February 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Commencement of the new PDP
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 11, 2006

Feb. 11, 2006

Hello Marilyn, I have a concrete proposal for how to manage the work and I'd propose that others give thought as well to options: I propose that the second PDP be worked as a modified TF. I had previously supported the Council working as a Committee of the Whole of Council. However, I've spoken with several councilors, and I suggest that following adaptation: Create a Council working group all councilors, but, allow each Constituency to substitute Constituency members for Councilors, so long as there is a minimum of one councilor from each constituency, for a total of three per constituency. Other members would be the liaisons from the ACs, and the NomComm members. I recommend we follow the structure of the bylaws where we can. I think we could achieve your objective by doing the following: With reference to section 5(a), Annex A of the bylaws: "5. Composition and Selection of Task Forces a. Upon voting to appoint a task force, the Council shall invite each of the constituencies of the GNSO to appoint one individual to participate in the task force. Additionally, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. (Each task force member is referred to in this Annex as a "Representative" and collectively, the "Representatives"). The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate." The Council could decide to appoint a task force for PDP-Feb06 with 3 voting representatives per constituency. The Council could also recommend that constituencies consider appointing one or more Council members to the task force to ensure linkage with PDP-Dec05. This will ensure that constituencies have some flexibility on how they choose to resource PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 11, 2006

Feb. 11, 2006

Hello Marilyn, (1) So far the meeting in Washington is for the Committee working on the PDP for new gtlds (PDP-Dec05). (2) In our next meeting on 16 Feb 2006, we need to agree on whether to form a task force, and agree on the terms of reference for the PDP on contractual conditions of existing gTLDs (PDP-Feb06) (3) Following the meeting on 16 Feb 2006, a notice of initiating the PDP will be placed on the ICANN website, and there will be a 20 day public comment period (see section 6, Annex A of the bylaws). Constituencies will have 35 days to prepare their statements. (4) With respect to your request to have a meeting on PDP-Feb06 in Washington, I will add this for discussion and decision under any other business for the Council meeting on 16 Feb 2006. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 11, 2006

Feb. 11, 2006

Hello Mawaki, > > I have also understood that each constituency could send up > to 3 delegates to the meeting - is that correct? > The committee of the whole effectively results in a total of 3 Council members per constituency, plus the 3 Council members appointed by the nominating committee. To ensure that all constituencies are fairly represented at the physical meeting it was agreed that where a Council member from a constituency cannot attend, they may appoint another representative to participate. Note that the committee still formally reports to the Council, and the formal procedures of the Council with respect to voting apply before any policy is presented to the ICANN Board. Outside of this, a person could attend as an observer - but I think that space will be limited. The intent is to record the meeting in MP3 format as we do for Council meetings, and make that available for the GNSO community is general. In general the number of participants in task forces and committees are determined by the Council and have varied from time to time. From section 5(a) of Annex A of the bylaws: "The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 10, 2006

Feb. 10, 2006

Thanks Maria. > > Just an FYI - staff has been working on putting up a page > with all the input received, and are now finalising it. > We'll advise asap on the url. > > All the best, Maria

2 1

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 16 February 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 9, 2006

Feb. 9, 2006

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 16 February 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 17 January 2006 http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01961.html Item 2: Commencement of PDP initiated in the meeting of 6 Feb 06 [PDP-Feb06] - Declare any statement of interest relevant to this issue - Decide whether to appoint a task force to address the issue (Under the provisions of section 4 of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws) Item 3: Terms of reference for PDP-Feb06 - Decide the terms of reference for the PDP (Under the provisions of section 7(b) of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws) http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02005.html Item 4: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [council] Commencement of the new PDP
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

I want to better understand the pros and cons of a Council of the whole versus a TF. I am not convinced that a TF will improve the conflicts of time for Council, since there are overlapping issues between the two PDPs. I would instead propose that Council examine the sppointment of up to three experts for both PDP processes. I suspect that additional support in gathering information, examining options, and augmenting the development if materials will do more to enable effective work by the Council, in two parallel PDPs. There is an outstanding work item requested earlier for a work plan that takes into account the realistic time frames needed to complete the new gTLDs PDP. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:57:57 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Commencement of the new PDP Hello All, With reference to section 4 of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws, we need to decide whether to form a task force: "4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below. b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below." I note that Council members are currently involved as part of a Committee-of-the-whole-Council on the new gTLD policy area. I recommend that we form a separate task force on the new PDP to ensure we have enough resources to focus on the new gTLD process and don't distract that process. Note under section 7 (b) of Annex A of the bylaws: "Task Force Charter or Terms of Reference. The Council, with the assistance of the Staff Manager, shall develop a charter or terms of reference for the task force (the "Charter") within ten (10) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Such Charter will include: 1. the issue to be addressed by the task force, as such issue was articulated for the vote before the Council that commenced the PDP; 2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to extend the timeline; and 3. any specific instructions from the Council for the task force, including whether or not the task force should solicit the advice of outside advisors on the issue." I recommend that we form a task force with experts in areas around the economics of the gTLD registry environment. Issues under consideration including competition, pricing controls, renewal provisions etc. Constituencies could appoint appropriate representatives, but we may wish to identify appropriate independent experts to advise the Council on this important topic area. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Regards, Marilyn Cade

4 3

Input received for the pdp on new gTLDs
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note the page: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ Input received for the policy development process on new gTLDs http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-pdp-input.htm This page contains links to all the input received by the GNSO regarding its the policy development process on new gTLDs. It includes the public comments received in response to ICANN's request for comments on the terms of reference of the policy development process (PDP) on new gTLDs. The public comments section also includes links to relevant discussions archived on the General Assembly mailing list and a wiki organised independently by the At-Large Advisory Committee to ICANN. There are links to the statements of each constituency of the GNSO on the terms of reference of the PDP. Finally, this page links to the input received in response to the GNSO's call for substantive papers on the issue areas identified in the Terms of Reference for New gTLDs (deadline; 31 January, 2006). Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Commencement of the new PDP
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

Hello All, With reference to section 4 of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws, we need to decide whether to form a task force: "4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below. b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below." I note that Council members are currently involved as part of a Committee-of-the-whole-Council on the new gTLD policy area. I recommend that we form a separate task force on the new PDP to ensure we have enough resources to focus on the new gTLD process and don't distract that process. Note under section 7 (b) of Annex A of the bylaws: "Task Force Charter or Terms of Reference. The Council, with the assistance of the Staff Manager, shall develop a charter or terms of reference for the task force (the "Charter") within ten (10) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Such Charter will include: 1. the issue to be addressed by the task force, as such issue was articulated for the vote before the Council that commenced the PDP; 2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to extend the timeline; and 3. any specific instructions from the Council for the task force, including whether or not the task force should solicit the advice of outside advisors on the issue." I recommend that we form a task force with experts in areas around the economics of the gTLD registry environment. Issues under consideration including competition, pricing controls, renewal provisions etc. Constituencies could appoint appropriate representatives, but we may wish to identify appropriate independent experts to advise the Council on this important topic area. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft Terms of Reference for PDP on contractual conditions for current gtlds
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

Hello All, Below is an initial draft terms of reference which I hope puts the new PDP [PDP-Feb06] in the context of our other PDP on New gTLDs [PDP-Dec05]. The issue areas for consideration are drawn from section D of the issues report. The Council should consider whether all of these areas are necessary for further examination at this time. Given that the General Counsel did not rule on these individual issues in the issues report, I have also asked the General Counsel to review the terms of reference as they develop to advise the Council on whether the issues under consideration are within scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Terms of Reference for a PDP to Guide Contractual Conditions for existing generic top level domains ======================================================================== ========= 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 recognised 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 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 contractual conditions 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 presumptive rights of renewal in registry agreements serve to promote ICANN's core mission and values, including promotion of competition, DNS stability and security and 1b. Examine whether presumptive rights of renewal encourage a long-term view of registry operations in terms of investment and infrastructure production. 1c. Examine under what conditions a presumptive right of renewal should be deemed unjustified. 1d. While recognizing that several current registry agreements include a presumptive right of renewal, use the findings from a) - c) above to determine if presumptive renewal should be included in all registry agreements. 2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies 2a. Examine whether certain registry agreement contract provisions should be immune from application of consensus policy and how this should be determined. 2b. Examine whether sponsored TLDs should retain the policy-making authority now delegated in their registry agreements. 2c. Recognizing that current registry agreements include varying limitations on scope and applicability of consensus policy, examine the extent to which registry agreements could state that consensus policies may not affect certain terms of the agreement and determine whether future registry agreements should be restricted to a uniform scope and applicability of consensus policies. 3. Price controls for registry services 3a. Examine in what ways price controls contribute to ICANN's core mission and values, especially the promotion of competition and the net effects on end users. 3b. Examine what conditions might justify price controls for particular registries. 3c. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price increase when price control is applied. 3d. In view of the findings, determine if registry agreements should prescribe or limit the prices for registry services. 4. ICANN fees 4a. Examine whether ICANN fees defined in registry agreements should be subject to policy determination. 4b. Examine whether ICANN fees should be tailored to registry business models. 4c. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the negotiation of ICANN fees. 5. Uses of traffic data 5a. Examine the differences in traffic data available to "thin" and "thick" registries and which privacy rights exist in such traffic data. 5b. Examine how the use of traffic data can enhance services to registry clients. 5c. Determine whether any allowances should be made for non-discriminatory access to traffic data. 5d. Determine whether the uses of traffic data, available to registries as a consequence of registry operation, should be restricted. 6. Investments in development and infrastructure 6a. Examine how requirements for specific investment levels in registry agreements promote ICANN's core mission and values, especially as to promoting competition and ensuring DNS stability and security. 6b. Determine whether registry agreements should require specific investment levels in the areas of development and infrastructure. 6c. Determine whether security and stability goals should be reflected in registry agreements as specific commitments, either as customer service levels or as investment targets.

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 8, 2006

Feb. 8, 2006

Hello Maureen, Q. Would we set up the bridge during the Washington DC meeting, or at a time prior to that, as it is my understanding that the meeting is to be a working session? I was thinking that we would take some time during the meeting to discuss the public inputs and also seek further input from authors. Kindly indicate where the papers, as submitted by the authors, have been collected and may be viewed. We should set up an appropriate page on the GNSO website for the papers, but for now, the current catalogue of submissions can be found via the mailing list archive at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/ Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1