February 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Statement of Interests for Ross Rader
by Ross Rader 14 Oct '06

14 Oct '06

Statement of Interests I am the Director of Research and Innovation for Tucows Inc., an ICANN accredited registrar and internet services vendor. Tucows is a minority shareholder in Afilias LLC, with roughly an 8% shareholding. Neither Tucows, nor I, is in possession of, nor have access to Registry Sensitive or Registry Proprietary information as defined by any relevant registry operating contracts as a result of this relationship. Tucows provides consulting and application hosting services to other registrars and internet services providers. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any of these customer organizations nor am I specifically involved in providing services to them. The URL for this statement is: http://www.byte.org/blog/_WebPages/StatementofInterestsforRossRader.html -ross

2 2

People's Daily Online -- China adds top-level domain names
by Maureen Cubberley 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

.......and more on the same topic. Maureen http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html

1 0

Interfax China
by Maureen Cubberley 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Of great interest and significance. Regards, Maureen China's Ministry of Information Industry revamps Internet domain names system http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10411&slug=INTERNET-POLICY-MII-D…

1 0

GNSO Review: Further information
by Liz Williams 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Dear Colleagues I said in my mail last week that I would provide updated information about the GNSO Review as soon as I could. Later today a press release will be issued and a posting to the ICANN website will announce that the London School of Economics' Public Policy Group has been chosen by the ICANN Board to conduct the Review. The relevant Board resolutions are found below -- this is a copy of my email which I sent early last week. That email also set out other things like public comments periods and background documentation. The Review team, lead by Professor Patrick Dunleavy, have begun their work and will be in touch with Constituency Chairs seeking the assistance of constituency members in responding to the Review. I would urge Council members to look at the Terms of Reference again and familiarise themselves with the work that needs to be conducted. A key element of the Review will be an online survey which will be launched later this week. In addition, face to face interviews and sessions will be conducted by the Review team at the Wellington meetings. If I can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. If you wish to get in touch with the Review team directly, you can email Simon Bastow (s.j.bastow(a)lse.ac.uk) or Jane Tinkler (j.tinkler(a)lse.ac.uk) Kind regards. Liz I have copied here my mail from last week which set out the background to the Review. ... For the benefit of Council members who have not been involved in the establishment of the Review, I've provided some easy to navigate background. I hope this also helps other Council members with their preparation for the Review. 1. The July 2005 Luxembourg Resolution initiated the Review and started a process of discussion between the Board, Council, and Staff on the establishment of the Terms of Reference. (http://www.icann.org/ minutes/resolutions-15jul05.htm#p4) 2. The December 2005 Vancouver Resolution approved the Terms of Reference which had been developed in consultation with individual members of the Board, Council and Staff (http://www.icann.org/minutes/ resolutions-04dec05.htm.) A 21 day public comment period about the draft Terms of Reference was conducted between 27 October 2005 and 17 November 2005. The archive of comments is at http://forum.icannorg/ lists/gnso-review-tor/ 3. The 14 December 2005 ICANN website posting sought requests for proposals from independent evaluators (http://www.icann.org/ announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm). 4. The 21 Feb 2006 Board Resolution approved the appointment of an independent team of evaluators but is not available online as yet. 5. Background documents on the GNSO Review can be found at http:// www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm. These include the recommendations from the GNSO Council Review, the relevant ICANN By laws and other helpful information. 6. The Terms of Reference can be found at http://www.icann.org/gnso/ review-reference-terms-27oct05.htm. 7. Article IV Section 4 of ICANN's Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/ general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#IV) gives guidance about the conduct of the review and I've copied it here for easy reference. I have added some emphasis which may provide clarification about the process. 1. The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible no less frequently than every three years, of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The results of such reviews shall be posted on the Website for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board no later than the second scheduled meeting of the Board after such results have been posted for 30 days. The consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being reviewed by a two- thirds vote of all members of the Board. Finally, ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5 which deals with the GNSO's operating procedures. ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

3 3

ICANN: IDN Guidelines Update and Posting of Version 2.1
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note ICANN's posting about the IDN Guidelines Update and Posting of Version 2.1 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27feb06.htm The ICANN Board resolution of 8 November 2005 http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-08nov05.htm endorsing the v.2.0 Guidelines http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/implementation-guidelines.htm "tasks the IDN working group to continue its important work and return to the board with specific IDN improvement recommendations before the ICANN Meeting in Morocco, currently scheduled for June 2006." Click here http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27feb06.htm for an update on this work as well as for information about the version 2.1 of the IDN Guidelines. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

more questions on consensus policy and contracts
by Avri Doria 26 Feb '06

26 Feb '06

Hi, During last night's meeting I was trying to understand the relation between PDP consensus policy and contractual arrangements. I realize that this is a less then favored subject, and I apologize for holding up the progress of the meeting with my question last night and apologize if this message causes further distress. I want to see if what I understand, I understand correctly, and I want to clear up areas where I am still confused. And while I did hear Bruce's explanation, the quality of the line made it difficult to follow completely, and I did not want to interfere with the meeting further by asking the questions at that time. In my looking at it, I see at least two different questions: - what can the council propose consensus policy on - the relation between consensus policy and contracts, of which there are three types: - existing - renewing - new - what the council can propose consensus policy on: If I understand correctly, the GNSO council can propose policy, assuming it follows the procedures, on just about anything related to gTLDs that can be shown to be relevant under the Bylaws of 8apr05 Article 1. And the Board is empowered to approve policy, once presented by the GNSO council after all appropriate procedures, on anything interpreted as coming under the Mission as understood in the context of the Values. This include the principles of public accountability, fairness, competitiveness, and transparency etc as well as 'preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.' And if I understand correctly, the subjective qualities of 'feasible and appropriate' are put in several of the clauses to give the board, the council and the community flexibility in interpreting article 1 - though I am curious as to how these are determined given the relative nature of such appraisals - is the board the jury that must apply the 'reasonable man' criteria. - to what degree is consensus policy applicable to existing contracts and to what degree are existing contracts applicable to the creation of consensus policy? If I understand correctly, the nature or content of current contracts or the clauses in those contracts relating to consensus policy have _no_ effect on which policies can be created and approved, but only affect the degree to which new consensus policies can be applied during the term of that contract. And, as these exclusions from consensus policy clauses are somewhat different in every contract, no general statement can be made about which consensus policies are applicable to the full set of current contracts. - to what degree do consensus policies affect contracts in the process of renewal? On this I am still confused. (at least I know I am confused here, obviously if I am wrong about what I wrote above, then I am also confused about that) When a new contract is being negotiated what is the relationship between existing consensus policy, esp. policy that was created between the time the contract was originally negotiated and the time of renewal, and the renewal. Does policy created during the term of the expiring contract have effect on the contract being renewed or on the clauses in that contract relating to exemptions from consensus policy? - to what degree are negotiations on new contracts bound by consensus policy? I am also confused on this. Does consensus policy determine the nature and content of new contracts negotiated by ICANN staff. Can the negotiators put in clauses exempting the signatories from existing consensus policy as awell as future consensus policy? Can consensus policy that is in effect at the time of negotiation, have an effect on the clauses in the contract that relate to the effect of future consensus policy on the contract conditions? I.e Could there be a consensus policy that said future contracts could not exempt the signatories from a particular consensus policy? I hope my questions do not disturb the debate on the TOR itself or on the important work to come up with recommendations about the creation of new gTLDs. It is just that the contribution by the registry constituency got me thinking about the full extent of the influence, and relevance, of consensus policy. I also apologize for not managing to understand the full issue from what I have read and from what was explained during last night's meeting. thanks a.

2 1

Output of brainstorming session on lessons learnt from the previous introduction of new gTLDs since 1999
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

Hello All, Below is a copy of the points made by those present in the meeting in Washington. It does not represent any consensus but simply is a list of points made by participants. This list was used to help with the discussion on whether to continue with the introduction of new gTLDs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Negligible impact on security and stability. New strings and strings with more than 3 characters that were not interoperable with End-user application software caused reliability problems. Whole system needs to absorb a new TLD across all software before fully interoperable. No institutional mechanism to inform technical, software development community and potential users. Not enough education that new TLDs have been introduced. Little knowledge amongst Internet users of the new TLDs. Selection and implementation process time consuming, expensive and unpredictable Registry-registrar protocol was standardised (EPP) Sunrise program difficult to design Limitation on the number added caused problems for other applicants that met selection criteria Independent evaluators an improvement after first round Some Selection criteria not objective, clearly defined, and measurable enough to allow independent evaluation to be effective Contracts too constraining to allow a registry operator to evolve their business model in response to market needs No guarantee of financial gains from operating a new TLD Long established TLDs have a powerful legacy advantage over new TLDs. The switching costs for an existing registrant of a domain name from one TLD to another is significant. The legacy TLDs are still continuing to grow strongly in registrations and at higher rate than the new TLDs. Selection process was not a good judge of what succeeded in the market. Selection process doesn't scale. Individual negotiations of registry agreements after Board approves new TLD also time consuming. Discretionary processes can be hijacked politically. Registry operator business models may be limited by the distribution channel of all ICANN accredited registrars. Small TLD is OK if meets the needs of the community that has put forward and doesn't exclude others that are within that Community. The new gtlds introduced so far do not yet cater for parts of the international community that use character sets other than the limited set from the ASCII character range. This has also led to a growth in alternative root implementations and applications work arounds (e.g browser plug-ins). A policy is required for the introduction of IDNs at the top level, and need to consider the political and cultural environments as demand for these IDNs is increasing. Core of the Internet adapts faster than the edges of the Internet. Participation of registries, registrars and resellers, end users required in testing, and identifying clearly the objectives of the test, policy implications, and measuring the outcomes of the test. Need to consider whether to set a price and if so, how price is set in the registry agreement and how it impacts end-users. Describe reasoning/objectives behind "proof-of-concept" rounds and whether objectives of new TLD introductions have been met. Concern about whether open TLDs have resulted in new registrants compared to existing registrants in a legacy TLD simply registering to protect the brand. For existing registrants in a legacy TLD that register in a new TLD, how many of these use the new registration to create a separate website, or a separate user of email, rather than simply use email or URL forwarding to the existing registration in the legacy TLD, or change their advertising/marketing materials to explicitly reference the new TLD in an email or website address. Registry operators have learnt more about the market for new TLDs which may assist a new operator when launching a new TLD.

1 0

Updated terms of reference for PDP-Feb06 for decision on 2 March 2006
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

Hello All, Here is a revised draft based on the discussion in Washington yesterday. I have cleaned up the numbering and added some examples of price controls) There was also some discussion about striking the topic of development and infrastructure. Those participating yesterday undertook to review this with their constituencies. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Terms of Reference for PDP-Feb06 Context The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs, and if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and contractual conditions. During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of the GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated 29 June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005 and 29 January 2006). As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that issues such as renewal could be considered as part of the broader issue of contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more appropriate to have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of the matters raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters to negotiate on a contract by contract basis. Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies." This issues report is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html . Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the proposed revisions to the .com agreement. In the issues report the ICANN General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to consider a policy development process that specifically targets the .com registry agreement. At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council clarified that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek an issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate to the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO constituencies on the proposed .com agreement. At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that while the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its terms of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome of that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus the Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by the GNSO community. Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP [PDP-Feb06] to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing gTLDs. The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context of the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a single gTLD policy. Goal The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of ICANN's mission, that relate to the issues identified in the specific terms of reference below. Terms of Reference 1. Registry agreement renewal 1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether or not these conditions should be standardized across all future agreements. 2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies 2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry agreements are appropriate and how these limitations should be determined. 2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so, what if any changes are needed. 3. Policy for price controls for registry services 3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. (note examples of price controls include price caps, and the same pricing for all registrars) 3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price increase when a price cap exists. 4. ICANN fees 4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the negotiation of ICANN fees. 5. Uses of registry data Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated with the registry. 5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to third parties. 6. Investments in development and infrastructure 6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.

1 0

Clean version of 2006 PDP
by Maria Farrell 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Dear all, Following the edits done at the ad hoc working session of the GNSO Council in Washington today, attached is the current version of the Terms of Reference of this PDP. (it hasn't been copy-edited yet, so there may be stray commas, etc.) This document was not the subject of a vote by the GNSO Council. It will be voted on by the Council next Thursday, March 2nd. All the best, Maria

1 0

Washington meeting - current text of 6
by Maria Farrell 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

6. Investments in development and infrastructure . Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments in developments and infrastructure, and, if so, what the elements of that policy should be. be.

1 0