February 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

For discussion on the Council Call under Item 2, or under AOB
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Dear Fellow Councilors As I have reviewed the status of the work of Council related to policy, and also to the guidance that Council gave to the Board in Vancouver: "That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes", it occurs to me that Council should request a discussion directly with the Board in the next two weeks. Thus, I have drafted a short letter from the Council to the Board, requesting a discussion between Council and Board on the concerns that Council has about the Board approving the present form of the .com agreements, while there is still no guidance on the policy issues that are inherent in those agreements, and which must be considered for their applicability to all gTLD registry agreements. The comment period on a new version of a settlement/award agreement was opened on Jan 29, 2006. The 21 day public comment period will end then on Feb. 19, as best I can do the math. This is clearly too early for Council to have developed even draft policy on the general topics of concern in gTLD registries, but which also implicates the existing agreements that are in any stage of consideration by the Board or the community. Thus I recommend that Council send the following to the Board and CEO/President. This should also be posted as part of the public comment process. The purpose of the communication is to request a Council-Board discussion before the close of the public comment period. I have provided some explanatory language of the status of the work underway in [ ] in the even that fellow Councilors want to include a status update. However, the letter can be very brief and merely request the meeting/conf. call, if preferred by just omitting all the language in [ ]. DRAFT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------: Dear Vint (with copy to Paul, Kurt, John, and all Board members) The gNSO Council reminds the ICANN CEO and Board of the resolution sent to the Board during the Vancouver ICANN meeting, and requests a conference call between the Board and the Council to discuss continuing concerns. We ask that the call take place before the conclusion of the public comment period on the proposed .com Registry Agreements and in sufficient time for the Board to take into consideration the discussion with the Council. The Vancouver Council resolution reads: "That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes" [The gNSO Council is advancing that investigation. At its January 17, 2006 meeting, the Council further discussed the areas of policy concern, and voted to request an Issues Report related to the policy concerns raised in the constituency statements. Subsequently, on January 29, 2006, a revised set of documents were posted by ICANN, including a newly revised Proposed .COM Registry Agreement. At present, the Council is discussing with Policy Staff, and the General Counsel, various ways to address the policy areas that have been raised by the constituencies and the community that are of concern to gTLD registry agreements, including those in present discussion within ICANN or posted for public comment. The discussions with Policy staff and General Counsel are ongoing at this time.] In parallel, and not subject to the outcome of that discussion, the GNSO Council requests a conference call or meeting with the Board and CEO/President to discuss the gNSO Council's continuing concerns and views. Sincerely Transmitted on behalf of the GNSO Council

1 0

.com issues report - Council call tonight
by Philip Sheppard Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Council, There has been concern expressed on the .com issues report with respect to the misinterpretation of Council's intent. As the BC understands It, Council interest in the proposed .com agreement is "the broader policy implications". In this respect, the ICANN by-laws foresee that Council proceed with a PDP having heard a negative staff recommendation. "c. Vote of the Council. A vote of more than 33% of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the PDP; unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case a Supermajority Vote of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will be required to initiate the PDP". This supermajority vote (I believe its 18 votes) is an option open to us at our meeting later today. Philip

1 0

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Sophia B Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

John, All Thank you for your response. Marilyn, the answer to both your questions below to me is YES. Please allow me to present this historic perspective, as well as some relative considerations regarding the IDNs. 1) It is my understanding that ICANN has a fully authorized TESTBED still ongoing with VERISIGN, operating almost 200 languages under ".com". It is also my understanding that the author of the DNAME proposal draft (published in Vancouver) is from VERISIGN (they are the champions of this and the author of the document is a fellow who launched the first Versign testbed. Is it also a fact, pls correct me if I am wrong, to state that this process sold 1 million names in 200 languages, but really did not address the long-term solution? uhmm. Further. John in his document suggested 20 languages for each TLD just for the TEST right?. Suppose 20 languages or 200 languages may NOT be considered EVERY language, how about when we have two million languages? Someone mentioned that nobody is going to put every language in every equivalent of say ".com" translated. etc. or that English is the root language of the Internet. Can we you think here that "WWIII" may not be a problem. I do. 2)- Unfortunately English is the default language of the Internet today and it is likely to continue to be. Nobody questions that in a serious way - but what everyone wants I believe is a reasonable usable field in every major language today etc. for non-english speaking populations. Without having to be condescending to the "non-West" as I am certain they do understand English is here to stay, what we want to do is really keep the other languages alive. From what I have gathered, it seem that past discussions on this issues suggest 'Textbook thinking" without due consideration of is what the "non-US/West" wants. If we out to call it IDN and ICAAN represents a true international organization, we need to NOT only talk the talk, but walk the walk, applying the cornerstone of globalization in a realistic way, 'think global, act local'. 3) I may be presumptuous, but ICANN's argument of resorting to using DNAME seem to come from the perspective of how ICANN failed to be responsive for long and now "China" and others are threatening to "break the single root". Therefore, perhaps, we were left to a single view and a quick solution, neglecting to entertain the CHOICES we may have for IDN. So, the easiest implementation approach is DNAME, which is is to just give the big registries all the languages without having to change much in the technical stuff - ie. just re-point.com to every language equivalent - no new TLDs etc. John's statement butteres this point: If a such programmer in China were to decide that, for her users to have a good experience, .US and .COM should be able to be referenced by using Chinese names, there is nothing that the GNSO, ICANN, IETF, ITU, or the Great Pumpkin could do to stop or prevent it. Even the control of the Chinese government would be _extremely_ limited, since those Chinese names would be visible only to users of that particular application with that particular extension, and not "on the wire" or to either DNS servers or the sites or hosts being reached. I think if this is the way we have looked at it, it seem that our response is shortsighted (because it technical-oriented only and did not consider the business issues) and is perhaps why ICANN has failed achieve success in the IDN arena. Instead of worrying about the political, policy and cultural implications, first, we may have focused on the easy way out...technical. In this case, contrary to what Cary said, I think issuing DNAME is equally reckless as using new TLDs in IDN. The fact that the Chinese has already launched this process (if we out to call them reckless) and ICANN who ought to know better, is forced to 'follow' the same (can we call ICANN "reckless") as well? Uhmm. 4) I quote Cary's section: If the only means that were permitted for the registration of an IDN TLD were the assignment of a DNAME record to a pre-existing name tree, the effect on competition might be arguably different than would be the case if both forms of IDN TLD delegation were implemented. *It would exclude** **transliterated and translated versions of pre-existing TLDs from delegation to separate operators, and there would be disputes about what might constitute adequate semantic differentiation for a new TLD label* Ok...let me attempt to analyse this...If they arranged for all transliterations and translations of ".com" and ".info" before issuing new true IDN TLDs, would the effect not be the same..e effect would still be the same ...Verisign will get .com and neustar .biz in EVERY language and they will get lions's share before regional groups could get started. Like in 'Versign's testbed' I mentioned above...before they will implement languages in bulk and get caught up in the web of complicated local cultures etc. Are we failing to see, as ICANN that "freedom" from ICANN in their languages, is what these countries want? . Because if they know that ICANN is just using a 'textbook' approach and launch IDNs thru western companies - the situation will be WORSE for them. I suppose there is a debate via ITU, UN, IGF etc...about the English usage in local countries are controlled by USA etc. Now the local culture/language will also be controlled by USA etc..not controlled in the 'manipulated' sense but in the "neglected" sense when there are problems...uhmmm. very complex. It may be the same case as the the Cambodians lost a "character" of their alphabet for 3 decades on the computer because a Microsoft/Unicode engineer forgot and made a mistake...it took decades of fighting to get it back. The potential for dispute you mentioned Cary, will always be there. The question is, will it escalate? Every person who ever bought a domain name knows that they must trademark or copyright their name in another country. Everyone will know that they have to try to register again in the new language domain space. In fact if you want even in English to protect your brand (like "mybrand") you need to buy "mybrand.biz" and " mybrand.com", "mybrand.net" and "mybrand.info", and "mybrand.co.uk", and " mybrand.cn", and "mybrand.de", and more and more, in as many ccTLDs related to the counties you are active in. Is it an added cost – Yes, but domains are very very cheap, and yes if you want to do biz in another country or language you must spend more - rent new offices, hire local people to speak language etc. This is standard business, I suppose, but the only people who MAY be grumbling about these MAY be the existing registries that can make a lot of money. *Ok, pls correct me if I am wrong when I am trying to speak DNAME implementation approach:* eg. CEO of mybrand.com has to be protected in every language under a gTLD that means "com" in every language, right ? meaning they have to come up with 200 language translations of ".com" and ICANN can approve DNAMES. Then these companies, like Versign, can go and get everyone of their.com name holders (40 million in this case) names translated / transliterated into 200 languages to everyone's satisfaction and register them all to get 200 x 45 million DNAMES. *I hope I am on right track so far.* Are they also going to charge the CUSTOMER (who has already paid some $6 already) for the translation/transliteration work? Also, if the customer then is upset by the accuracy of translation or if the customer is sued by some other third party saying that the wrong translation now impinges on their own business, will VERISIGN pay for all lawsuit damages? I am almost certain that these companies will NOT agree to this - but this is the result of DNAMES. Finally, from where I see it, *policy is to be made first in complex situations as these.* Technology is a second - fact is these systems seem to have been working for years already, as China seem to have has deployed it for years on a large scale - far larger than anything ICANN has done to date, I believe. Sure there could still be a little specific testing like DNAMES - but hardly any policy agreement has happened on it, if it had, we would not have the problems of these angry policy debates of UN on ICANN etc... I think we need to consider that technology has gone far ahead of policy and that's why we need to consider the POLICY now. I understand that the last time ICANN did a TEST without policy, (the Versign testbed sponsored by ICANN) , it had created the technical problems as well as ICANN's IDN credibility among interested users. Therefore, as Avil suggested, I propose the alternatives and solution should be explored by a joint consultation with relevant IDN circles and the Council. I myself recommend the POLICY option. Go for a solution letting the people speaking a specific language (or script as they like to say) is a part of their culture – to take care of it. We can talk about specific implementation strategies once we agree with the policy option! *My footnote: *Cary,I know you have given me the licence to carry on..thank you...and don't take this too seriously- in the DNAME test you said "one informed expectation is as good as the other" ...well-said academically. Absolutely correct too. But that's not necessarly real-life. If that were the case - "what's the problem with letting Iran test more nuclear technology after all they are doing it just for reducing their energy dependence oil " (of course never mind they have more oil than they will ever need). * Iran is just testing!* Incidentally I guess freedom of the press should allow those cartoons about Mohamed published in Denmark and other European states right (sure, I believe that, but then I also know that not all people are that *rational).* The point is to be sensitive and avoid dilemmas like this. *We cannot think that the outcome is not a predictable one* – as seen by the demonstrations all over the world and the activities against Danish, EU and other facilities around the Moslem countries. *Are we thinking o**ne cartoon is as good as another* ...uhmm and we do have freedom of the press, right? Ok. bottom line is, we need to re-think, before we get surprized by WWIII. Sincere regards, Sophia --On Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:19 PM +0000 Marilyn Cade < marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I am much appreciative of this kind of exchange which can > advance the understanding of many of the non technical > councilors, and our constituency members. > > Sophie, I think you have identified a concern I personally > have abt DNAMES as I understand them, but I must study > further. Does a DNAMES approach advance an extension of > present Latin character gTLDs into non Latin character, but do > not expand the underlying infrastructure competition. Or do > more? Siohia to Marilyn: I say YES to both your questions. That is correct. And, whether one is talking about a DNAME > approach or a "new domain" one, the questions of which names > should be allocated and on what basis remains. For example, the > decision to go in the DNAME direction does not, in itself, imply > that .COM should be any synonyms, much less 400-600 of them -- > the case is more obvious for a small number of synonyms for each > of the ccTLDs (or each of those that doesn't use Roman-based > characters to express at least one of the names of its country, > or...) than it is for gTLDs. Note that "more obvious" does not > imply "better": I have no personal position on that, partially > because I do not believe that either DNAMES or new domains that > are somehow linked to existing TLDs on some sort of entitlement > basis are the right solution to the problem as seen by users. > > > For instance, when we created the policy guidance for sTLDs, > > and unrestricted/open TLDS, my view was that to fully > > understand and take into account the implications of whether > > policy for non Latin character strings policy was needed to > > determine issues such as: > > I am not certain I can parse the above accurately, and > consequently am not sure what the following four points (or at > least the first three) mean. > > > 1) extend operation of non Latin versions to that registry > > operator 2) prohibit that string in non Latin character 3) > > assume new policy that would ask these questions. 4) Address > > non-Latin chacteri gTLDs as is presently being studied. > > Please remember that one recommendation of the Katoh-lead IDN > policy committee was that IDN TLDs be considered only in the > context of new TLD applications (sponsored, generic, or > otherwise) and independent of any existing domain (i.e., no > proposals for them on the basis of linkage to an existing TLD or > its registry). In principle, nothing would have prevented an > applicant in the recent sponsored gTLD round from including in > the application a request for a IDNA-based non-ASCII name. > Personally, it is not clear to me why such an application, had > it arrived, should have been treated any differently than any > other. There might have been an issue with synonyms, > translations, or transliterations of other names, but those > problems could, in principle, occur and require consideration in > the ASCII-only space. So, for me, we should have separate > issues of policy or principle with IDN TLDs only if an > application or request is made on the basis on "rights" or > "entitlements" to such names based on an existing domain that is > named in ASCII characters only. > > Again, with the understanding that I'm not personally enamored > of either approach, the notion of entitlements to new TLD that > are somehow linked to existing domains causes me to consider > DNAMEs an attractive option: not that everyone should be > necessarily entitled to any name they might like, since that > probably leads to madness and some DNS operational problems as > well as some tough policy issues, but precisely because it does > not imply "linkage" among TLDs, which is a far more complex > problem both operationally and from a policy standpoint. > > One further comment from Cary's followup to Sophia's note... > > >> This creates BIG problems, a political one I must say, as for > >> eg. US would have an equivalent in Chinese, Arabic, and > >> others managed by Neustar. I am not sure if the Chinese or > >> Arabs will like that. On the other hand - Iran and Syria will > >> have a Hebrew TLD - I am note sure the Israelis would like > >> that. > > > > As long as we are immersing ourselves in policy details of the > > internationalization of the domain namespace, we would be well > > advised > > to think more than twice before making any statements that > > assume the > > legitimacy of the notion of language ownership. Which national > > government owns the English language? Which owns the Latin > > alphabet? > > Which owns Cyrillic? Are the Chinese language and script any > > easier? > > Arabic? > > Let me add to Cary's comment a cautionary note about reality. > That third strategy --of doing nothing in the root zone but > simply providing translations or transliterations of TLD names > in applications software-- is something that any competent > programmer who can assemble a browser from a toolkit or who can > implement an appropriate extension to a browser that supports > such extensions can implement (and similarly for any other > Internet application that calls on the DNS). There are tens of > thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of such programmers in > the world, and they are distributed across the world. If a such > programmer in China were to decide that, for her users to have a > good experience, .US and .COM should be able to be referenced by > using Chinese names, there is nothing that the GNSO, ICANN, > IETF, ITU, or the Great Pumpkin could do to stop or prevent it. > Even the control of the Chinese government would be _extremely_ > limited, since those Chinese names would be visible only to > users of that particular application with that particular > extension, and not "on the wire" or to either DNS servers or the > sites or hosts being reached. > > So, for the GNSO to attempt to ban _that_ solution is precisely > a "flat earth" issue. There are many reasons to actually like > that solution, and many reasons to dislike it. But, especially > if you conclude that you dislike it, you had best start thinking > seriously about which of the DNAME or separate TLD solutions you > like best and start promoting it. Unlike another one of Cary's > comments, I'm not convinced that pushing back on IDNs in the > root would lead to fragmentation, although it is certainly a > risk. But, if ICANN were to tell people who want to be able to > reference nationally-linked TLDs in their own languages and > scripts that they just are not going to get that, I think either > that third approach or fragmentation and alternate roots are a > near-certainty... probably both, involving different parts of > the world. > > regards, > john > > -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele(a)gmail.com sbekele(a)cbsintl.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com

2 2

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Sophia B Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Great...we are making the technical difference and that they can be separate .foo and .com and that they can be owned by two differ registrars and that could be competing with each other. That point made, what I am trying to address is 2 business issues: 1- if 'mybrand' is to be protected i.e trademark in every country...it is a matter of purchasing all the 'mybrand' TDLs... 2-on the other hand, if mybarnd .com is to be protected 'in every language' under gTLD, then 'com' in every language over 200 translation need to be protected and approved by ICANN. So the guardians of this names i.eVerisign etc.. will be translating and registering them. ARe they passing the cost to the customer? Are we going to approve over 200 maybe thousands of translations? What are the implications above? S On 05/02/06, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 6 feb 2006, at 08.23, Sophia B wrote: > > > *Ok, pls correct me if I am wrong when I am trying to speak DNAME > > implementation approach:* eg. CEO of mybrand.com has to be > > protected in > > every language under a gTLD that means "com" in every language, right > > ? meaning they have to come up with 200 language translations of > > ".com" and > > ICANN can approve DNAMES. Then these companies, like Versign, can > > go and > > get everyone of their.com name holders (40 million in this case) names > > translated / transliterated into 200 languages to everyone's > > satisfaction > > and register them all to get 200 x 45 million DNAMES. > > First of all, you have to differ between the translation of the TLD > itself and the translation of the mybrand string. > > DNAME for .foo (that we say is a translation of .com to some > language) refering to .com make it possible to create only > mybrand.com and immediately have also mybrand.foo. mybrand.com and > mybrand.foo will be the same thing in DNS. bar.mybrand.foo and > bar.mybrand.com are also the same thing. > > If instead you create a new TLD for .foo, then both mybrand.foo and > mybrand.com have to be explicitly delegated, with the risk the two > domains are owned by different registrants etc. On the other hand, > there might be competition between the registry owning .foo and the > registry owning .com. > > Similar comparison can be made inside the domain .com. One can have a > DNAME for .fratz as a translation of mybrand so that www.fratz.com is > the same as www.fratz.foo which is the same as www.mybrand.foo and > www.mybrand.com. > > So, if one only use DNAME, one will have for N language versions in > the TLD and M langauge versions inside the TLD (N-1)+(M-1) DNAME > records and 2 delegations (one for com and one for mybrand.com) > > If one have separate delegations, you will have N*M zones for the > permutations of the language versions. All possible to be owned by > different registrants. > > > paf > -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele(a)gmail.com sbekele(a)cbsintl.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com

1 0

Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Cary Karp Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Forwarded on Patrik's behalf. Please quote him (not me) as its author in any response, which should also be cc'd to both John and Patrik. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:39:24 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> To: Sophia B <sophiabekele(a)gmail.com> CC: John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum>, Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> On 6 feb 2006, at 08.23, Sophia B wrote: > *Ok, pls correct me if I am wrong when I am trying to speak DNAME > implementation approach:* eg. CEO of mybrand.com has to be > protected in every language under a gTLD that means "com" in every > language, right ? meaning they have to come up with 200 language > translations of ".com" and ICANN can approve DNAMES. Then these > companies, like Versign, can go and get everyone of their.com name > holders (40 million in this case) names translated / transliterated > into 200 languages to everyone's satisfaction and register them all > to get 200 x 45 million DNAMES. First of all, you have to differ between the translation of the TLD itself and the translation of the mybrand string. DNAME for .foo (that we say is a translation of .com to some language) refering to .com make it possible to create only mybrand.com and immediately have also mybrand.foo. mybrand.com and mybrand.foo will be the same thing in DNS. bar.mybrand.foo and bar.mybrand.com are also the same thing. If instead you create a new TLD for .foo, then both mybrand.foo and mybrand.com have to be explicitly delegated, with the risk the two domains are owned by different registrants etc. On the other hand, there might be competition between the registry owning .foo and the registry owning .com. Similar comparison can be made inside the domain .com. One can have a DNAME for .fratz as a translation of mybrand so that www.fratz.com is the same as www.fratz.foo which is the same as www.mybrand.foo and www.mybrand.com. So, if one only use DNAME, one will have for N language versions in the TLD and M langauge versions inside the TLD (N-1)+(M-1) DNAME records and 2 delegations (one for com and one for mybrand.com) If one have separate delegations, you will have N*M zones for the permutations of the language versions. All possible to be owned by different registrants. paf

1 0

Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Cary Karp Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

Forwarded on John's behalf. Please quote him (not me) as its author in any response, which should also be cc'd to both John and Patrik. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:39:39 -0500 From: John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> CC: Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum>, Sophia B <sophiabekele(a)gmail.com>, Patrik Fältstrom <paf(a)cisco.com>, Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> --On Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:19 PM +0000 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I am much appreciative of this kind of exchange which can > advance the understanding of many of the non technical > councilors, and our constituency members. > > Sophie, I think you have identified a concern I personally > have abt DNAMES as I understand them, but I must study > further. Does a DNAMES approach advance an extension of > present Latin character gTLDs into non Latin character, but do > not expand the underlying infrastructure competition. Or do > more? That is correct. And, whether one is talking about a DNAME approach or a "new domain" one, the questions of which names should be allocated and on what basis remains. For example, the decision to go in the DNAME direction does not, in itself, imply that .COM should be any synonyms, much less 400-600 of them -- the case is more obvious for a small number of synonyms for each of the ccTLDs (or each of those that doesn't use Roman-based characters to express at least one of the names of its country, or...) than it is for gTLDs. Note that "more obvious" does not imply "better": I have no personal position on that, partially because I do not believe that either DNAMES or new domains that are somehow linked to existing TLDs on some sort of entitlement basis are the right solution to the problem as seen by users. > For instance, when we created the policy guidance for sTLDs, > and unrestricted/open TLDS, my view was that to fully > understand and take into account the implications of whether > policy for non Latin character strings policy was needed to > determine issues such as: I am not certain I can parse the above accurately, and consequently am not sure what the following four points (or at least the first three) mean. > 1) extend operation of non Latin versions to that registry > operator 2) prohibit that string in non Latin character 3) > assume new policy that would ask these questions. 4) Address > non-Latin chacteri gTLDs as is presently being studied. Please remember that one recommendation of the Katoh-lead IDN policy committee was that IDN TLDs be considered only in the context of new TLD applications (sponsored, generic, or otherwise) and independent of any existing domain (i.e., no proposals for them on the basis of linkage to an existing TLD or its registry). In principle, nothing would have prevented an applicant in the recent sponsored gTLD round from including in the application a request for a IDNA-based non-ASCII name. Personally, it is not clear to me why such an application, had it arrived, should have been treated any differently than any other. There might have been an issue with synonyms, translations, or transliterations of other names, but those problems could, in principle, occur and require consideration in the ASCII-only space. So, for me, we should have separate issues of policy or principle with IDN TLDs only if an application or request is made on the basis on "rights" or "entitlements" to such names based on an existing domain that is named in ASCII characters only. Again, with the understanding that I'm not personally enamored of either approach, the notion of entitlements to new TLD that are somehow linked to existing domains causes me to consider DNAMEs an attractive option: not that everyone should be necessarily entitled to any name they might like, since that probably leads to madness and some DNS operational problems as well as some tough policy issues, but precisely because it does not imply "linkage" among TLDs, which is a far more complex problem both operationally and from a policy standpoint. One further comment from Cary's followup to Sophia's note... >> This creates BIG problems, a political one I must say, as for >> eg. US would have an equivalent in Chinese, Arabic, and >> others managed by Neustar. I am not sure if the Chinese or >> Arabs will like that. On the other hand - Iran and Syria will >> have a Hebrew TLD - I am note sure the Israelis would like >> that. > > As long as we are immersing ourselves in policy details of the > internationalization of the domain namespace, we would be well > advised to think more than twice before making any statements that > assume the legitimacy of the notion of language ownership. Which > national government owns the English language? Which owns the Latin > alphabet? Which owns Cyrillic? Are the Chinese language and script > any easier? Arabic? Let me add to Cary's comment a cautionary note about reality. That third strategy --of doing nothing in the root zone but simply providing translations or transliterations of TLD names in applications software-- is something that any competent programmer who can assemble a browser from a toolkit or who can implement an appropriate extension to a browser that supports such extensions can implement (and similarly for any other Internet application that calls on the DNS). There are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of such programmers in the world, and they are distributed across the world. If a such programmer in China were to decide that, for her users to have a good experience, .US and .COM should be able to be referenced by using Chinese names, there is nothing that the GNSO, ICANN, IETF, ITU, or the Great Pumpkin could do to stop or prevent it. Even the control of the Chinese government would be _extremely_ limited, since those Chinese names would be visible only to users of that particular application with that particular extension, and not "on the wire" or to either DNS servers or the sites or hosts being reached. So, for the GNSO to attempt to ban _that_ solution is precisely a "flat earth" issue. There are many reasons to actually like that solution, and many reasons to dislike it. But, especially if you conclude that you dislike it, you had best start thinking seriously about which of the DNAME or separate TLD solutions you like best and start promoting it. Unlike another one of Cary's comments, I'm not convinced that pushing back on IDNs in the root would lead to fragmentation, although it is certainly a risk. But, if ICANN were to tell people who want to be able to reference nationally-linked TLDs in their own languages and scripts that they just are not going to get that, I think either that third approach or fragmentation and alternate roots are a near-certainty... probably both, involving different parts of the world. regards, john

1 0

GNSO Council members "Statements of Interest" 5 Feb. 2006, 2 statements added]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the updated Conflict of Interest Statements. June Seo, gTLD Registries representative, and Grant Forsyth have both added their statements of interest. There are still 3 statements outstanding - getting there! Please let me know if there is anything to be changed before the statements are published on the GNSO website. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen GNSO Council members Updated Statements of Interest 5 February Bruce Tonkin - Registrar Constituency - GNSO Council chair I am employed full-time by Melbourne IT Limited. Melbourne IT has a registrar accreditation agreement with ICANN. Melbourne IT also has a contractual relationship with most gtld registries (for a current list see http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html) and many cctld registries as a registrar. Melbourne IT holds ten percent of the shares in Neulevel, the operator of the .biz registry. .................................................................... Ross Rader - - Registrar Constituency 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 ........................................................................ Thomas Keller - - Registrar Constituency I'm a fulltime employee of Schlund+Partner AG. Schlund+Partner AG is ICANN accredited and is conducting business with almost all major gTLDS and ccTLDs. Schlund holds a minority share in Afilias LLC for investment purposes.Besides domain name registrations Schlund is mainly offering webhosting and email services to end users. I'm a member of the DENIC Technical Advisory Council. ....................................................................... Philip Sheppard - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am Public Affairs Manager for AIM - European Brands Association, a Brussels-based trade association involved in public affairs activities. AIM represents the branded goods industries in Europe on key issues which affect the ability of brand manufacturers to design, distribute and market their brands. AIM's membership groups 1800 companies of all sizes through corporate members and national associations in 21 countries. These companies are mostly active in every day consumer goods. AIM's mission is to create for brands an environment of fair and vigorous competition, fostering innovation and guaranteeing maximum value to consumers. I hold various non-remunerated directorships unrelated to ICANN. I am a contact point for several domain names. Honorary positions: - President elect 2007 International Public Relations Association (IPRA), the global professional association for the PR profession. - I am a Freeman of the City of London. ...................................................................... Marilyn Cade - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am an elected officer and councilor from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC). I own and manage a consulting business that is primarily focused on Internet Governance and convergence issues involving Internet infrastructure and applications. My business is focused at the nexus of global policy and technological convergence. The topics I address include, but are not limited to: Internet Governance, VoIP, IP-TV, Data Retention, Internet intermediary liability, SPAM, ICANN, and cyber security in IP networks. I chair the Global Public Policy Committee at ITAA, and I advise the Global IP Alliance on international VoIP and Internet Governance. I also convene and coordinate various industry events and meetings on a variety of topics, primarily focused on working with industry to advocate policy positions to various governments and multi lateral organizations, including the OECD, ITU, CITEL, and APEC. I speak frequently as an expert at business and professional conferences that are held both in the US and in other countries and am usually remunerated for such events. Such remuneration does not in any way make such entities clients, nor imply client obligations. The clients of my business are concerned about the security and stability of the Internet, are registrants and users of the Internet, and are strong advocates of ICANN’s role in managing and coordinating the technical aspects of the Internet. I do not believe that I have conflicts of interest with ICANN. From time to time, I may have clients who have a direct policy interest in a particular policy area. At present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names in gTLDs. As my business’ clients and their interests change, I will continue to update my statement of interest ......................................................................... Grant Forsyth - Commercial and Business Users constituency I am one of three representatives from the Business Constituency on the ICANN GNSO Names Council. I am currently employed by TelstraClear in the role of Manager Industry and Regulatory Affairs. TelstraClear is a full-service telecommunications operator that operates two ISPs, ClearNet and ParadiseNet. TelstraClear is an accredited registrar of .nz ccTLD names only under the new InternetNZ SRS. While TelstraClear presently makes no use of ENUM, it has an interest in its potential and an expectation that in due course it may wish to offer commercial services that use ENUM. I am elected Councillor of InternetNZ, the delegated .nz ccTLD manager. I have a personal domain registered in the .gen.nz space. I have not undertaken any paid work for either ICANN or InternetNZ. I have not worked for nor represented an ICANN Registry or ICANN Accredited Registrar. ............................................................................. Anthony Harris - ISPCP Constituency I am under contract as full time executive director of CABASE, a non-profit Internet industry association, incorporated as such in Argentina since 1999. - consulting work done for ICANN - NONE - consulting work done for a gtld or cctld registry, or current applicant to become a gtld or cctld registry - NONE - consulting work done for a registrar - NONE - employment with a registry or registrar - NONE .......................................................................... Greg Ruth - ISPCP Constituency I am employed full time by Verizon Federal Network Systems. Verizon has no contractual relationships with any registries or registrars. ......................................................................... Tony Holmes - ISPCP Constituency I am employed within BT Group's Chief Technology Office with the responsibility for determining numbering, naming and addressing policy and strategy for BT Group PLC. BT is a large ISP and infrastructure provider and operates in many countries across the world. BT is also an accredited ICANN Registrar, but is not currently operational. I participate in, and hold official positions in a number of other technology focused technical and policy making bodies at both the national and international level, none of which cause conflict with my work in ICANN. I have no employment, contract, financial interest or other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except BT. I am an elected representative of the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency to the GNSO. ........................................................................... Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users Constituency I have no conflicts of interest. ...................................................................... Mawaki Chango - Non Commercial Users Constituency I am currently a full-time Ph.D. student and Graduate Assistant, and I represent the Non-Commercial Users Constituency on the GNSO Council. In addition, I am involved in social activism through my participation in ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society), as ICT policy advocator, and advisor to the ACSIS’ President. Over the last five years, I have been involved as a consultant with UNESCO, the International Development Research Centre, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (Dakar), the Eduardo Mondlane University (Maputo), and EvalNet (Johannesburg). I have never been involved in any business related to the distribution and operation of Internet resources. ....................................................................... Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee Appointee I represent a California based, privately held company, CBS Enterprise Group, which is engaged in international business. As part of its portfolio of services, the company provides systems integration services through CBS International, which delivers domain registration, web hosting and email services to end users via a reseller, agreement with registrars. Less than 10% of CBS's business is derived from these services. In my personal capacity, I do not have any of my moneys, invested in companies that are in the registrar businesses. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the work I do at CBS International. .................................................................... Avri Doria - Nominating Committee Appointee I am an independent research consultant and have no employment, contract, financial interest, share ownership or any other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except as a holder, and fee payer, of several domain names in .com, .net and .org ...................................................................... Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am an attorney and currently hold the position of Global Director of Intellectual Property Rights, Brand Protection Portfolio, for Nokia Inc. Nokia Corporation is an investor and Board Member of MTLD Ltd. (an Irish Co.) that provides registry services to .mobi. My responsibilities include managing the trademark, domain name, product design and brand enforcement groups of Nokia Corporation. I am a member of the 2006 Nominating Committee of ICANN. I am also on the Board of Directors for the International Trademark Assn. and a member of other IPR related professional organizations including ECTA, AIPLA, and IPO. .......................................................................... Ute Decker - - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am full time employed as Deputy Director for Global Legal Policy by the IFPI Secretariat. I am also elected representative of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) to the GNSO Council. The IFPI Secretariat is the head office of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) representing the recording industry worldwide. IFPI is a non-commercial private sector non-governmental organisation, funded through membership contributions. IFPI is a member of the IPC. IFPI’s members are 1415 record companies, including EMI Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music, and Universal Music and many independent record companies. The IFPI Secretariat provides services to its member and to 48 affiliated national recording industry bodies; and is responsible for co-ordinating international strategies in the key areas of the organisation's work: enforcement of copyright and trademarks, advice on technology and legal developments, relations with governments and national industry bodies, representation in international organisations, litigation, market research, and public relations. .................................................................... Ken Stubbs - gTLD Registries constituency I am a Director of, and member of the Executive committee of Afilias, Limited. - an ICANN-contracted registry I am also a member of the Policy Advisory Board of the DotMobi Ltd. (operator of the ".mobi" registry). I am an elected representative of the Registry Constituency to the GNSO council and a member of the Nominating Committee In my personal capacity, I have less than 5% of my net worth invested in companies that are involved in ICANN-contracted registry services Other than the entities listed above, I have no other current or "executory" business or contractual relationships with any entity or individuals who currently have business before the GNSO or ICANN. ....................................................................... Cary Karp - gTLD Registries constituency I am Director of Internet Strategy and Technology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM), an agency of the Swedish government. This is a full-time salaried position. I serve in a similar capacity for the International Council of Museums (ICOM) of which I am an individual member and NRM is an institutional member. I receive a small additional honorarium for that activity. I hold a non-remunerated position as the President and CEO of the Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma), the Sponsoring Organization for the .museum TLD. NRM is the largest museum in Sweden and charged with advising private and corporate entities in that country in matters relating to its sphere of expertise. I am regularly involved in such action. Current activity includes a joint initiative with NIC-SE, the operator of the .se ccTLD, which is collaborating with NRM in a project in the context of the Swedish national "Year of Cultural Diversity 2006". I also advise NIC-SE in general matters relating to IDN. I may from time to time receive separate honoraria for advisory services provided as a result of my position at NRM, and may be similarly compensated for writing and speaking engagements. ICOM is an NGO maintaining formal relations with UNESCO and having consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I am directly involved in activity conducted by ICOM in its relationship with UNESCO. I represent MuseDoma in the gTLD Registry Constituency and am the elected representative for the sTLDs on the GNSO Council. I conduct no other activity with, and have no other interests of any kind that involve, entities maintaining business or contractual relationships with ICANN. .................................................................... June Seo - gTLD Registries constituency I am an employee of VeriSign, Inc., which provides certain domain registration services (directly or through its subsidiaries) for a number of top-level domains, including the following: .com; .net; .jobs; .cc; .tv; .bz. In my personal capacity I have less than 5% of my net worth invested in companies that are involved in registration services for top level domains. I am also an elected representative of the gTLD Registry Constituency to the ICANN GNSO Council. To the best of my knowledge, I have no ownership interest in any entity that currently has business before the GNSO or ICANN, other than as described above. ......................................................................... Bret Fausett - At Large Advisory Committee representative to the GNSO Council I am an attorney, living and working in Los Angeles, licensed to practice law in California (United States). I serve on the GNSO as a liaison from the At Large Advisory Committee, which is charged with representing the interests of end users in all of ICANN's activities. I do not accept legal or consulting work for companies that have business before the GNSO or ICANN. In my personal capacity, I have less than 20% of my savings invested in companies that are in the registry services and registrar businesses, including Tucows, Verisign, and Neustar. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the value of my investments. ...................................................................... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

URGENT: Travel dates for Wellington
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please let me have your dates of arrival and departure for the Wellington meetings. This is urgently needed to block rooms for Council members in the Intercontinental Hotel. Some of you have provided your details so it is not necessary for you to repeat them unless they have changed. The gTLD committee working sessions on policy will be held on Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 March. There will be an administrative council meeting for those who have arrived on Friday afternoon 24 March. Please let me have this information off the council list to: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org by COB Wednesday 8 February. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation. Best wishes, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revised Updated GNSO Council members "Statements of Interest" 5 Feb. 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the updated Conflict of Interest Statements. June Seo, gTLD Registries representative, has added his statement of interest. There are still 4 statements outstanding. I hope that I have not missed these, if so please be so kind and resend. Please let me know if there is anything to be changed before the statements are published on the GNSO website. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen GNSO Council members Updated Statements of Interest 5 February Bruce Tonkin - Registrar Constituency - GNSO Council chair I am employed full-time by Melbourne IT Limited. Melbourne IT has a registrar accreditation agreement with ICANN. Melbourne IT also has a contractual relationship with most gtld registries (for a current list see http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html) and many cctld registries as a registrar. Melbourne IT holds ten percent of the shares in Neulevel, the operator of the .biz registry. .................................................................... Ross Rader - - Registrar Constituency 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 ........................................................................ Thomas Keller - - Registrar Constituency I'm a fulltime employee of Schlund+Partner AG. Schlund+Partner AG is ICANN accredited and is conducting business with almost all major gTLDS and ccTLDs. Schlund holds a minority share in Afilias LLC for investment purposes.Besides domain name registrations Schlund is mainly offering webhosting and email services to end users. I'm a member of the DENIC Technical Advisory Council. ....................................................................... Philip Sheppard - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am Public Affairs Manager for AIM - European Brands Association, a Brussels-based trade association involved in public affairs activities. AIM represents the branded goods industries in Europe on key issues which affect the ability of brand manufacturers to design, distribute and market their brands. AIM's membership groups 1800 companies of all sizes through corporate members and national associations in 21 countries. These companies are mostly active in every day consumer goods. AIM's mission is to create for brands an environment of fair and vigorous competition, fostering innovation and guaranteeing maximum value to consumers. I hold various non-remunerated directorships unrelated to ICANN. I am a contact point for several domain names. Honorary positions: - President elect 2007 International Public Relations Association (IPRA), the global professional association for the PR profession. - I am a Freeman of the City of London. ...................................................................... Marilyn Cade - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am an elected officer and councilor from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC). I own and manage a consulting business that is primarily focused on Internet Governance and convergence issues involving Internet infrastructure and applications. My business is focused at the nexus of global policy and technological convergence. The topics I address include, but are not limited to: Internet Governance, VoIP, IP-TV, Data Retention, Internet intermediary liability, SPAM, ICANN, and cyber security in IP networks. I chair the Global Public Policy Committee at ITAA, and I advise the Global IP Alliance on international VoIP and Internet Governance. I also convene and coordinate various industry events and meetings on a variety of topics, primarily focused on working with industry to advocate policy positions to various governments and multi lateral organizations, including the OECD, ITU, CITEL, and APEC. I speak frequently as an expert at business and professional conferences that are held both in the US and in other countries and am usually remunerated for such events. Such remuneration does not in any way make such entities clients, nor imply client obligations. The clients of my business are concerned about the security and stability of the Internet, are registrants and users of the Internet, and are strong advocates of ICANN’s role in managing and coordinating the technical aspects of the Internet. I do not believe that I have conflicts of interest with ICANN. From time to time, I may have clients who have a direct policy interest in a particular policy area. At present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names in gTLDs. As my business’ clients and their interests change, I will continue to update my statement of interest ......................................................................... Anthony Harris - ISPCP Constituency I am under contract as full time executive director of CABASE, a non-profit Internet industry association, incorporated as such in Argentina since 1999. - consulting work done for ICANN - NONE - consulting work done for a gtld or cctld registry, or current applicant to become a gtld or cctld registry - NONE - consulting work done for a registrar - NONE - employment with a registry or registrar - NONE .......................................................................... Greg Ruth - ISPCP Constituency I am employed full time by Verizon Federal Network Systems. Verizon has no contractual relationships with any registries or registrars. ......................................................................... Tony Holmes - ISPCP Constituency I am employed within BT Group's Chief Technology Office with the responsibility for determining numbering, naming and addressing policy and strategy for BT Group PLC. BT is a large ISP and infrastructure provider and operates in many countries across the world. BT is also an accredited ICANN Registrar, but is not currently operational. I participate in, and hold official positions in a number of other technology focused technical and policy making bodies at both the national and international level, none of which cause conflict with my work in ICANN. I have no employment, contract, financial interest or other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except BT. I am an elected representative of the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency to the GNSO. ........................................................................... Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users Constituency I have no conflicts of interest. ...................................................................... Mawaki Chango - Non Commercial Users Constituency I am currently a full-time Ph.D. student and Graduate Assistant, and I represent the Non-Commercial Users Constituency on the GNSO Council. In addition, I am involved in social activism through my participation in ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society), as ICT policy advocator, and advisor to the ACSIS’ President. Over the last five years, I have been involved as a consultant with UNESCO, the International Development Research Centre, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (Dakar), the Eduardo Mondlane University (Maputo), and EvalNet (Johannesburg). I have never been involved in any business related to the distribution and operation of Internet resources. ....................................................................... Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee Appointee I represent a California based, privately held company, CBS Enterprise Group, which is engaged in international business. As part of its portfolio of services, the company provides systems integration services through CBS International, which delivers domain registration, web hosting and email services to end users via a reseller, agreement with registrars. Less than 10% of CBS's business is derived from these services. In my personal capacity, I do not have any of my moneys, invested in companies that are in the registrar businesses. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the work I do at CBS International. .................................................................... Avri Doria - Nominating Committee Appointee I am an independent research consultant and have no employment, contract, financial interest, share ownership or any other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except as a holder, and fee payer, of several domain names in .com, .net and .org ...................................................................... Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am an attorney and currently hold the position of Global Director of Intellectual Property Rights, Brand Protection Portfolio, for Nokia Inc. Nokia Corporation is an investor and Board Member of MTLD Ltd. (an Irish Co.) that provides registry services to .mobi. My responsibilities include managing the trademark, domain name, product design and brand enforcement groups of Nokia Corporation. I am a member of the 2006 Nominating Committee of ICANN. I am also on the Board of Directors for the International Trademark Assn. and a member of other IPR related professional organizations including ECTA, AIPLA, and IPO. .......................................................................... Ute Decker - - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am full time employed as Deputy Director for Global Legal Policy by the IFPI Secretariat. I am also elected representative of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) to the GNSO Council. The IFPI Secretariat is the head office of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) representing the recording industry worldwide. IFPI is a non-commercial private sector non-governmental organisation, funded through membership contributions. IFPI is a member of the IPC. IFPI’s members are 1415 record companies, including EMI Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music, and Universal Music and many independent record companies. The IFPI Secretariat provides services to its member and to 48 affiliated national recording industry bodies; and is responsible for co-ordinating international strategies in the key areas of the organisation's work: enforcement of copyright and trademarks, advice on technology and legal developments, relations with governments and national industry bodies, representation in international organisations, litigation, market research, and public relations. .................................................................... Ken Stubbs - gTLD Registries constituency I am a Director of, and member of the Executive committee of Afilias, Limited. - an ICANN-contracted registry I am also a member of the Policy Advisory Board of the DotMobi Ltd. (operator of the ".mobi" registry). I am an elected representative of the Registry Constituency to the GNSO council and a member of the Nominating Committee In my personal capacity, I have less than 5% of my net worth invested in companies that are involved in ICANN-contracted registry services Other than the entities listed above, I have no other current or "executory" business or contractual relationships with any entity or individuals who currently have business before the GNSO or ICANN. ....................................................................... Cary Karp - gTLD Registries constituency I am Director of Internet Strategy and Technology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM), an agency of the Swedish government. This is a full-time salaried position. I serve in a similar capacity for the International Council of Museums (ICOM) of which I am an individual member and NRM is an institutional member. I receive a small additional honorarium for that activity. I hold a non-remunerated position as the President and CEO of the Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma), the Sponsoring Organization for the .museum TLD. NRM is the largest museum in Sweden and charged with advising private and corporate entities in that country in matters relating to its sphere of expertise. I am regularly involved in such action. Current activity includes a joint initiative with NIC-SE, the operator of the .se ccTLD, which is collaborating with NRM in a project in the context of the Swedish national "Year of Cultural Diversity 2006". I also advise NIC-SE in general matters relating to IDN. I may from time to time receive separate honoraria for advisory services provided as a result of my position at NRM, and may be similarly compensated for writing and speaking engagements. ICOM is an NGO maintaining formal relations with UNESCO and having consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I am directly involved in activity conducted by ICOM in its relationship with UNESCO. I represent MuseDoma in the gTLD Registry Constituency and am the elected representative for the sTLDs on the GNSO Council. I conduct no other activity with, and have no other interests of any kind that involve, entities maintaining business or contractual relationships with ICANN. .................................................................... June Seo - gTLD Registries constituency I am an employee of VeriSign, Inc., which provides certain domain registration services (directly or through its subsidiaries) for a number of top-level domains, including the following: .com; .net; .jobs; .cc; .tv; .bz. In my personal capacity I have less than 5% of my net worth invested in companies that are involved in registration services for top level domains. I am also an elected representative of the gTLD Registry Constituency to the ICANN GNSO Council. To the best of my knowledge, I have no ownership interest in any entity that currently has business before the GNSO or ICANN, other than as described above. ......................................................................... Bret Fausett - At Large Advisory Committee representative to the GNSO Council I am an attorney, living and working in Los Angeles, licensed to practice law in California (United States). I serve on the GNSO as a liaison from the At Large Advisory Committee, which is charged with representing the interests of end users in all of ICANN's activities. I do not accept legal or consulting work for companies that have business before the GNSO or ICANN. In my personal capacity, I have less than 20% of my savings invested in companies that are in the registry services and registrar businesses, including Tucows, Verisign, and Neustar. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the value of my investments. ...................................................................... Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs from PAF
by Avri Doria Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

Begin forwarded message: > From: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> > Date: 5 februari 2006 14.17.16 EST > To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, John Klensin <john- > ietf(a)jck.com>, Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum> > Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs > > On 5 feb 2006, at 19.33, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Even the questions that PAF asks are dependent on the current >> thinking about the technology and if there was creative work being >> on the research and engineering for IDN, we might have different >> questions to answer. > > (I know my messages are not accepted by the GNSO mailing list > exploder, but please forward if you want to.) > > If you start with the questions you want to ask, and some > requirements, I can let you know what the technology say about it. > > For example, wether you want (technical) guarantees that the same > registrant have the domain name example.foo and example.<idn- > version-of-foo>. Or is it a requirement that those two domains can > be managed by two different registrants? > > As long as that is not resolved, there is simply no way technical > community can help. > >> Unfortunately, as interesting as the IAB draft is, it doesn't, to >> my mind, do much to indicate what work will be done to try and >> figure out solutions, maybe even creative solutions, that take the >> very real political realities into account. > > Can you please list what those "very real politicla realities" are? > If you do, I can make sure the technical community do have a look > at it. This is exactly what I talk about when I ask for what > questions you have and what the answer is. > > Patrik >

2 2