February 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Cary Karp Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

I am forwarding this on behalf of Patrik, in the belief that he does not have posting rights directly to this list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:35:22 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> CC: John Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com>, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, Sophia B <sophiabekele(a)gmail.com>, Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org> I think you have to take a step back and identify what questions have to be asked, and REALLY try to find questions that are not dependent of each other. Many of the words Sophia wrote about DNAME really is not about DNAME but from my point of view other questions. Some example of questions MIGHT be (I don't claim this is enough): - If we have .foo today, what is the process of deciding whether .bar is an ok IDN version of .foo? - If we have .foo today, who can suggest / decide on creation of .bar as an IDN version of .foo? - If we have .foo and .fratz today, and the process decided on via the above questions say that both .foo and .fratz can get .bar as an apropriate version of .foo and .fratz, how is this dispute resolved? - If we have .foo today, and want to create .barbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarbarb as the IDN version, and some of the characters in the IDN version is either ">63 characters when stored in DNS" or "include characters we think are weird, like space, hyphen-versions etc", what is the process of saying "no" even though the name is sort of ok language wise? Will there be hard pressure to change the IDN standard *AGAIN* because of this technical issue? - If we have .foo today, and create .bar as an IDN version of .foo, should a.foo and a.bar be belong to the same registrant? Etc. paf

3 2

A comment on: GNSO Issues Report Proposed .COM Registry Agreement
by Avri Doria Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

Hi, I am sending this note because I am concerned that I will not be able to join the council conference call during this discussion. From the GNSO PDP .com Issue report > 2. General Counsel's Opinion: The General Counsel’s opinion is that > "the dot COM > proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been > expressed by the > constituencies" is not "properly within the scope of the ICANN > policy process and within > the scope of the GNSO." > > While several of the specific issues in the contract are of interest to me, especially the presumption of renewal, I think this meta issue is the most important issue facing the council at the moment. While it may be true the the negotiation of the contract, in and of itself, is not within the GNSO council's purview, I think that the relationship between the clauses in the contract and the PDP policies already in place is indeed an issue that is relevant to the council. I also thing that any precedent or frameworks for future decsions a contract may make regarding future policy is relevant to the GSNCO council. I think that the council, as a council and as a body that represents the views of constituencies, does have the repsonsiblity to review a contract to determine: - whether anything negotiated by the staff contradicts any of the policies currently in existence. - whether anything in the contract sets policy precedents or frameworks that have not been reviewed and discussed. And I believe that the council has the responsibility of reporting on these determinations and that the board needs to consider these determinations before the Board signs a contract. I do not agree with the implication in the report (7.5, 8) that this duty belongs to the General Counsel alone. I also am not certain that, as outlined in (8) that the .com agreement does not set any policy precedents or frameworks for future decisions. This is not to argue that a PDP should be created in regard to a specific contract, as a policy should be general and not specific to one contract. But it does argue that creating a PDP relating to contracts in general and how the affect they have on current and future policies may be a reasonable action to take. If the policies already in place do not call it out specifically, it is important that the GSNO council have the authority to review any contract's relation to the PDP policies and that the GNSO council should make recommendations to the board before it makes any decisions on signing a contract. As I mentioned in the beginning of this note, I think the effort of the GC, as I understand it, to remove from ICANN and the GNSO council the responsibility for reviewing a contract's policy compliance and implications is problematic and needs to be understood and resolved. Apologies for not being able to participate in the discussion on Monday. thanks a.

1 0

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

Whoa. I am unaware that because any of us as councilors raise questions, and ask for information, that means no testbeds. However, there may be political issues, Cary, even if some wish otherwise. Just spent three days at ITU. :-) Back to the point, it is good that we are asking questions and discussing these issues. Can we maintain a. Welcolming attitude so even I get brave enough to post my questions. :-) Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:26:05 To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc:John Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com>, Patrik Fältstrom<paf(a)cisco.com>, Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs > The DNAME may be ok solution from a technical point of view, as > each current TLD can have equivalent TLD domain names in ALL > languages, IDNs in ALL languages pointing to English domain names, > but would present a greater issue from a the perspective of policy, > politics, control, competition etc. Nobody has suggested that all TLD labels should/will/can be entered into the root in every language that appears elsewhere in the namespace. Nor is English the default language of the root. There is apparently also still a great deal of confusion about the distinctions between script and language, and between names and identifiers. Although it is certainly worth Council's time to delve adequately into such matters, the short path out of the present quandary is by noting that the potential number of non-ASCII labels that are likely to be suggested for inclusion in the root zone is utterly independent of the way in which those labels might ultimately be registered. As has already been pointed out in the present sequence of exchanges, an IDN TLD can be established either with conventional delegation records or with DNAME records. We can postulate the unsuitability of DNAME for that purpose (for which it was not initially intended), or we can postulate the opposite (if we feel like being reckless), or we can test them in the new context before proceeding any further in the discussion of their being an alternative to the current way of expanding the root (which might be reckless, anyway, but is an absolute necessity given the threat that our failure to do so represents to the single global namespace). The outcome of such a test will neither brake nor further the demand for including new scripts in the TLD repertoire. There will be situations where two TLD labels in different scripts are deliberately intended to be semantically equivalent (in two or more languages using those scripts), but are to be associated with separate name trees. There are also situations where the intention will be to attach the same name tree to different representations of the TLD ID. Both cases are fraught with political and IPR concerns, and both will be encountered in the gTLD and ccTLD spaces. The thing that DNAME brings to this -- the only thing -- is the possibility that it provides for injecting a weak modicum of referential integrity into a database environment that lacks any such native mechanism. > 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? If the only means that were permitted for the registration of an IDN TLD were the assignment of a CNAME 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. If the only mechanism that were permitted for the registration of an IDN TLD were the conventional delegation of authority for a separate name tree, the potential for dispute would be significantly greater (to say nothing of the encumbrance to prospective name holders). This is not, I would have thought, something that the GNSO Council would wish to precipitate if there were any way to avoid it. > 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? > But, these are some of the problems I believe made DNAME unpopular, > even if it is OK technically. As you have already said John, - > all technologies have pros and cons (and we know them already...) > > Finally, should NOT the above be one of the main reasons as to why > the testbeds should be considered to be open for eveyone, as oppose > to only existing TDLs? or even a consideration for entirely > dropping it and go for policy making? Made DNAME unpopular? For whom? In what context? We are talking about testing a new application. One informed expectation of its outcome is as good as another. I am amazed that Council seems to believe that its interests might be better served by that test not being made at all, as though it were an unnecessary impediment to the serious work of policy making. (But, of course, that's just my opinion. :-) ) /Cary Regards, Marilyn Cade

3 3

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. There are still 5 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. .................................................................... 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

GNSO Issues Report: .COM Agreement
by Liz Williams Feb. 5, 2006

Feb. 5, 2006

Colleagues Please find attached the Issues Report on the .COM agreement which is an agenda item for next week's conference call. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

3 2

GNSO Council draft minutes, 17 January 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 4, 2006

Feb. 4, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 17 January 2006. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org 17 January 2006 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy Tony Holmes Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy Tony Holmes Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries June Seo - gTLD registries - absent Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Invited Guests John C. Klensin Patrik Fältström GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Michael Palage - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 19 :10 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Approval of the agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes - GNSO Council Vancouver meeting minutes 28 November 2005 - GNSO Council Vancouver meeting minutes 2 December 2005 - GNSO Council teleconference minutes 21 December 2005 Ken Stubbs, seconded by Maureen Cubberley moved the adoption of all 3 sets of minutes. Motion approved. Ken Stubbs and Maureen Cubberley recorded an abstention for the minutes of 21 December 2005, Ute Decker, Sophia Bekele, Mawaki Chango recorded abstentions for all the minutes. Decision 1: the GNSO Council minutes of 28 November 2005, 2 December 2005 and 21 December 2005 were adopted. Item 2: Update on new gTLD policy development process - advise constituency representatives Philip Sheppard would collect the constituency input for the Commercial and Business Users constituency. Ken Stubbs would collect the constituency input for the gTLD registries constituency and reported that the constituency was making progress with the statements. Caroline Chicoine would collect the constituency input for the Intellectual Property Interests constituency who were working on a draft. Mark McFadden would collect the constituency input for the Interner Service and Connectivity Providers constituency who were working on a draft. Ross Rader would collect the constituency input for the Registrars constituency who had started work. The Non Commercial Users constituency started work but had not yet appointed someone to collect the input. Bret Fausett would be the liaison to the GNSO on the issue and the At Large Advisory Committee had a 4 person task force working on drafting a response and feed back was also solicited from the At Large structures. Avri Doria reported that there were discussions in the civil society circles concerning the issue. Suzanne Sene reported that in Vancouver at the GAC Plenary there was agreement that the GAC would seek to develop principles for the introduction of new gTLDs and a draft could be expected by the Wellington meetings. Item 3: Update on WHOIS policy development - preliminary report on purpose of WHOIS http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/draft-Whois-preliminary.pdf - current work Maria Farrell reported that the Preliminary task force report on the purpose of Whois had been circulated to the task force for a vote at the task force meeting on 18 January, 2006 and would then be posted for 20 days public comment. The GNSO report to the ICANN Board on the GNSO's 'Recommendation for a Procedure for Handling Conflicts between a Registrar/Registry's Legal Obligations under Privacy Laws and their Contractual Obligations to ICANN' would be published for information on the ICANN website. Item 4: IETF draft on IDN issues Patrik Fältström and John Klensin joined the call. John Klensin summarising the IETF draft on IDN issues said that an ad hoc committee, appointed by the Internet Architectural Board (IAB) had been examining the general IDN situation for several months but it was a slow process because the committee was so diverse. The document would undergo significant changes, and it was impossible to predict how the IAB would react. Versions 1 and 2 would be brought in line with additional references and terminology, objections would be noted and discussions had clarified important issues with the inferences that should be drawn from them. If the liberal and unrestricted definitions of the standard providers on constraints were heeded, then it would be extremely easy for careless or malicious people to cause confusion, or fraud. Symptomatic of this phenomenon were the incidences in the spring, which ICANN was warned about 3 – 4 years ago. The work of the ad hoc committee and other groups had shown details, which were included in the IDN briefings during the ICANN meetings in Luxembourg and Vancouver 2005. When considering sophisticated means of preventing confusion, the user, as well as the registry and registrar communities had a tendency to look at the DNS strings and labels and see words - words in whatever languages they were most familiar with or wanted to speak. Seeing words in these strings was problematic as either assumptions, which might or might not be true, were made about the present characters and scripts, or assumptions were made about what ought to be permitted or claims were made about rights to permit elements which the DNS would not sustain. The problem ran afoul of applications' implementers who were protective of their users applying their own rules on what names were valid or invalid. This could lead to further problems of a registry or registrar selling a name and a registry registering a name that can not be resolved because the application designer deems it too dangerous or will not resolve or display the name. These issues were explored in the report and recommendations made to the IETF for modifying the protocol. There is a general principle that anything not restricted in the protocol will be used somewhere in the DNS. From discussions with the applications area directors about issues, it would seem reasonable to assume some Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) action but not in so far as what the IETF has written is not interoperable or written in such a way that the designers consider satisfactory. Bruce Tonkin commented that looking at the combination of the IDNA and the ICANN guidelines, there were degrees of freedom with particular characters, character equivalence tables etc. which led to two issues: - with different registries it made it difficult for an application designer because of changes over time - there were variations depending on which tld. John Klensin commented that the applications developers on the user application side should be differentiated from those on the registrar side where there was a problem. On the user side, in theory, unless the application developer decided that they had a higher obligation to protect their users above and beyond what the protocols specified, then all the application developer needed to do was to follow the standard and look up those things. No one committed to the global interoperability of the DNS, had suggested anything about per zone or per TLD rules which would change the look up rules. For the application designer, designing an application to look something up, the only issue was whether it could be found or not. Any restrictions, applied by the ICANN guidelines or other rules, including the JET guidelines in Chinese, Japanese and Korean, pertained to what was registered, not to the interpretation. The rules provided a way to bind names together, so if there were a potentially confusing pair or triplet of names, the rules provided a formal way to find the pair or triplet and provided a rule for the registry that if one of them were registered, the other could not be registered or if one were registered, the other could only be registered by the same registrant. Nothing on the look up side changed the interpretation of a name. However, there were propositions for violating the standards by changing the lookup rules which would only result in the fragmentation of the Internet. The registrar side caused concern as different registries applied different rules. The registrars might have to know which registry they were dealing with to know which rules to apply or to be able to predict the registry behaviour. However, this is an existing problem. This illustrates a situation where IDN makes everything worse by adding tens of thousands of characters, depending on how 36 or 60 odd characters would be counted that could be currently registered. Ross Rader commented that in section 4. Specific Recommendations for Next Steps policy and technical implications had not been sufficiently disentangled for bodies such as the GNSO Council or the IETF to continue further work. John Klensin responded: "If somebody made me king, I could tell you who ought to be doing it but no one is likely to do that." However he did suggest that depending on the position the IAB would take, stronger recommendations could be made. At the policy level there were two issues: country code registries would be affected as much as the gtld registries by IDN issues and while in principle if the GNSO Council reached agreement confirmed by the Board, gTLD behaviour could be mandated but not cctld behaviour. These problems should be confronted in cooperation and participation with other affected bodies. Rather than developing policy in the traditional sense, there should be agreement about what constitutes safe and unsafe practices followed by a clear concept and responsibility for the policy. For example, if a ccTLD were to adopt extremely liberal policies about registrations, countries with consumer protection in their political cultures would presumably come down on those registries in a less ambiguous way and with more authority, than ICANN could do. This is a new area for ICANN and the community which still needs clarifying. Patrik Fälström commented that in section 4 the IAB explicitly listed and compiled the issues in a way that had not been done before without identifying who should take care of each concern. Many of them were overlapping and should be taken into consideration by the IETF, ICANN policy work, application developers in writing applications, and the Intellectual Property Rights community looking at dispute resolution processes. The IAB was concerned that each organisation tried to solve their piece of the puzzle and assumed that the other pieces were taken care of by someone else. It is hoped that the IETF and ICANN, or similar organizations with overlapping or touching pieces of the puzzle could work together toward a total solution.The IAB is not expected to be more specific nor is that the goal of section 4 in the paper. John Klensin added a personal observation that any claim made by a person or organisation, to have the entire picture and decide boundaries, did not understand the problem and should not be trusted. The report lists elements under separate headings, but in fact they are not separable. Patrick Fältström cited an example from inside the IETF, where there was the potential for reissuing a new work group within the IETF, whom most believed fell into the DNS protocol and more traditional uses of the DNS but currently the stringprep and various kinds of algorithms were found in other places, which indicated that even inside the IETF there are multiple different working groups in different areas with various kinds of dependencies that were not found in a traditional DNS registry to registrar setting. Thus it is important to list all the issues so that each group is aware and as such section 4 of the report is important work. Sophia Bekele asked about the role of ICANN and registrars in the testbed and what it would achieve. John Klensin responded that he did not recommend the test bed, was involved peripherally in the formulation of the IDN guidelines and was not on the President’s IDN committee where these initiatives were coming from. Several issues were involved, in contrast to a year ago there was the assumption in the standard that if an IDN showed up as visible in an IDN aware application, that it would be displayed in the characters people would expect to see. For example: if the IDN showed up in Cyrillic or Chinese, there would be Cyrillic or Chinese characters on the screen. Currently it was not the case as browser vendors were differentiating between registries which displayed registration data to prevent confusion and as a consequence displayed their IDNs in native script form, and registries that were negligent and therefore browser vendors did not display their IDNs anywhere in the tree underneath the TLD in native character form. In such situations, whatever the standard is, until it conforms and is acceptable to application developers, they will be looking at the registries' behaviour and deciding what names can be displayed. As has been pointed out in the past, if there were a poor user or company dealing with an ASCII transliteration of its name for years and hating it, going to that user and proposing an improvement by replacing it with something that appeared on their screen like a series of characters would have low appeal. ccTLD Registries have an easier case than the gTLD registries in that they deal with, and make decisions about a relatively small number of scriptal languages. Whereas, with gTLDs it would be bad if ICANN were to discriminate against one language or another and how that would evolve would be up to the GNSO. Different registries making different registry policies is not new except that IDNs pose more opportunities for variation, confusion and scale. The IDN .IDN situation is a different complicated issue where John Klensin even rejected the use of the terminology. A tld registered in non ASCII character in the next level domain registered under that tld will be a non ASCII character possibly even in the same as the top level one assuming that the top level is in a homogeneous script . The original IDN committee suggested that new IDN tlds should be applied for as if they were new tlds with strange names. If ICANN were to adopt such policy then certain concepts about IDN tlds bound to countries would drop away. If the notion of IDN tlds bound to countries, as separate tlds rather than as an alias, were adopted different problems would arise. One of the advantages would be in the approval process, as no new tlds would be approved except for those already in the cue. The cue would build up in part by entrepreneurs discovering some countries could be persuaded to apply for an IDN tld in their name which would create a series a of new country code domains run as gTLDs without any restrictions and resulting in an entirely different situation. Are experiments necessary? Mechanically it is known that IDNs work and that the DNAME alias works with restrictions. Questions arise in implementation and if there were restrictions what they would mean in terms of the root server performance. Little is expected to be learnt by experiments. Cary Karp commented that problems could be avoided if the complex of issues were segmented and proper cross participation among the various groups was in place. What should be the GNSO council's role in assuring IDNs in the entire name space demonstrating technical capability before competition issues were addressed? John Klensin responded that GNSO and country code issues could not be isolated and ICANN should be sensitive that responsible behaviour was the key factor and discourage irresponsible behaviour. There were strong arguments for moving conservatively and the GNSO should take the lead in caution. The question arises whether there is the right to register a name in a given domain based upon a synonym or a translation of that name in the same or another string in the same domain. For example: Assume a registrant registrars General motors .com. General and motors are words translatable into a number of languages, thus would it be possible in .com to register the Russian equivalent of general and motors together as a name and would that constitute an issue to be handled by dispute resolution or some other way? Marilyn Cade asked whether the present or future gtlds strings should be allowed to be registered in all of the different IDN options. John Klensin stated that there were several separate problems. A distinction should be made between registering an alias for a name, the so called DNAME synonym, versus registering a different domain with that name. The difference is that if one puts in a chinese synonym for com as a DNAME, pointing to the com domain at the second level, what appears to user with that synonym are going to be re registrations in com as there there is only one tree. If one does that there are a lot of reasons why those synonyms are not a good idea or do not solve the problem, but in terms of the particular issue of synonyms versus separate domains are quite safe. Another answer has to do with registering separate domains associated with names with the tlds. It is important to keep in mind that they are really separate domains no matter what they are called. The second problem is registering a second domain to what their synonyms are in another language, is with the exception of a very small number of tlds of which .museum is currently the striking example, travel may be next, that none of those tld names are names in any language, they are abbreviated strings. If com and biz were translated into Swahili it is not clear that there would be 2 names the same causing a conflict problem also possible in the alias case of opportuning the whole net synonym which opens up other problems at the top level. Bruce Tonkin commented that the General Motor example could be related to trade marks. John Klensin commented that it was one of the areas where the tradition of the trade mark field confined to countries and areas application did not work very well with the DNS. With the translations, whether it is a trademark or not may be the same issue as when something becomes confusing or not to the user. Lucy Nichols commented that trademark law broke down to national laws and according to the trademark. Famous trademarks may have a broader protection and may cover translations as well but was not the case across the board. John Klensin commented that stepping away from Indo European languages when using roman scripts and translating the little prints into some language in which the characters and page looked different, the pronunciation was not recognised, questioned whether any UDRP policy or decision would apply in conflict with top level domains. John Klensin emphasised that since the IDNs were technically, culturally and linguistically complicated issues the GNSO Council should to educate itself on the details rather than make assumptions about how things ought to work. A new sub section of section 4 was expected in the next draft which would point back to the Whois problem. There were complex issues between the IDNs, data bases that looked at ancillary information by registrars and the WHOIS problem. The IDN issue should be viewed in principle, as a system rather than as a text or cultural or language or IPR problem and should be considered in every policy. Bruce Tonkin thanked John Klensin and Patrick Fälström for bringing together the IDN issues in the report and proposed that there should be further discussions on IDNs and constrained IDNs, no tld with a "hyphen" for example, should be introduced at the root to begin with so as to minimise some of the issues highlighted Item 5: Update on status of proposed .com agreement Olof Nordling reported that there was no update on the proposed .com agreement and did not have further information. Michael Palage reported that the ICANN Board at its meeting on 10 January, did not get to the specific line item on the agenda. Ross Rader noted disappointment that there was no staff update on the .com agreement. Bruce Tonkin proposed formally requesting General Counsel for a report on the next steps. Grant Forsyth was concerned that the council had expressed its views but it appeared that the action on dotCOM was continuing without any guidance from council. In view of the situation, he posed 2 questions: - which staff member should have been on the call to inform council - what advice would be useful for the ICANN Board and staff, as further input on matters of policy would be useful to develop policy guidelines for the contracts? Item 6: Next steps on policy issues related to proposed .com agreement E.g - policy for renewal of gtld agreements - funding model policy (possible new policy) - policy for capping fees that a registry can charge - exclusions in agreements from future consensus polices or changes in consensus polices Philip Sheppard reminded the council of the resolution taken during the GNSO Council meeting on 2 December 2005 and urged council to proceed with analysing the issues and requesting an issues report. Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern; Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation between ICANN and Verisign; Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement; Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO; The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes. Bruce Tonkin clarified the difference between a process and the outcomes of that process. In the agreements there was a specified process by which by certain dates, renewal proposals were required to be created and that the discussion did not concern changing this process. The concern arose because the dotCOM agreement was posted 4 weeks before the widow opened on the dotCOM renewal process and responses were required in less time than was permitted thus the specified time for the process should be followed. Marilyn Cade stated that the Commercial and Business Constituency took the resolution very seriously and would support the idea of seeking independent expertise, chartering an issues report focusing on the areas where there appeared to be broad community agreement from the Vancouver workshop input and constituency statements, on the major problems relating to the dotCOM agreement. These included the policy for presumptive right of renewal, the funding model,the policy change that was inherent in the agreement, the traffic data ownership and control issue and exclusion to consensus policy. Marilyn proposed providing an issues report, developing a timeline and that council would agree to hold a face to face meeting in the third week of February 2006, to devote considerable time to the issue and incorporate taking public comment at such a meeting. Marilyn emphasised the need to develop a timeline that delivered, if not final policy, advanced policy by the Wellington meeting. Marilyn clarified that the face to face meeting would use online tools and a conference approach for councillors not able to attend, public comments would be solicited and shortly after the meeting, draft policy recommendations arising from the issues report and the terms of reference would be published. In summary, the important issue was the need to develop the policy and to implement what had been resolved by the council. Grant Forsyth proposed engaging outside expertise to develop an issue report with the task of identifying issues of policy development related to the proposed .COM agreement. Once the issues are identified in an independent manner council would have the possibility of progressing the issues in a helpful manner for the Board prior to concluding a .com agreement. Grant Forsyth clarified that he had suggested external expertise for the reason that Olof Nordling explained the difficulty he had in engaging on the subject with the council. Bruce Tonkin clarified two issues: i if the council were choosing to commence a policy development process, a motion was needed to request an issues report which only required 25% of the votes to pass the motion. - if that were agreed upon, the next issue was resources. ii the second issue concerned the implementation, would staff provide the report or would council call upon external expertise and if the latter, was there an available budget. Grant Forsyth, seconded by Lucy Nichols proposed: That the Council solicit an Issues Report related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, 13 votes in favour, 4 abstention votes, 8 council members did not vote. Decision 2: That the Council solicit an Issues Report related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies. Grant Forsyth seconded by Lucy Nichols proposed Given the shortness of time and the potential conflict within the staff that the council seek external expertise in the development and presentation of an issues report. Marilyn Cade proposed 2 friendly amendments: recognising that while there may be potential conflicts for the staff, no negative comment was being made about the staff recognising that there was no budget for this, that council proceed with authorising the expenditure of its reserve funds, or soliciting contributions through the constituencies. Bruce Tonkin proposed, and there was general agreement from the council, that staff should inform the council whether they could meet the request for an issues report and proposed consulting with staff on the issue, and if necessary, calling another meeting in one week. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 21:40 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference 6 February 2006 at 19:00 UTC see: Calendar

1 0

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 4, 2006

Feb. 4, 2006

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? 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: 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. DNAMES is a technological solution to address the IDN challenges in a particular way? The questions asked by Sofia -- and asked in the recent international meetings I attended on Internet governance -- are broader. And need to be understood. There may be technical realities to what answers "work". I find this dialogue of considering the options, most welcomed. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Sophia B <sophiabekele(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:38:01 To:John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> Cc:Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com>, Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org>, council(a)gnso.icann.org, Cary Karp <ck(a)nic.museum> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs Hi John, Thanks for your reply and your point well taken...specially about the complexities of IDNs and getting to know it better. While we are certainly not members of the flat earth society, we do desire to keep both feet on the ground as well. As such, the I do not see the DNAME dealing with greater problems of addressing a 'solution'. The DNAME may be ok solution from a technical point of view, as each current TLD can have equivalent TLD domain names in ALL languages, IDNs in ALL languages pointing to English domain names, but would present a greater issue from a the perspective of policy, politics, control, competition etc. 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. Without being a cause for WWIII, how could we resolve the issues of 'why should Verisign have.com in all languages? Don't they have half the domain names in the world already? I suppose some people have their eye on the end of the rainbow, rather than t rained on the cobble stones looking out for the next stray copper penny. But, these are some of the problems I believe made DNAME unpopular, even if it is OK technically. As you have already said John, - all technologies have pros and cons (and we know them already...) Finally, should NOT the above be one of the main reasons as to why the testbeds should be considered to be open for eveyone, as oppose to only existing TDLs? or even a consideration for entirely dropping it and go for policy making? Have a nice weekend. Sophia On 30/01/06, John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> wrote: --On Monday, 30 January, 2006 22:15 +0100 Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com > wrote: > On 30 jan 2006, at 18.07, John C Klensin wrote: > >> Sophia, there are two main groups of issues with DNAMEs. Let >> me see if I can oversimplify and summarize them (please see >> footnote below): >> >> (1) If I have a domain a.b.c.d. and want to make a DNAME >> reference from y.z pointing to b, I set up a DNAME record >> >> x.y.z. IN DNAME b.c.d. > > Hmm...I am confused of your example, Fooey. I got it wrong and thought I had corrected it. I knew I was a bit too tired when I wrote it, sorry... See below > if you want the domain > name anything.b.c and anything.x.y be the same, for any value > of anything, you can do one of three things: > > (1) Have records anything.b.c and anything.x.y in the zones > b.c and x.y respectively. There is in this case nothing that > synchronize the two records with each other. The records are > two completely different ones. > > (2) Have CNAME for anything.b.c -> anything.x.y . This requires > addition of CNAME (and removal) in the b.c zone anytime any > record is added (or removed) in the x.y zone. > > (3) Have a DNAME for b.c -> x.y which will make sure that > anything.b.c. is rewritten to anything.x.y and the query is > restarted, just like CNAME but without any need for CNAME RR's > for all of the RR's in the x.y zone. This is what I meant to write above. > This implies that the zone owner for x.y have an alias that is > b.c. Anyone can query for anything.b.c. and get responses for > anything.x.y. > >> The zone files for y.z. and c.d. may be located on different >> servers, with different connectivity, different refresh >> intervals, different TTLs, different administrations, etc. >> This raises a number of issues that are long-standing topics >> in the study of fully-distributed databases (not hierarchies >> with a single point of control for each node such as the >> DNS). The solutions for some of those topics are well >> understood but the DNS doesn't have the necessary tools for >> dealing with them. Others remain research problems. I won't >> even try to begin to try to explain them but suffice it to >> say that it becomes very hard to tell when changes that occur >> somewhere, especially if e.b.c.d is, itself, a label on a >> DNAME record pointing into yet another part of the tree. >> >> But a reference within a single zone file, e.g., a DNAME >> record in the root zone that points to a name in the root >> zone, doesn't raise any of those issues (although, if I were >> asked for recommendations about how to be very conservative, >> I'd tell people to be very careful about DNAME entries in any >> subdomain for which a superior domain is pointed to by a >> DNAME). > > Correct. > > The safe usage of a DNAME that we know of is to have in one > zone the following (for example): > > $ORIGIN foo.com. > > fratz IN DNAME bratz > bratz IN NS ns.bratz > > This implies when one look up foo.fratz.foo.com the lookup > will in reality be for foo.bratz.foo.com. It is even said it > can be resolved by having synthesized CNAME be returned to > the client. Yes. I was trying to avoid quite that much detail (and I try to never use $ORIGIN statements in examples but only FQDNs), but this may help make it more clear. > The record in the example itself is in the zone bratz.foo.com. > No RR exist with the owner foo.fratz.foo.com. Right. Again, sorry about the confusion. john -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele(a)gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com Regards, Marilyn Cade

2 2

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
by Sophia B Feb. 4, 2006

Feb. 4, 2006

Hi John, Thanks for your reply and your point well taken...specially about the complexities of IDNs and getting to know it better. While we are certainly not members of the flat earth society, we do desire to keep both feet on the ground as well. As such, the I do not see the DNAME dealing with greater problems of addressing a 'solution'. The DNAME may be ok solution from a technical point of view, as each current TLD can have equivalent TLD domain names in ALL languages, IDNs in ALL languages pointing to English domain names, but would present a greater issue from a the perspective of policy, politics, control, competition etc. 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. Without being a cause for WWIII, how could we resolve the issues of 'why should Verisign have.com in all languages? Don't they have half the domain names in the world already? I suppose some people have their eye on the end of the rainbow, rather than trained on the cobble stones looking out for the next stray copper penny. But, these are some of the problems I believe made DNAME unpopular, even if it is OK technically. As you have already said John, - all technologies have pros and cons (and we know them already...) Finally, should NOT the above be one of the main reasons as to why the testbeds should be considered to be open for eveyone, as oppose to only existing TDLs? or even a consideration for entirely dropping it and go for policy making? Have a nice weekend. Sophia On 30/01/06, John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> wrote: > > > > --On Monday, 30 January, 2006 22:15 +0100 Patrik Fältström > <paf(a)cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 30 jan 2006, at 18.07, John C Klensin wrote: > > > >> Sophia, there are two main groups of issues with DNAMEs. Let > >> me see if I can oversimplify and summarize them (please see > >> footnote below): > >> > >> (1) If I have a domain a.b.c.d. and want to make a DNAME > >> reference from y.z pointing to "b", I set up a DNAME record > >> > >> x.y.z. IN DNAME b.c.d. > > > > Hmm...I am confused of your example, > > Fooey. I got it wrong and thought I had corrected it. I knew I > was a bit too tired when I wrote it, sorry... See below > > > if you want the domain > > name anything.b.c and anything.x.y be the same, for any value > > of anything, you can do one of three things: > > > > (1) Have records anything.b.c and anything.x.y in the zones > > b.c and x.y respectively. There is in this case nothing that > > synchronize the two records with each other. The records are > > two completely different ones. > > > > (2) Have CNAME for anything.b.c -> anything.x.y. This requires > > addition of CNAME (and removal) in the b.c zone anytime any > > record is added (or removed) in the x.y zone. > > > > (3) Have a DNAME for b.c -> x.y which will make sure that > > anything.b.c. is rewritten to anything.x.y and the query is > > restarted, just like CNAME but without any need for CNAME RR's > > for all of the RR's in the x.y zone. > > This is what I meant to write above. > > > This implies that the zone owner for x.y have an alias that is > > b.c. Anyone can query for anything.b.c. and get responses for > > anything.x.y. > > > >> The zone files for y.z. and c.d. may be located on different > >> servers, with different connectivity, different "refresh" > >> intervals, different TTLs, different administrations, etc. > >> This raises a number of issues that are long-standing topics > >> in the study of fully-distributed databases (not hierarchies > >> with a single point of control for each node such as the > >> DNS). The solutions for some of those topics are well > >> understood but the DNS doesn't have the necessary tools for > >> dealing with them. Others remain research problems. I won't > >> even try to begin to try to explain them but suffice it to > >> say that it becomes very hard to tell when changes that occur > >> somewhere, especially if e.b.c.d is, itself, a label on a > >> DNAME record pointing into yet another part of the tree. > >> > >> But a reference within a single zone file, e.g., a DNAME > >> record in the root zone that points to a name in the root > >> zone, doesn't raise any of those issues (although, if I were > >> asked for recommendations about how to be very conservative, > >> I'd tell people to be very careful about DNAME entries in any > >> subdomain for which a superior domain is pointed to by a > >> DNAME). > > > > Correct. > > > > The "safe" usage of a DNAME that we know of is to have in one > > zone the following (for example): > > > > $ORIGIN foo.com. > > > > fratz IN DNAME bratz > > bratz IN NS ns.bratz > > > > This implies when one look up foo.fratz.foo.com the lookup > > will in reality be for foo.bratz.foo.com. It is even said it > > can be resolved by having synthesized CNAME be returned to > > the client. > > Yes. I was trying to avoid quite that much detail (and I try to > never use $ORIGIN statements in examples but only FQDNs), but > this may help make it more clear. > > > The record in the example itself is in the zone bratz.foo.com. > > No RR exist with the owner foo.fratz.foo.com. > > Right. Again, sorry about the confusion. > > john > > -- > Sophia Bekele > Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 > Mob:925-818-0948 > sophiabekele(a)gmail.com > SKYPE: skypesoph > www.cbsintl.com >

1 0

RE: [council] Updated GNSO Council members Conflict of Interest Statements 27 Jan. 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 3, 2006

Feb. 3, 2006

Hello Glen, > > Please find the updated Conflict of Interest Statements. Based on recommendations of Council members on the Council email discussion list postings, I recommend you use the term: "Statements of Interest" rather than "Conflict of Interest" in both your Council list postings and any website postings. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Updated GNSO Council members Conflict of Interest Statements 27 Jan. 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 3, 2006

Feb. 3, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the updated Conflict of Interest Statements. There are still 5 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 Conflict of Interest Statements 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 In relation to conflict of interest with ICANN or the work it is responsible for, I have no employment, contract, financial interest or other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except as current holder, and fee payer, of several domain names in .com, .net and .org. 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 ........................................................................ 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. .................................................................... 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