former are specifically covered in the bylaws, and there are formal procedures for the Board to respond to those recommendations. With respect to the current agreements, the Board is receiving public comments. I am sure that the Board will take input from the Council or a GNSO Constituency with a higher "weight" than from a single individual. There is however no formal requirements with respect to "how much" weight. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

New GNSO Council representative for IPC - Kristina Rosette
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 23, 2006

Nov. 23, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: Metalitz, Steven Glen, in light of the resignation of Lucy Nichols from the GNSO council, and pursuant to the IPC Bylaws, I appoint Kristina Rosette to serve for the remainder of Lucy's unexpired term, i.e. through the end of the Sao Paulo meeting, as one of the GNSO Council representatives for the IPC. Kristina's contact information is below. She is a citizen of the North American region. Please also be advised that, as the result of the just-concluded IPC elections, Kristina Rosette and Kiyoshi Tsuru will serve as IPC representatives to the GNSO Council for terms ending at the end of the annual meeting in 2008. Steve Metalitz IPC president

1 0

The Joint Project Agreement... that of 2006!
by Mawaki Chango Nov. 23, 2006

Nov. 23, 2006

Bruce, Denise, Dan - or whoever can authoritatively help clarify the following: While reading the document titled "Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" signed by John M.R. Kneuer for NTIA and Dr. Paul Twomey for ICANN on September 29, 2006, and retrieved from http://icann.org/general/JPA-29sep06.pdf, I note: The Preamble starts reading: "The U.S. Department of Commerce (Department) has an agreement (the Joint Project Agreement) with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)..." Subsequently, all the section headers make reference to the JPA in these terms: "To strike the Section [...] from the Joint Project Agreement in its entirety" and to substitute or replace, as in I, II and III, and finally in IV, it states: "Except as specifically modified by this document, the terms and conditions of the Joint Project Agreement remain unchanged." My questions are: 1) Is there any Joint Project Agreement other than "this document" as it seems per all the four section headers in the current document? 2) If such other Agreement, complete and comprehensive of all provisions currently executed, exists between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, is there anywhere it can be found and accessed by the public, or is it meant to remain private? 3) Otherwise, what is being referred to here as a "Joint Project Agreement" from which sections are striken to make the current Agreement? As far as I know, the previous contractual document between the two parties was a Memorendum of Understanding. And after a check, I have noted that the initial MoU of 1998 does include all the sections required to be striken (V.B, V.C, and VII) and replaced by amendments made in the new document. So my best guess is that it is the 1998 MoU that the current Agreement refers to in its body as "Joint Project Agreement" (please advised.) 4) Then the question that comes to mind is what is objectively the difference, and what difference does it make, for both the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN to call their agreement a "Joint Project Agreement" or a "Memorendum of Understanding"? If there is, then was there any prior act that requalified the 1998 MoU as a JPA? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Regards, Mawaki ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com

1 0

Response from ICANN Board chair with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 23, 2006

Nov. 23, 2006

From: Chair, ICANN Board To: GNSO Council 20 November 2006 To GNSO Council Members: As we approach the meeting in Sao Paulo, I wanted to briefly report to you on Board discussions that have occurred during the past several months - especially with regard to the proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements. I thought that a communication at this point would useful given the amount of discussion that is taking place in many quarters surrounding these agreements, registry agreements in general and the domain markets. The Board has paid careful attention to the discussions reported to us of the GNSO Council members (and also among the constituency groups) regarding the various gTLD agreements. We have followed the progress of the committee work on the PDP that discusses the terms of registry agreements (the "Feb 06 PDP") and also the work occurring on the PDP for new gTLDs (including the term of reference having to do with contractual terms). The Board appreciates that the GNSO is considering many complex issues. Recognizing this, the Board asked staff to fund expert financial analysis to examine the market and answer questions such as whether a medium sized registry such as .org or .info has monopoly power under any practical definition. We have also read all the community comment concerning the recent registry agreements. The Board has engaged in many detailed discussions that carefully considered exchanges on the council list and in on-line forums. We have also read, considered carefully and debated whether the GNSO resolution that the vote on these latest registry agreements be postponed should be adopted also as Board policy. Our discussions lead me to a conclusion that a delay in a vote is not justified by either a pending policy development process or awaiting additional public comment. ICANN is compelled to implement a Board-approved consensus policy but is also compelled to carry on business as new policy is being developed. The timeline for approval of the pending agreements cannot, in fairness to the parties, carry on up to the last months of an existing agreement. The process has to conclude sometime before the termination date. Given that the Board may vote against the presently proposed agreement (and therefore additional time might be required to settle the issue), a vote should be taken as soon as the Board has the information it feels is required and is ready to vote on the proposals. Having said that, there is no firm plan to taken a vote at the 22 November meeting. As you know, the Board has scheduled and discussed the proposed agreements at previous meetings. At each meeting, in response to Council and other discussion, the board opted for additional time for consideration of comment and discussion of the proposed agreements between the parties and to allow further public comment to be heard and considered. As a result, there have been changes made to the proposed agreements. Votes are not taken until there is a sense that the Board is prepared to do so. That sense is developed through discussion on email lists and during meetings. There may or may not be a vote on these agreements at the upcoming meeting. Neither outcome should be a surprise. I wished to write, however, to tell you that the Board (including me) consider input from the Council carefully. A conclusion that differs from council member advice does not indicate the Board "ignored" the advice. The Board receives inputs from many sources and these inputs are frequently conflicting in their character. The Board is obligated to reach conclusions despite variations in the recommendations it receives. If the Board conclusions differ from recommendations of the GNSO, it will be a consequence of considering all advice received including that of the GNSO Council. The Board looks forward to the conclusion of the Council's work on the very important PDPs now underway. Of course, the Board also continues to be interested in your individual perspectives on these issues. Please let Denise Michel know if there is any further information or support required. She will ensure that you are kept closely apprised of our actions. Sincerely, Vint Cerf ICANN Board Chair

4 3

Letter from BC opposing approval of registry agreements until consideration of independent study and GNSO policy input
by Marilyn Cade Nov. 22, 2006

Nov. 22, 2006

November 20, 2006 Dear Board Members and Mr. Twomey The Business Constituency opposes a Board decision on the .biz; .info; .org registry agreements at the upcoming meeting of the Board, November 22, 2006. We ask the Board to accept the recommendation of the GNSO Council of 28 September 2006, as described below, and further, to await and consider the expert advice that will be the output of the "independent study by a reputable economic consulting firm or organization to deliver findings on economic questions ". called for in the Board's 18 October 2006 resolution. We remind the Board and the staff of the GNSO Council's resolution, available on the GNSO website at http://www.gnso.icann.org/resolutions, where the GNSO council requested the Board to delay any decision on these contracts until the ICANN board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN meeting 2006, and to take into account the current outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that time. On 18 October 2006 the Board meeting passed resolution http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-1Oct06.htm entitled Economic Study of the Proposed Registry Agreements. In that resolution, the Board noted that it has carefully considered the proposed new agreements [with the three registries], and the public comments and the registry responses, and found that the approval of the new agreements would be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet community, provided that the registry operators and ICANN are able to agree to appropriate revisions to the proposed agreements to address competition related issues, such as differential pricing. However, of significance to our recommendation to the Board, the resolution acknowledged the need for high levels of economic expertise. And the resolution then "directed the President 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, and went on to identify important issues, that to the Business Constituency's members are essential to address in an open and transparent manner. It is important to ensure this level of accountability and transparency related to the independent study's findings, so that ICANN's community of stakeholders can fully support the decisions that are made by the Board, based on recommendations of the ICANN staff, but guided by the expert advice/economic expertise. We are in agreement that these are complex issues; therefore, we have taken the time to examine where there are other pressures that may be influencing the rush to approve these agreements. We address below our concern that budget considerations may be influencing a rushed decision. We believe that the Board can be of assistance in the discussions with the Registrars, and thus remove or ameliorate that pressure. Instead of voting, we urge the Board to discuss with the President and ICANN staff the progress they have made in identifying independent expert advice; if the Staff and President are unable to pursue the study authorization as directed in the Board resolution immediately, the Board could also task the President and staff to immediately establish a interim panel of three experts in competition, anti-trust, and market analysis to provide interim consultation to the GNSO Council and Task Force, and of course, as a resource to the staff and Board. This will support the policy development process while allowing the ICANN President and staff to focus on organizing the authorized study. Further, given that the ICANN staff have not asked the Registrars to approve the budget and that this creates a financial tension, we urge the Board at the Sao Paolo meeting, to provide guidance and support to the staff, including providing active listening and pragmatic support to the discussions with the Registrars regarding how to advance their approval of the ICANN budget. Conclusion: The Board should not vote on these contracts at this time, but the Board has a critical role to play in advancing toward a time when it is both appropriate and supportable to vote on agreements with these registries. We, like the ICANN Board, seek a solution that can be broadly supportable by ICANN, the stakeholders; the Board, the registries and the registrars, and all other stakeholder representatives. We do believe that this is attainable. For instance, if the expert advice indicates that there are no competition problems and that there are sufficient safeguards, our constituency will be more informed about why we should support the approval of the registry agreements. In our view, there must be an appropriate balance of respecting the ICANN stakeholders' concerns and interests, with a predictable and accountable contracting environment in renewals of registry agreements. Financial security is one element of a stable and predictable environment for ICANN and its stakeholders. Trust and respect for decisions and for the processes that lead to decisions are also key elements. It is after all, our members and the millions of other businesses who build the Internet, create the applications and content, and provide services and products to the just over one billion Internet users. We fully appreciate and value the role that registry operations play in the functioning of the Internet Domain Name System. However, registries are suppliers, and ICANN registry agreements, and ICANN's actions must reflect the balance of supplier interests with the broader responsibilities that ICANN has. The Officers of the Commercial and Business Constituency (BC) Marilyn Cade Alistair Dixon Philip Sheppard Cc: Vint Cerf, Chair, and ICANN Board Paul Twomey, ICANN President and CEO John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel ICANN GNSO Council ICANN GAC Chair ICANN Commercial and Business User Constituency

2 1

RE: [council] Case for asynchronous (and nonlive) vote
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 21, 2006

Nov. 21, 2006

Hello Mawaki, > > I know we have discussed this before but we didn't seem to > come to a consensus about this, if I'm not mistaken. While > the council has decided not to allow proxy anymore for voting > (I must say I've forgotten how that decision was made), The requirement derives from this bylaws rule: "Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the GNSO Council through use of (i) conference telephone or similar communications equipment, provided that all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another or (ii) electronic video screen communication or other communication equipment; provided that (a) all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another, (b) all members are provided the means of fully participating in all matters before the GNSO Council, and (c) ICANN adopts and implements means of verifying that (x) a person participating in such a meeting is a member of the GNSO Council or other person entitled to participate in the meeting and (y) all actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are taken or cast only by the members of the GNSO Council and not persons who are not members. " The important point being that all members can "speak to and hear one another". The basis for this I believe is that Council members make a decision after hearing all the arguments for and against a particular motion. > wouldn't it be possible and even desirable to allow the staff > to record councilors' vote in cases where attending the call, > they might have been prevented for technical reasons to be > present on the call at the moment of the vote? Probably depends on just how much of a discussion was missed, but in the past what we have done is recorded the way a Council member would vote in the minutes E.g "Motion passed x votes to y votes" Council member "z" wasn't present for the vote, but attended the meeting for most of the discussion. "z" wishes to note the he/she is in favour/against the motion. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

GNSO Council Resolutions passed on 16 November 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Nov. 20, 2006

Nov. 20, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Ahead of the GNSO Council minutes, Council passed the following resolutions at its meeting on 16 November, 2006. Resolution 1. =============== Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals. "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." The motion passed with 25 votes in favour: Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Ute Decker, Lucy Nichols (IPC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Maureen Cubberley, Avri Doria, (Nominating Committee appointees) Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader, Tom Keller, (2 votes each - Registrars constituency) Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs, June Seo, (2 votes each - gTLD Registries constituency) Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele (2) no vote, absent. Total 27 votes Resolution 2. ============= GNSO IDN Working Group Charter ============================== The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs http://www.icann.org/committees/idnpac/ which has been in operation since November 2005. Amongst other things this committee is tasked with analyzing the challenges relating to the technical implementation of internationalized top level domains and suggestions towards their resolution. IN particular the committee is supervising laboratory tests (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm) (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm for version 2.1 of the Guidelines dated - 22 Feb 2006. (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://www.ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps: (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. The GNSO IDN Working Group Charter was passed by unanimous acclamation. 3. Procedural motion to vote on whether to vote on the Proposed =============================================================== Resolution from Ross Rader: ============================ The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. The motion carried with 13 votes in favour: Lucy Nichols, (IPC) Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Ross Rader, Tom Keller, (2 votes each - Registrars constituency) Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs, June Seo, (2 votes each - gTLD Registries constituency) 7 votes against: Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Maureen Cubberley 2 votes abstaining: Bruce Tonkin GNSO chair Registrars constituency abstained (2 votes) 5 votes not recorded: Avri Doria, Ute Decker, Mawaki Chango did not vote, (dropped off call) Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele no vote, absent. Total 27 votes 4. Resolution from Ross Rader: ============================== The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. The resolution carried with 15 votes in favour. Lucy Nichols, (IPC) Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Ross Rader, Tom Keller, Bruce Tonkin (2 votes each - Registrars constituency) Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs, June Seo, (2 votes each - gTLD Registries constituency) 7 votes abstaining: (accompanied with statements that will be noted in the minutes) Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Maureen Cubberley 5 votes not recorded: Avri Doria, Ute Decker, Mawaki Chango did not vote, (dropped off call) Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele, no vote, absent. Total 27 votes Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Letter from the GAC in response to GNSO request for advice on new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 19, 2006

Nov. 19, 2006

From: Chair, GAC To: Chair, GNSO Council Dear Mr. Tonkin, I am writing to follow up on our initial exchange of letters in October, 2006 regarding the GNSO's interest in receiving input from the GAC on the draft Recommendations for the Introduction of new gTLDs. I have consulted with Suzanne Sene, convenor of the GAC GNSO Working Group, and other GAC members in developing this communication, and am pleased to share the following information. The GAC is looking forward to learning more about the GNSO's work on new gTLDs during the workshop scheduled for December 4 during the week of ICANN meetings in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The GNSO's draft Recommendations have been circulated to the entire GAC list in preparation for that session and I would be pleased to distribute any other relevant information the GNSO can make available to the GAC prior to the Sao Paulo meeting. As noted in the GAC Communique from our June, 2006 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, we are continuing our work on broad Principles that will reflect a consensus perspective on the public policy aspects related to the introduction of new gTLDs. As we expect to discuss a revised version of the GAC draft Principles during the December, 2006 Sao Paulo meeting, it is possible that the GAC may agree to an exchange of views on a draft text between the GAC and the GNSO Council at that time. I understand that such an exchange has been scheduled for December 7, and believe we could constructively use some of the allocated time for that meeting to consider a range of options for interactions between the GAC and the GNSO, with a particular focus on our respective timeframes and internal processes. Thank you again for your initiative in reaching out to the GAC, and for sharing the text of the draft GNSO Recommendations. We welcome the opportunity afforded by the workshop and joint GAC-GNSO meeting in Sao Paulo to advance our understanding of the GNSO's work in this critical policy area. Sincerely, Sharil Tarmizi

1 0

Case for asynchronous (and nonlive) vote
by Mawaki Chango Nov. 17, 2006

Nov. 17, 2006

Hello Bruce, I know we have discussed this before but we didn't seem to come to a consensus about this, if I'm not mistaken. While the council has decided not to allow proxy anymore for voting (I must say I've forgotten how that decision was made), wouldn't it be possible and even desirable to allow the staff to record councilors' vote in cases where attending the call, they might have been prevented for technical reasons to be present on the call at the moment of the vote? Thank you. Mawaki

1 0