April 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Regarding WHOIS purpose
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello All, Following our discussion in Wellington, I have put forward a proposed motion in the Council agenda. Formulation 1 currently seems to have the most support, so I have suggested a motion for discussion as follows: "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 )" If this motion fails, then we can put the motion forward using formulation 2. Note that it is also possible to amend the motion above. During the discussion in Wellington it seemed as though the proponents of formulation 2 wanted to adjust the formulation to better meet their intent. It would be helpful for Council members that wish to put forward an alternative formulation, post their formulation within the next 48 hours, so that Council members have time to consider. All Council members should also ensure that they are thoroughly familiar with the contents of the staff report at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tf-report-15mar06.htm Note that as the WHOIS task force proceeds with discussions on terms of reference: (2) Define the purpose of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, and the purpose for which the data was collected. And (3) Determine what data collected should be available for public access in the context of the purpose of WHOIS. Determine how to access data that is not available for public access. it would be appropriate to review the WHOIS purpose definition to see if it is still appropriate. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Wednesday 12 April 2006
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Good idea. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 4 April 2006 6:28 PM > To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for > Wednesday 12 April 2006 > > Bruce, can we add item thanking Mike Palage as a bd member > for his work in support of GNSO. Perhaps we can task staff > with drafting resolution. > > > Regards, > Marilyn Cade >

1 0

Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Wednesday 12 April 2006
by Marilyn Cade April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Bruce, can we add item thanking Mike Palage as a bd member for his work in support of GNSO. Perhaps we can task staff with drafting resolution. Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] GAC /ICANN Board cooperation
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello Sophia, 1-Where is GNSO's role at the GAC level. Formally the GAC is an advisory committee to the Board, as is ALAC. The GNSO Council does attempt to liaise closely with the GAC and ALAC so that we can consider input early and adjust our thinking prior to our submission of any policy to the Board. Once the policy is submitted to the board, the Board can formally get input from the GAC and ALAC. The GNSO Council met with the GAC gTLD working group in Wellington as part of strengthening the exchange of information. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Relationship between domain names and websites, and the implication for disputes over the content of a website
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello All, I thought it might be useful to explain some of the issues associated with removing offending content (e.g for phishing sites). As a registrar, Melbourne IT often gets complaints about the content on a particular website. A website exists on a particular computer (or computers). Normally when we receive a complaint about website content, we refer the complainant to the technical operator of the website (as opposed to the party responsible for the website content). Usually this is a webhosting company. Often the web hosting company will have terms and conditions that may relate to the content of the website, and may remove the website (or suspend the relevant customer account). Note that the web hosting companies generally do not publish any information on the party responsible for the content of a particular website. A domain name can act as an identifier that links to a website. The deletion of the domain name does not remove the website content. It is relatively easy to create a new domain name and link to the same website content. It is also relatively easy to have links in SPAM email that use IP addresses rather than domain names. When a website is removed, it is also common for a Registered Name Holder to change the configuration of the domain name records so that the domain name can reference another computer hosting the same website content. So removal of one website may not solve the problem. Commonly when a domain name is being used to link to an obviously inappropriate website (e.g for phishing), the details provided by the Registered Name Holder are false. Thus we will also often use the WHOIS data complaints process, to request that the contact information be corrected. Where the contact information is not corrected we may delete the domain name. Note also that the email address used to register a domain name often does allow contact with the Registered Name Holder (e.g via free email address), whereas the name and postal address displayed is often from a stolen identity. We often get calls from people that are listed in the WHOIS for a particular domain name (they in turn have received complaints about the use of the domain name), and they have nothing to do with the domain name. We treat this as instances of false WHOIS information, and thus take the appropriate action. So in summary, dealing with content issues typically requires a combination of steps that relate to the domain name as well as the website. While ICANN's mission only relates to identifiers (e.g domain names and IP addresses) and not content, I believe that other national and international forums should be established for addressing the more general content issues of phishing and SPAM. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrar rep on GNSO Council

1 0

GAC /ICANN Board cooperation
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello All, Below is an extract from the GAC Communique regarding cooperation between GAC and ICANN Board, and the priority issues. Note that new gTLDs, IDNs, and WHOIS are all listed as priority issues. Regards, Bruce Tonkin >From the GAC Communiqué: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac24com.pdf - GAC-ICANN Board cooperation The GAC welcomed the inaugural meeting of the Joint Working Group of the GAC and the ICANN Board. The Joint Working Group will be led by Alejandro Pisanty on behalf of the ICANN Board and Janis Karklins (Latvia) on behalf of the GAC. It was acknowledged that in the immediate term (from Wellington to Marrakesh), it would be important to improve the timeliness and efficiency of communications between the GAC and the ICANN Board. In order to achieve the objectives of enhanced cooperation within the ICANN context, the GAC acknowledges that there is a need for the GAC to consider changes in its working methods to enable it to interact more routinely with the ICANN Board and the community. Beyond this it was agreed that the working group should as a longer term issue focus on the role of the GAC vis-à-vis ICANN and the ICANN Board and it should lead to the creation of a better environment that facilitates the development and application of public policy principles. In particular, the GAC has identified the following issues as key priority areas for early engagement, namely: a) ccTLDs, b) IDNs, c) IPv6 and IP addressing resource allocation, d) Development and creation of policies on gTLDs, and e) WhoIS.

4 3

GAC Communiqué - text relating to GNSO
by Bruce Tonkin April 4, 2006

April 4, 2006

Hello All, Below is an extract from the GAC Communiqué regarding its meeting with the GNSO Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin >From the GAC Communiqué: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac24com.pdf GNSO related issues The GAC GNSO working group held an internal session to review ongoing work projects related to the development of public policy principles applicable to the introduction of new gTLDs and Whois data. In recognition of the policy development processes underway in the GNSO on these subjects, the GAC GNSO working group also held a meeting with the GNSO Council. The joint session provided a constructive opportunity to exchange status updates and information, and the GAC welcomes the interest of the GNSO Council in scheduling a joint session during the next ICANN meeting in Marrakesh.

1 0

Copy of Tina Dam's IDN presentation to the ICANN Board's Public Forum
by Bruce Tonkin April 3, 2006

April 3, 2006

Hello All, Please find attached a copy of Tina Dam's presentation on IDNs that was presented to the ICANN Board's public forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

ICANN Board action: Notice of Intent to Advance Implementation of New gTLD Process
by Bruce Tonkin April 3, 2006

April 3, 2006

From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-31mar06.html Notice of Intent to Advance Implementation of New gTLD Process Whereas, ICANN's Core Values support the introduction and promotion of choice and competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest; and Whereas, ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") has launched a policy development process designed to determine specific mechanisms for the additional introduction of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs); and Whereas, consistent with the timelines for policy development specified in ICANN's Bylaws, the GNSO should complete its initial report on new gTLDs before ICANN's next public meeting in Marrakech, Morocco in June 2006; and Resolved (06.22), ICANN Staff is authorized and instructed to post a "Notice of Intent to Advance Implementation of New gTLD Process," as soon as practicable, stating that ICANN intends to advance the implementation of a new gTLD process on or before 1 January 2007. The Notice should instruct interested parties to monitor and participate in the public process now underway in the GNSO; and, Resolved (06.23), the Board asks the GNSO to make its best efforts to complete its initial report on new gTLDs at or before ICANN's next public meeting in Marrakech, Morocco so that the GNSO's report can be posted for public comment, considered by the Board and the rest of the ICANN community, and implemented by Staff in accordance with the Board's instructions, with sufficient time to allow for advancement of a new gTLD process on or before 1 January 2007. Resolved (06.24), the Board asks the Chair to communicate this action to ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees.

1 0

RE: [council] More IDN policy quicksand
by Bruce Tonkin April 1, 2006

April 1, 2006

Hello Cary, > I hope that I am > not alone in feeling that the terminological stringency now > reflected in the Guidelines should also be conveyed by the > material that Council prepares. > Agreed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0