April 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Time line for IDN PDP
by Sophia B April 7, 2006

April 7, 2006

Bruce, Just a note to suggest that we may want to *add to the upcoming GNSO agenda*, the timeline discussion for the IDN PDP. As the testing is announced and would start soon, the objectve as we all understand is to do a parallel run. Therefore, the sooner we start on the timeline discussions, the more responsive we will be as issues in some of the testing may directly require a discussion/application of policy. Kind regards, Sophia

1 0

GNSO work place improvements +
by Sophia B April 6, 2006

April 6, 2006

Dear Bruce, All I am sending this note, as a follow-up/summary to date, so as to capture and not loose momentum, on the various concerns that is being expressed within GNSO and more, about how we can improve the working environment, by identifying some significant win-win situations within GNSO-ICANN/Internet community. I thought to highlight the topics, and everyone can add their comments to it or build content, so it graduates to be an *'agenda item'* sooner than later. *NOTE: Bruce, in fact, may I suggest we add this SUBJECT (GNSO workplace improvements +) to the upcoming agenda item?* or you can rename it with something clever:-) *1-Work group Computing Options:* - Ross had an idea you want to share. I will leave it up to you. I would love to use MS net meeting, we used it extensively at Intel for global communications/conferences. I look forward to what you think is suitable for ICANN. *2-ICANN/GNSO Web site:* - it may be easier for us save our efforts and focus with GNSO's site, just like ALAC - have spoken with the group and it seem that someone may have done a voluntary work for some little compensation. - I would think brainstorming on architecture is good in a group, but I think the best/practical approach is to agree on a 'template format' with the creativity of the developer fist, and try and fill the content, especially if the developer is not sitting at the Client's site. I have lead efforts like this many times, it should prove to be SIMPLE and FAST. *3- ICANN funding requirement for event sponsorship:* - We were all in agreement on ICANN providing event funding, especially for developing countries to encourage more participation and ICANN awareness. - Tony had suggested that one approach is that ICANN be one of the sponsors along with the registries. ** *4 - Private Council only list* - for administrative issues i.e matters that Marylin mentioned earlier. Anything else we need to add, please feel free to do so. kind regards, sophia

2 2

More information on protection of names of International InterGovernmental Organisations (IGOs) from WIPO
by Bruce Tonkin April 6, 2006

April 6, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: Christian Wichard Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2006 7:56 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: WIPO-2 Dear Bruce, I read the transcript of the ICANN Public Forum last week and saw that you were unclear about the legal basis for the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs. As Richard Hill mentioned in his intervention at the Forum, there is quite an explicit legal basis in Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, an international Treaty that dates back to 1883 and, among other things, also forms the basis for the international protection of trademarks. Its provisions have been incorporated into the TRIPS Agreements which forms part of the WTO. Hence, any member of the WTO is required to comply with these provisions. I understand that it may be hard to follow all legal intricacies. You may wish to take a look at the WIPO Briefing Note which we had prepared in response to a request from ICANN. On pages 2-4 it contains a brief summary of the relevant legal issues, and on page 5 addresses the need for providing such protection in the DNS. The Note and attachments are available on ICANN's web site at http://www.icann.org/committees/JWGW2/WIPO2-note.pdf http://www.icann.org/committees/JWGW2/WIPO2-note-annexes.pdf Both issues, i.e. the legal basis as well as the need for protection, have also be addressed in a letter from the UN Legal Advisers to ICANN which is posted at http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process2/letter.pdf I hope that you will find this helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions in this regard. With best regards, Christian Christian Wichard Deputy Director WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center -------------------------------------------------- The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is an international provider of non-profit services for the out-of-court resolution of commercial disputes. The Center specializes in cases arising out of technology and intellectual property transactions, such as licensing, R&D and distribution agreements. WIPO arbitration and mediation contract clauses: http://arbiter.wipo.int/arbitration/contract-clauses WIPO Internet domain name dispute resolution: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains

2 1

RE: [council] Proposed approach to travel funding in the ICANN operating plan
by Alistair DIXON April 6, 2006

April 6, 2006

Bruce, I too strongly support what looks like to me an excellent and practical proposal. Regards Alistair Alistair Dixon Industry and Regulatory Affairs Ph +64 4 920 3098 (Wellington) Telstra Clear Ltd Ph +64 29 912 4301 (mobile) PO Box 1271 Ph +64 9 912 4301 (Auckland) Centreport Fax +64 4 920 3588 Wellington alistair.dixon(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2006 21:51 To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'GNSO Council' Cc: 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Liz Williams'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed approach to travel funding in the ICANN operating plan Bruce, I fully endorse this proposal. Its a significant step forward for a more professional organisation. Philip

1 0

Regarding Agenda item 3
by Bruce Tonkin April 5, 2006

April 5, 2006

Hello Mawaki, > > Maybe this is relevant only for those who were not in Wellington: > could we have a couple of sentences as to why we're having > item 3 on the agenda? thanks, Mawaki > Item 3 on the Agenda is a follow up to Item 4 of our Wellington meeting: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-29mar06.shtml. This agenda item was in response to a request for discussion from Lucy Nichols of the IPC constituency. More background material is available in the IPC constituency statement on new gTLDs: See Section 4(b) of: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ipc-01feb06.pdf See also the webpage on "Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies" at: http://www.icann.org/udrp/ The most relevant one is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) available at: http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm As I understand it, the rationale for introducing the UDRP was that there are established laws for dealing with trademarks within nations, and that there are some treaties between nations around the topic of trademarks (ie Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property). A complainant can go to court to resolve a trademark dispute, but this process is considered to be expensive and time-consuming. The UDRP process was developed as an administrative proceeding to deal with the bad faith registration and use of trademarks as domain names. A court of law can still overturn a UDRP decision. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which is an observer to the GAC, produced a report called the WIPO-II report, see: http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process2/report/html/report.html#4 The mandate for the report was: "On June 28, 2000, the Director General of WIPO received a request from 19 of WIPO's Member States to develop, through a consultative process, recommendations on means of dealing with the "bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use," within the Internet domain name system (DNS), of identifiers that form the basis of certain naming systems used in the real or non-virtual world.[1] The identifiers specified were: - personal names; - International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for pharmaceutical substances; - the names of international intergovernmental organizations; - geographical indications, geographical terms, or indications of source; and - trade names. " WIPO subsequently wrote to ICANN on 21 Feb 2003: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.ht m And requested that ICANN considered developing a dispute resolution process to deal with protecting the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and country names (being one particular type of geographical identifier). WIPO subsequently sent a letter to ICANN on 15 Nov 2005: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-to-cerf_twomey-15nov05.pdf This letter essentially asks why ICANN has not "implemented" the recommendations from WIPO, supported by the GAC. Now for ICANN to impose a dispute resolution mechanism that is binding on existing registrars and registries - would require a Consensus Policy from the GNSO. Note however that ICANN can still impose provisions on new gTLD registry agreements. An example of which were some requirements for .info around country names. So in summary, the reason it is on the agenda is to see if there would be support for initiating a PDP to develop an administrative proceeding to deal with disputes around the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). Note that the GNSO may well decide to delay work on such a PDP until work is completed on the priority areas of new gTLDs, IDNs, and WHOIS. However as a starting point, I think the whole Council at least needs a briefing on this area, which is what I have asked for at the next Council meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Draft discussion paper on IDN policy issues
by Olof Nordling April 5, 2006

April 5, 2006

Dear councilors, Attached please find a draft discussion paper on IDN policy issues, as just announced by Bruce at the meeting on new gTLDs. Best regards Olof

2 2

Other criteria for consideration as part of the election for ICANN Board seat 14
by Bruce Tonkin April 5, 2006

April 5, 2006

Hello All, In addition to the generic criteria in the ICANN bylaws, here are some additional specific criteria that I personally think is relevant for the GNSO to consider. I would be interested in the thoughts from Council members on this list. Here are my thoughts on additional criteria: - experience at corporate governance (ie Board experience) - willingness to coordinate closely with the GNSO Council and GNSO constituencies (e.g advise Council of upcoming agenda items, seek views etc. I recognise that a Board director must act in the best interests of ICANN as a whole, but I expect that a Board member elected by the GNSO would take advantage of the knowledge and contacts within the GNSO to be well informed on matters before making a decision) - basic knowledge of domain name industry E.g registries, registrars, resellers (ISPs, telcos, web hosting), registrants (individual, domainer, SME, corporate) - basic commercial acumen (ie can understand the commercial implications of decisions such as the recent change to the .com agreement) - good communicator/listener (willing to listen to a wide range of views within the GNSO, and have the ability to communicate concerns about a particular issue) - minimal potential conflicts of interest (any potential conflicts of interest should be clearly understood - e.g a few well known sources of funding from members of the ICANN community - such as a single employer, or a consultant for a few publicly announced organisations within the ICANN community) Note that I don't expect that a candidate would meet all these criteria - but I hope that the criteria above may stimulate some thinking about good candidates. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars rep on GNSO Council

2 1

ICANN bylaws: Criteria for a Board member
by Bruce Tonkin April 5, 2006

April 5, 2006

>From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI 3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. [Note the other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Alejandro Pisanty (http://www.icann.org/biog/pisanty.htm) who is from Mexico] Section 3. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DIRECTORS ICANN Directors shall be: 1. Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making; 2. Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN; 3. Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section; 4. Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet; 5. Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and 6. Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English. Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies. 2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process. 3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8. Section 5. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, the selection of Directors by the Nominating Committee and each Supporting Organization shall comply with all applicable diversity provisions of these Bylaws or of any Memorandum of Understanding referred to in these Bylaws concerning the Supporting Organization. One intent of these diversity provisions is to ensure that at all times each Geographic Region shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. The specific countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the Board, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time (but at least every three years) to determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the Internet.

1 0

Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Wednesday 12 April 2006
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello All, Please see below regarding the draft agenda. Note the change of time as we shift from/to daylight savings time in various parts of the world. Please also advise the GNSO Secretariat (Glen de Saint Géry) if you are unable to attend. Only votes from those present will be counted. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Wednesday 12 April 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00am Los Angeles, 8:00am Washington DC, 9:00am Buenos Aires, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 19:00 Phnom Penh, 22:00, 00:00 Auckland) Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: WHOIS statement of purpose Formulation 1: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." Formulation 2: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party or parties for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." Proposed motion from the chair: BEGIN The GNSO Council recommends that the WHOIS task force use the following definition: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) (see: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html ) END Item 3: Briefing by General Counsel's office on implications of Article 6ter(1)(a) and (b) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html#P155_22332 This convention dates back to 1883 and was last amended in 1979. Note that the States that are signatories of this convention are: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/documents/pdf/d-paris.pdf Item 4: Process to fill vacancy of ICANN Board seat 14 In accordance with section 12, Article VI: "1. A vacancy or vacancies in the Board of Directors shall be deemed to exist in the case of the death, resignation, or removal of any Director; if the authorized number of Directors is increased; or if a Director has been declared of unsound mind by a final order of court or convicted of a felony or incarcerated for more than 90 days as a result of a criminal conviction or has been found by final order or judgment of any court to have breached a duty under Sections 5230 et seq. of the CNPBCL. Any vacancy occurring on the Board of Directors shall be filled by the Nominating Committee, unless (a) that Director was selected by a Supporting Organization, in which case that vacancy shall be filled by that Supporting Organization, or (b) that Director was the President, in which case the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of these Bylaws. The selecting body shall give written notice to the Secretary of ICANN of their appointments to fill vac! ancies. A Director selected to fill a vacancy on the Board shall serve for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office and until a successor has been selected and qualified. No reduction of the authorized number of Directors shall have the effect of removing a Director prior to the expiration of the Director's term of office." And Article X, Section 3, paragraph 6: "6. The GNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO Council. Notification of the GNSO Council's selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1)." Item 4: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 4

Copy of notes used in the WHOIS discussion in Wellington
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello All, Here is a copy of the notes I used in Wellington to encourage an understanding of the implications of the WHOIS formulations and stimulate discussion. I have added some headings to assist following the text below. I attempted to summarise the comments from the Council members during the discussion, but you should also refer to the transcript for the full discussion: http://www.icann.org/meetings/wellington/captioning-gnso-29mar06.htm Note I did a short search on the ICANN website, and couldn't find any basic DNS tutorial information. This is clearly something that would be worthwhile - ie some basic technical tutorials on DNS, IP addressing, DNSSEC, IDNs etc. There were some presentations by Andrew McLaughlin some years ago - but they were really just about the naming hierarchy rather than how the names are resolved to IP addresses. Regards, Bruce Tonkin WHOIS formulations: ==================== Common part: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve: Formulation 1: (1) issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." Alternatively Formulation 2: (2) technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." Today the WHOIS service provides (amongst other data elements) ============================================================== (see section 3.3.1 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ) The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder; The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact and administrative contact for the Registered Name; and Some definitions: ================= A domain name is an identifier. Typical process (very simplified) for converting a domain name into an Internet destination (accessed via its IP address): (1) Start with domain name (e.g example.com) (2) Ask .com nameserver for the name of the DNS nameserver (a computer) for example.com. (3) .com nameserver responds with the name of the DNS nameserver (e.g ns.example.com) (4) Ask ns.example.com for information about example.com (5) Ns.example.com may respond with some records such as: a. A records (with IP address of DESTINATION) b. MX records (information about DESTINATION for sending mail) The Registered Name Holder may be "responsible" for the existence of a domain name. Typically technical people can make changes to the configuration of the domain name that defines what the domain name links to or where email will be delivered. A Registered name Holder may order services such as website hosting or email from a service provider and ask the service provider to associate a domain name with these services (note that it is not required to use a domain name), and the service provider sets the nameserver for the domain name, and/or sets the DNS records within the nameserver associated with the domain name. Use of a domain name ==================== Billions of people may use a domain name Some examples: (a) A web browser may use a domain name to find the location of a website. The web browser "looks up the DNS" to find the IP address of the computer that is hosting the website. The website operator may or may not have any association with the domain name holder. (b) A website may use a domain name to hyperlink to another website. The web browser "looks up the DNS" to find the IP address of the computer that is hosting the "other" website. (b) An email client may use a domain name to indicate the destination of an email. The email software "uses the DNS" to find the IP address of the computer that is the destination of the email. That computer in turn will put the email into the mailbox of the intended recipient of the email. The WHOIS service today only tells you who is responsible for the domain name record. It is the first link in a chain. Often the registered name holder has little or no control over the DNS records in the nameserver that is at the end of the first link in a chain. A registered name holder may give control of a domain name to a service provider, and order services from that provider that require the provider to configure the DNS records associated with the domain name. Possible actions on a domain name at the registry include: - registration - deletion from the registry - deletion of the name from the registry DNS - changing name of the nameserver - Most intellectual property and law enforcement efforts require identification of the destination. This is usually worked out in reverse from the IP address that is returned when "looking up the DNS". Ie the domain name WHOIS plays little role in this. Comments from Council members: =============================== Greg Ruth: - support formulation 2, with clarifying words that it is use by the registrant Tony Holmes and Tony Harris - believe text needs to changed to reflect your intent Marilyn Cade: - support "intent" of formulation 2 - surprised that name of the "registered name holder" would not be published - "use of" should refer to use by the Registered Name Holder Grant Forsyth: - purpose of WHOIS should to provide information sufficient be able to contact the Registered Name Holder Philip Sheppard - want to cover the purpose for which data is collected, but task fore asked for the purpose of WHOIS - believe purpose the data collected should have been identified first Robin Gross - support first formulation with no changes - second formulation has many problems because "use" has much broader implications - concerned about identity theft resulting from widespread publication Norbert Klein - support first formulation with no changes Ross Rader - support first formulation with no changes Maureen Cubberly - purpose is to provide information to contact who is the ultimate name holder - need to find out who the registered name holder - would like to make changes Avri Doria - essentially support 1 (but could be better) Sophia Bekele - support intent of formulation 2, but may need to improve wording Bret Fausett - ALAC support formulation 1 Ken Stubbs - support formulation 1 June Seo - support formulation 1 Kiyoshi - IPC support formulation 2 as is

2 1