June 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 26, 2006

June 26, 2006

The GNSO Council and ICANN Board working dinner will be in 'FES 2' at 7:30 this evening. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Presentation at the IDN workshop - 25 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 25, 2006

June 25, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a copy of the presentation used in the IDN workshop today. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Regarding ALAC liaison to the GNSO
by Bruce Tonkin June 25, 2006

June 25, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: annette.muehlberg Sent: Sunday, 25 June 2006 2:02 PM To: Bruce Tonkin; ALAC Subject: substitute gNSO liason Dear Bruce, since Bret Fausett is not in Marrakech, ALAC has appointed Wendy Seltzer as substitute as ALAC liason to the gNSO for the Marrakech ICANN Meeting. Kind regards Annette Muehlberg ALAC Chair

1 0

Copy of presentation used in the GAC/GNSO meeting - 25 June 2005 in Marrakech
by Bruce Tonkin June 25, 2006

June 25, 2006

Hello All, Please find attached a copy of the presentation that was used in the joint GNSO/GAC meeting today at 2pm. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GAC communiqué in Wellington
by Bruce Tonkin June 25, 2006

June 25, 2006

Final Communiqué Wellington 28 March 06 99 Governmental Advisory Committee Wellington, 28 March 2006 GAC Communiqué - Wellington, New Zealand 28 March 2006. I. INTRODUCTION The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Wellington, New Zealand March, 24 to 28 March 2006. The participating GAC Members comprised representatives from 33 Members and 3 Observers. The Governmental Advisory Committee expressed warm thanks to the Government of New Zealand and the organisers for hosting the meeting in Wellington. II. GAC EVOLUTION - GAC Internal Organization and Workplan The GAC discussed priority areas for the future of the GAC, in particular the immediate transition of the GAC Secretariat. GAC recognized the need to take urgent steps to provide an immediate solution to the transition of the GAC Secretariat from the European Commission. The GAC welcomes the generous proposal from the Government of India and the offer from ICANN for the support of the GAC Secretariat functions and it agrees to an immediate transitional solution to transfer the core functions of the GAC Secretariat from the European Commission to the Government of India which shall occur no later than 30 June 2006. The GAC will continue to explore how to: a) Extend the GAC membership, develop outreach and build capacity, and more generally widen international participation, and, b) Improve the way it addresses public policy issues in a more effective manner in relation to the ICANN framework, taking account of the outcome of the WSIS. The GAC will continue to explore the modalities for a permanent solution and the development of a sustainable funding mechanism. - Internationalization and Capacity Building of the GAC The GAC recognized the need to enhance its current outreach to nonmember governments to increase awareness of its work. It also acknowledged its role in building capacity amongst developing country non-members and new members on how the GAC's activity could be of value to them. In this regard, the GAC has identified initial areas of focus and will further consider these areas, including how such activities would be funded. The GAC welcomes and supports the offer by Iran to organize a regional workshop on the GAC as a good first step in its outreach efforts. - 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. III. New TLDs, .XXX The GAC appreciates the efforts of ICANN to clarify the process by which the Board approved the entry into negotiations by ICANN staff and ICM Registry, the applicant for the .xxx sponsored top level domain, as reflected in the ICANN President's letter to the GAC Chair on February 11, 2006. However, the GAC does not believe the February 11 letter provides sufficient detail regarding the rationale for the Board determination that the application had overcome the deficiencies noted in the Evaluation Report. The GAC would request a written explanation of the Board decision, particularly with regard to the sponsored community and public interest criteria outlined in the sponsored top level domain selection criteria. In its application, supporting materials and presentation to the GAC in November 2005, ICM Registry promised a range of public interest benefits as part of its bid to operate the .xxx domain. To the GAC's knowledge, these undertakings have not yet been included as ICM obligations in the proposed .xxx Registry Agreement negotiated with ICANN. The public policy aspects identified by members of the GAC include the degree to which .xxx application would: ·Take appropriate measures to restrict access to illegal and offensive content; ·Support the development of tools and programs to protect vulnerable members of the community; ·Maintain accurate details of registrants and assist law enforcement agencies to identify and contact the owners of particular websites, if need be; and ·Act to ensure the protection of intellectual property and trademark rights, personal names, country names, names of historical, cultural and religious significance and names of geographic identifiers drawing on best practices in the development of registration and eligibility rules. Without in any way implying an endorsement of the ICM application, the GAC would request confirmation from the Board that any contract currently under negotiation between ICANN and ICM Registry would include enforceable provisions covering all of ICM Registry's commitments, and such information on the proposed contract being made available to member countries through the GAC. Nevertheless without prejudice to the above, several members of the GAC are emphatically opposed from a public policy perspective to the introduction of a .xxx sTLD. 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. IV. ICANN - VeriSign Agreement Some GAC members believe that the ICANN Board should ensure that the reasons for its decision are properly understood and accepted by the ICANN community, in particular on how it contributes to ICANN's missions and values as identified in its draft strategy plan July 2006 - June 2009. V. IANA Policies and Processes The GAC welcomes ICANN's report on its progress on reducing delays in the IANA function. We ask ICANN to publish its policies and process for updating the root as soon as possible. IV. OTHER MATTERS - Election of Vice Chairs In light of the vacancies of two vice chairmanships, the GAC is pleased to announce the introduction of two new ad interim Vice Chairs. The two new ad interim Vice Chairs are Pankaj Agrawala (India) and Frank March (New Zealand). **** The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with GAC in Wellington. The GAC expresses its appreciation and thanks to the European Commission for providing the GAC Secretariat since November 2002. The next GAC meeting will be during the period of the ICANN Marrakesh meeting, end of June 2006. Wellington, 28 March 2006

1 0

Family Tragedy Forces ICANN Board Member to Return to New Zealand
by Bruce Tonkin June 24, 2006

June 24, 2006

Family Tragedy Forces ICANN Board Member to Return to New Zealand 24 June 06 Marrakech, Morocco, 24th June 2006: As the 26th International meeting gets underway in Marrakech, it is with deep sorrow that ICANN announces that Board Member Peter Dengate-Thrush has been forced to return to New Zealand due to a family tragedy. Yesterday, four members of Peter's family were killed in a car accident. Commenting on this news, ICANN's Chairman Vint Cerf said: "This is a terrible tragedy and I have extended heartfelt sympathy to Peter on behalf of the myself, the Board, staff and the ICANN community. Peter is a highly respected and valued member of the ICANN community and we extend to him our friendship, prayers and support in this tragic time." ICANN invites anyone wishing to extend public condolences to Peter to do so via pdt-messages(a)icann.org . ICANN will publish the archive at <http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdt-messages/>. Peter's commitments at the Marrakech meeting will be managed by other Board Members.

1 0

RE: [council] new string/re diversity
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com June 24, 2006

June 24, 2006

Tom >From the ISPCP perspective I don't think I have anything much to add here, other than to endorse much of what has already been said. We certainly need to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in ICANN and there are many ways of cutting the cloth and getting a reasonable fit. With the current GNSO arrangement we have one that is pretty much inclusive and we should focus on making it work better, not start changing it without due cause. Unless there is a cast iron case for doing so, to keep adding additional groups would jeopardise progress. The only other point I'd like to emphasis is one that Marilyn briefly alluded to below. Over the next 5 years or so the Internet is likely to radically change as it becomes the focus for technology evolution that will radically change the way we provide a vast range of services that in the past, were not Internet based. ICANNs role in that development is essential, but if we're to try and evolve the ICANN model to include every party impacted, it would become totally unmanageable. For me that' one of the major arguments to ensure ICANN's mission is clearly defined and doesn't stray into areas which don't fit with its key competences. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: 22 June 2006 17:08 To: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] new string/re diversity I know that sometimes it is tempting to think that "we" have a unique view of the world, and that the world resolves [no pun intended] around ICANN. In fact, the Internet is much more complicated and complex, as is the WWW, and the evolving world of the NGN and other forms of IP applications that have nothing to do with ICANN, other than that they are reliant upon the unique indicators and the reliability of the small percentage of the Internet's infrastructure that ICANN influences. For instance, certainly, the role of ICANN in its limited but critical role is a foundational aspect of the Internet. However, it is the Internet industry that builds and operates the Internet itself -- and of course, DNS registries and registrars are part and a critical part of the make up of the larger world. It concerned me when I attended the recent U.S. Congressional hearing on the dot com agreement that some were portraying ICANN as in charge of security of the Internet, or equating DNS with the entirety of the Internet. I saw a little too much "enthusiasm" on several parties parts to portray how important "their role" was. I think we all need to maintain perspective on the need for all of us to understand that we co-exist in a larger Internet world and that ICANN has a limited, albeit critical set of roles and activities. Of course, we need to always encourage more companies and entities who have relevant interest in what ICANN does to become engaged, while not seeking to expand ICANN's scope or mission. That is a challenge, isn't it? To date, it has been hard, given the lack of early agenda and programme information. However, I'm pleased to see the very recent approach that the ICANN staff has used in their last edit of the programme for this meeting. While the agenda and the programme are very disappointingly late -- [and that is a topic for improvement if companies are to get information early enough to approve travel and participation] still the new approach with some bits of information about who a workshop is designed for, etc. can help us to outreach to the parts of companies who are indeed interested and engaged in areas where ICANN is relevant to them. Let me address one of the points below regarding who a web hoster is/may be: I might suggest that it is easy to get baffled by terminology. Or if you are more technical in nature or expertise, it may be easy, accidentally to overlook the need to speak in laymanese. Just so we aren't arguing past each other, let me suggest a flexible "general" resource that I find works well in international settings as well -- wikipedia. Let me use it as a reference document for a minute. A quick glance through the range of kinds of "hosting" and the different kinds of providers, and the examples of different kinds of companies/businesses engaged in web hosting that can be found in that easy to find resource may be informative. Web hosters come in many sizes. The BC does have some members who offer web hosting. I am aware that there are web hosters who are members of the ISPCP. What I see in the "hosting" industry/sector is quite diverse, and that seems to be what you are suggesting, Tom: no single model, no single kind of company, large, gigantic, and micro-enterprises. I'd suggest that web hosters are welcome to join the BC, and if they meet the ISPCP criteria, undoubtedly they might pursue membership/activity there; I leave that in the able hands of Mr. Holmes to comment on as chair of the constituency. And, Tom, you are suggesting, aren't you, that also web hosters who are registrars are already members of the Registrar constituency? Or that you would welcome them? As to the quite different kinds of industries -- I'm sitting in SG3, and have been discussing this topic with some service providers from Asian island countries -- and they are describing the diversity to me as well, including some very large, but distributed providers, and then some very small local/regional providers that are new entrants in some cases. Must be the global Internet and open standards and innovation at work. :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:45 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Tony Am 21.06.2006 schrieb Anthony Harris: > And thus am rather surprised at your conclusion that: > "The definition also seems to meet the needs > of web host and ISP operators," > > If it does, I have yet to meet one... With 1&1 and Godaddy as very large international webhosts supporting formulation 1 I would think that this conclusion can be drawn. Which brings me to another point. Apparantly webhosting companies are not represented in the current constituency setup and hence not much is known about their interessts. Since hosting is one of the real crucial services of the net we might be advised well to think about incoperating them somehow into our structure. Best, tom

1 0

Letter from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
by Bruce Tonkin June 23, 2006

June 23, 2006

And the letters continue to arrive. Here is another one sent to the ICANN Board: -----Original Message----- From: Philippa Lawson [mailto:Philippa.Lawson@uottawa.ca] Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 4:30 PM Subject: ICANN WHOIS database policy Importance: High Please find attached a letter from CIPPIC regarding ICANN's WHOIS database policy, which we understand will be discussed at the ICANN meeting in Marrakech this coming Monday. Thank you, ******************************************** Philippa Lawson Executive Director and General Counsel Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law 57 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, Canada K1N 6N5 http://www.cippic.ca ********************************************

1 0

From the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party
by Bruce Tonkin June 23, 2006

June 23, 2006

Note the PDF attachment is in English ________________________________ From: VPR Présidence-Voorzitterschap [mailto:presidence-voorzitterschap@privacycommission.be] Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 2:57 PM Subject: réunions de l'ICANN et du GAC à Marrakech Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Depuis plusieurs années, la Commission suit avec intérêt les travaux du GAC et de l'ICANN concernant les annuaires WHOIS. La constitution de ces annuaires WHOIS soulève un certain nombre de préoccupations en termes de protection des données à caractère personnel. Ces préoccupations, partagées au niveau international par l'ensemble des homologues de la Commission, ont notamment déjà fait l'objet d'une prise de position officielle par le Groupe de protection des données de l'Article 29 au niveau européen[1] et par l'International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications au niveau international[2]. Ces préoccupations sont aujourd'hui rappelées dans la lettre - dont le texte est joint en annexe - que Monsieur Peter Schaar, Président du Groupe de protection des données de l'Article 29, adresse à Monsieur Vinton G. Cerf, Président du Conseil de l'ICANN et à laquelle la Commission adhère pleinement. D'importantes discussions concernant l'avenir de ces annuaires WHOIS se dérouleront lors des prochaines réunions de l'ICANN et du GAC qui se tiendront à Marrakech du 24 au 30 juin 2006. Lors de ces réunions, la Belgique sera représentée par l'IBPT. A cette occasion, il serait fortement souhaitable que le représentant de la Belgique au sein de ces réunions puisse prendre en considération, dans le cadre de son intervention, les préoccupations de notre pays, telles que décrites dans la lettre de Monsieur Peter Schaar ci-jointe. Mes services restent d'ailleurs à sa complète disposition pour tout complément d'information à ce propos. Vu l'imminence de ces réunions et pour plus d'efficacité, je me permets de vous transmettre directement ces documents par courrier électronique. Le courrier papier suivra par voie postale classique. En vous remerciant pour l'intérêt que vous et vos services pourront, je l'espère, porter à l'objet de la présente, je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, l'expression de mes salutations très distinguées. Le président, Michel PARISSE Copie email à : M. Jan Vannieuwenhuyse, IBPT, GAC representative for Belgium Mr Vinton G. Cerf, ICANN Chair Mr Sharil Tarmizi, GAC Chair Mr Bruce Tonkin, GNSO Chair ________________________________ [1] Avis 2/2003 sur l'application des principes de protection des données aux répertoires "Whois" - http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_fr.pdf [2] Common Position on Privacy and Data Protection aspects of the Registration of Domain Names on the Internet - http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/doc/int/iwgdpt/dns_en.htm <http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/doc/int/iwgdpt/dns_en.htm>

1 0

[Fwd: Hotel Payment form]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Dear Council Members, Please see the form to be filled in for the Hotel for payment. It will be waiting for you when you check in at the Hotel. Please fill in the form when you check in. Thank you very much! Glen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Hotel Payment form Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:25:39 -0700 From: Michael Evans <evans(a)icann.org> To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG' <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Glen, The guests should print the dates of their stay again on the form and fax to the number indicated. Otherwise they should return the form to us upon arrival. Thanks, Michael -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0