June 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Domain Name Marketplace Workshop -- Council and constituency members' participation strongly encouraged
by Denise Michel March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Your participation in the Domain Name Marketplace Workshop, scheduled for 9:30-12:30 on 27 June in the Salle des Ministres, is strongly encouraged. The workshop will enable ICANN stakeholders to share information about changes and trends in the domain name market. Specifically, it was organized to: provide additional information on the numerous ways value is derived from domain names and how the domain name marketplace has changed in recent years; answer questions about the appropriateness of some of these activities; and help ensure that policy decisions and potential contractual amendments are made with an understanding of the broader impact that such changes may have on market activities. The proposed agenda is posted at <http://icann.org/meetings/marrakech/dn-workshop-27jun06.htm>. Audience members will have opportunities to raise issues, ask questions, and interact with the panel. If you are unable to participate, please share your comments and questions regarding topics covered in the workshop via email to <dn-market-comments(a)icann.org>. Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN denise.michel(a)icann.org

2 3

Statement of Interests for Ross Rader
by Ross Rader Oct. 14, 2006

Oct. 14, 2006

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 -ross

2 2

Copy of presentation from Chris Fonteijn, OPTA, The importance of Whois data bases for spam enforcement at GNSO/GAC on Monday 26 June 06
by Bruce Tonkin June 30, 2006

June 30, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a copy of the presentation from Chris Fonteijn, OPTA, on The importance of Whois data bases for spam enforcement that was presented at GNSO/GAC meeting on Monday 26 June 06. Below is a plain text version. Regards, Bruce Tonkin The importance of Whois data bases for spam enforcement Chris Fonteijn Chairman OPTA Joint meeting GAC/GNSO Marrakech, Monday 26 July 2006 Introduction My name is Chris Fonteijn and I am chairman of OPTA. I thank you kindly for the opportunity given to me to speak to you directly and discuss the subject of Whois databases with you on such a short notice. OPTA is the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority, the National Regulatory Authority of the Netherlands. We are an independent agency, with no policy or legislative powers. Usually our name is associated with market analysis, tariffs and conflict resolutions between telecommunication companies. In addition to these subjects OPTA has a legal task in consumer protection and most prominently in enforcing the anti spam articles in the Netherlands Telecommunication act. We were given this task in May 2004. We fight spam in its many guises, being all forms of unsolicited electronic communication in which a product is advertised in some form. Further we deal with spy ware, malware, say unwanted software, and direct marketing. We have powers under administrative law, not criminal law, meaning that we can levy fines and injunctions in case of infringement. All our investigations in spam (related) matters start with research in Whois data bases. When we were informed of the preference in the GNSO to limit the Whois data to the technical contact details, the so-called narrow purpose definition, we became somewhat alarmed. It is our belief that if this definition is taken forward in the strict sense, spam enforcement, but also other forms of enforcement of internet and internet related abuse, will become more difficult nationally, but might well come to a full stop internationally. In this presentation I will try to make clear how we use Whois data bases, what the consequences of a loss of access to these data are and finally give some suggestions for further discussion on the subject. The Internet, of course, is one of the driving forces of modern society. It supports the global economy. But, it also threatens to become a virtual safe haven for criminals and abusers. We have been given a task in spam enforcement principally for reasons of consumer protection. I would like to point out that it is not just my organization that became alarmed in our country over the past few weeks. I know that within the Dutch prosecutor's office and the police force the subject is considered as a grave set back. Within the European Commission and in the Working Party article 29 of the Data Protection Agencies in the EU the subject of law enforcement viz à viz privacy is under discussion also. I refer to the letter that was sent to you by the Working Party last week. Spam enforcement in the Netherlands - Identifiable Dutch spam has decreased by 85% over the past two years. - So far we have received 15.339 consumer complaints. - The Netherlands no longer appears in the world wide top 10 of spam sending countries. OPTA is actively investigating international spam facilitating companies and stopping this through injunctions imposed on these companies. - OPTA plays an active role in international cooperation on spam in the Contact Network of Spam enforcing Authorities, the London Action Plan and advised on the OECD task force on spam. Also we have assisted in investigations of the FTC and the Australian spam enforcer and refer and accept cases. OPTA and Whois I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of the Whois databases for OPTA and comparable institutions. It is the starting point of all our investigations. My organization reacts to a complaint of a consumer on our complaint website. First we look to the Whois database to collect information on the website advertised in the spam. This means that a simple case, a case in which the spammer does not hide himself, is solved within minutes. A warning under threat of penalty is issued the same day. If the Whois data base were limited to technical data only, this would become weeks if not months, but also create considerable costs on all sides, as I will explain later. The Whois is also used for more in depth information. Domain name registrations can be used to match registrations. For example it can be used to compile Whois history, by checking and comparing past and present registrations. This historical research has proven to be a successful tool. Spam has not always been forbidden by law. So along the way spammers have sometimes simply altered their registration and falsified their identity. But what is masked now, might have been openly available information in the past. Spammers usually have many websites at their disposal. Mistakes are made, or patterns can be established because spammers for example use the same name, or registrations are from the same area each time when they fill out a form. In combination with further research this can lead to the true identity of the spammer. Even if all contact details are falsified it is often possible to establish a pattern in their many website registrations. Mind you, this form of research is only possible through Whois databases with the current level of information. GNSO and Whois data OPTA is worried about the definition as recently preferred in the GNSO. Why do we suggest opening it up for debate and look for solutions that accommodate these worries? I would like to point out the following. - More complex administrative processes Formal letters of inquiry need to be written by enforcers, requests have to be studied by the legal department of registrars. Possibly we need to enforce on basis of the Telecommunication Act in cases where information is being withheld by a registrar. A more complex administrative and judicial process on collecting and providing information is created. At present this is readily available. - Loss of time and efficiency This written process means a waste of time and efficiency, which slows operations down considerably. The search for historic data and establishing patterns becomes practically impossible. There will be no way of knowing what is out there any longer, because data cannot be linked easily. - Increased burden and costs on registrars The registrar at this stage plays a minor role, because most of the information we need is publicly available. The burden and the ensuing cost of the more complex process are all on the registrar who has to accommodate information requests. - Increase in international information requests Since spam is a cross border phenomenon we will probable have to obtain most of our information from abroad after the Whois data is limited. In countries with a spam law it is likely that we can ask our colleague enforcer to assist in obtaining information, but it has to fit into their workload. The burden and cost are put on them instead and after that on their local registrar. In this way more time is lost in assembling the most elementary information on a spammer. - OPTA can not enforce abroad Cross border OPTA does not have the powers to enforce and not all our international colleagues have the same powers we have. This means OPTA can not obtain information on a registered spammer if someone abroad decides not to cooperate. The enforcement action is likely to come to a full stop and the spammer continues his business in safety. The conclusion is that in general it will become harder to assemble information and cross border it will become very difficult to impossible. Discussion Privacy is an important issue. We, of course, have an obligation to work according to the EU legal framework as implemented in Dutch national law. Privacy sensitive information can only be used within the context in which we obtained it or was handed over to us. OPTA has signed a Protocol on Cooperation with the Dutch Data Protection Agency in 2004 especially because of spam (related) investigations and the sensitivity of personal data that is involved. The protocol of cooperation between CNSA members also deals with the cross border aspects of privacy. But we would like to point out that enforcement of spam, spy ware and malware, as well as enforcement of breaches of law under the criminal code like phishing, d-dos attacks and botnets, also improves privacy protection. We would ask you to also focus on that aspect. We respect privacy. Only in the event of complaints made we would use the Whois information to track down the spammer. Ultimately isn't spam sending also a breach of the privacy of the recipient by the spammer? Therefore, should the spammer have a right to privacy protection from the enforcement point of view? We do respect his privacy in case of a fine, by not publishing all private personal data. OPTA is are also aware of the many other interests, but a common interest is the reduction of spam around the world. Having said this, is there a solution foreseeable that is as well proportionate as accommodating to law enforcers? Tiered access, in which the full Whois databases can be accessed by accredited and selected law enforcement agencies and others with similar interests, could possibly be a solution to this problem. To me this seems like a proportionate solution. The letter recently sent to ICANN by Peter Schaar, chairman of the article 29 Working Party of EU Data Protection Agencies, suggests that such a solution is in line with the opinion of the Working Party. Another important subject that could be discussed is the accuracy of data in the Whois data bases. In what way can the quality of registrations be bettered and or more strictly imposed on the registrars and registrants? There are registrars in the world who are notorious for not cooperating with spam enforcers. It is no coincidence that many spammers register their websites with these registrars. Is this a subject that could be discussed with ICANN? Finally, please allow me to point to ICANNs By Laws. In Section 2 under Core Values it says, among others, "ICANN works on the preserving and enhancing of the reliability and the safety of the Internet". This happens to be the line of business we are in: making the Internet more reliable and safe for consumers. I would suggest and offer to you to start looking together for ways to ensure this for the future. We are willing, for example through the CNSA, to work together with ICANN and the GNSO in finding ways to ensure that the internet can remain reliable and safe whilst respecting privacy. This by no means seems a paradox to me. I would like to conclude in stressing once again how important the current Whois data bases are for our work in spam enforcement. Fighting spam helps making the Internet safer for consumers. A safer Internet means economic growth as well as an enhanced privacy protection. OPTA feels it needs to be able to do his work and you can contribute to make sure we can. So let us, together, look for and find ways to achieve an optimal solution, which does justice to all needs. I thank you for your attention. Chris Fonteijn Chairman OPTA

1 0

vacation
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 30, 2006

June 30, 2006

I will be off email till 8 June, please contact the Brussels office if there is an urgent matter. +32 2 234 78 70 Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GAC communique
by Bruce Tonkin June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a copy of the GAC communique. I have also attached a plain text version below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Governmental Advisory Committee Marrakech, 28 June 2006 Final GAC Communiqué - Marrakech June 2006 I. INTRODUCTION The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Marrakech, during June 24-28, 2006. The participating GAC Members comprised representatives from 41 members and 4 Observers. The Governmental Advisory Committee expressed warm thanks to the Government of Morocco and the organisers for hosting the meeting in Marrakech. II. WHOIS and New gTLDs The GAC Working Group on GNSO issues continued its focus on the development of GAC Principles applicable to the WHOIS database and to the introduction of new gTLDs, with the intention of sharing a stabilized draft with the community in Sao Paulo and to enable the GAC to provide guidance to the ICANN Board. Consistent with the GAC's commitment to providing information and advice on the range of public policy aspects of WHOIS data, representatives from Consumer Protection Agencies in three GAC members, OPTA in the Netherlands, MIC in Japan, and the FTC in the U.S. who made presentations during an open session with the GNSO outlining their respective perspectives and concerns regarding the accuracy and timely access to WHOIS data. Some of them and some GAC members also expressed concerns regarding the implications for enforcement of laws of the recent GNSO Council decision on a definition on the purpose of WHOIS data. Some GAC members expressed concerns that formulation 2 would also not provide an appropriate definition for the purposes of WHOIS. The GAC appreciates the interpretation of the GNSO Council Chair that formulation 1 does not imply that a decision has been taken to remove any data from public access. The GAC believes therefore that the final definition of the purpose of WHOIS data needs to reflect the public policy concerns expressed by GAC members. The GAC is intending to produce policy advice on the purpose and use of WHOIS in the form of principles for the Sao Paulo meeting. III. IDN A joint ICANN and GAC Workshop outlined the challenges and issues in the area of IDN. The various presentations emphasized the implementation and the public policy issues concerning the IDN deployment. The GAC appreciates the intention of ICANN's Presidential Advisory Committee on IDN to perform a technical test of two approaches to the insertion of Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels into the root zone of the DNS along with a timeline. The GAC awaits the outcome of the technical tests which will provide information to address policy issues. The GAC also proposes that policy issues as outlined in the GNSO preliminary issues report relating to IDN at the top level dated 28th May 2006 should be identified, prioritized and addressed in cooperation with GNSO, ccNSO as well as the broader ICANN community. IV. IPv6 The GAC's Working Group on IPv6 held a joint session with the NRO Executive Council and the ASO Chair, where they had a very fruitful exchange on the proposed IPv6 allocation policy, followed by internal discussion within the working group. The GAC notes that the RIRs have completed their policy development process in relation to the allocation of IPv6 addresses and welcomed the proposal under consideration by the ASO. The GAC will endeavour to provide advice within the proposed time frame. Noting the ongoing development of IPv6 the GAC encourages ICANN to keep the policy under review in the light of technical developments and evolution of demand. Noting the possibility that the request for advice from the GAC would be done inter-sessionally between Marrakech and Sao Paulo, the GAC would like to remind the Board that such timelines to respond continue to be a challenge. V. Notice of Inquiry from the Department of Commerce and request for feedback by the President's Strategy Committee The GAC welcomed a presentation from the US government representative on the Department of Commerce's Notice of Inquiry regarding the continued transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet domain name and addressing system. The GAC expressed confidence that the decision on the MoU between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce will be taken in the light of the WSIS principles. The GAC welcomed the report from the President's Strategy Committee on the improvements to the inherent multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. The GAC welcomes both initiatives to seek feedback on the evolution of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. The GAC considers it important to engage in a further structured discussion on this matter at the Sao Paulo meeting. The GAC recognizes that many of the issues put forward in the above initiatives are part of the ongoing efforts of enhanced cooperation within the ICANN context already being undertaken by ICANN Board and GAC Joint Working Group. VI. GAC EVOLUTION GAC internal organization and work plan Following its previous decisions, the GAC endorsed the document, which was developed by GAC's Working Group on the future of the GAC, describing necessary improvements in its working methods. The document will be posted on the GAC website. The GAC took a decision to synchronize its work program with ICANN's strategic plan and activities of other constituencies. To implement this by Sao Paulo meeting the GAC will introduce a bi-annual planning and will elaborate an annual work program. The work program will reflect GAC priorities, outline objectives and define delivery timeline. ICANN Board and GAC cooperation The GAC welcomes the work of the ICANN Board and GAC Joint Working Group, which since the meeting in Wellington held two conference calls, and appreciates the positive outcome of the meeting in Marrakech. The GAC endorses the Communications Timeline document (attached), which should improve the GAC's participation in ICANN's policy development processes by earlier engagement with relevant ICANN constituencies, as well as secure timely and precise routine communication. The GAC welcomes ICANN's outreach program and commits itself to participate in its implementation. The ICANN Board and GAC Joint Working Group in the run-up to Sao Paulo meeting will work on synchronization of GAC priorities with ICANN's strategic plan, will address issues related to evolution of GAC and the ICANN framework, will engage in discussion on a permanent solution for the GAC secretariat and will support internal GAC discussion on contingency planning. VII. OTHER MATTERS Handover of the GAC Secretariat The GAC took note of the handover of the GAC Secretariat from the European Commission to the Government of India with effect from 1st July 2006. GAC Election 2006 The GAC nomination and election process for the position of the Chair and Vice- Chairs is now open with the intention that a new Chair shall be installed by the first meeting of the GAC in 2007. **** The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with GAC in Marrakech. The next GAC meeting will be during the period of the ICANN meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil, December 2006. Marrakech, 28 June 2006 Encl. Communications Timeline document between the ICANN Board and the GAC Final Communication timelines between the ICANN Board and the GAC Communication on Strategic and Policy Issues It is in the interest of the global Internet community that all ICANN constituencies especially the supporting organizations and advisory committees provide their input into policy development and decision making processes continuously, effectively, constructively and in a timely manner. The environment of ICANN demands that the principle stated above in the first paragraph be considered in the communication processes of all parties involved. To maximize the results of cooperation and in order to harmonize the timing of the release of the advisory opinion of the GAC with decision making by the ICANN Board, it is necessary to implement an "early warning mechanism". This mechanism will provide an early indication of future challenges. The goal is to make GAC aware, very early in any policy development process (PDP) or proposal process, that such work is underway and that it could yield a proposal to the Board that would require public policy advice. GAC should identify issues where there may be public policy concerns as early as possible and bring them to the attention of other ICANN constituencies. Early in the policy development process, the Board of ICANN as well as Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and ICANN Staff may ask the GAC for advice on related public-policy issues. ICANN and other constituencies may provide initial input (by distributing background information prepared by the staff or by supporting organizations and President's advisory committees) to the GAC in terms of the public-policy questions and impact areas as they perceive them. The GAC, in its deliberations, may take these considerations into account. In order to support the policy development process it may be useful to consider a creation of an ad hoc cross- constituency working group, which would explore options around specific policy issues. A recent example of a timely indication of a future challenge was the statement of the President and CEO of ICANN, Dr. Paul Twomey, during the Wellington ICANN Board and GAC meeting. Dr. Twomey reminded the GAC of the possible public policy issues related to the introduction of IDNs. It is expected that during the Marrakesh meeting (June 2006) the GAC will discuss possible areas of public policy issues related to IDNs and aim to identify a work program with clearly defined deadlines in relation to IDNs for its work in 2007. In earlier years, an "early warning" was issued concerning IPv6 addressing allocation policy. The policy development process usually takes time. The GAC should be able to follow the evolution of ideas related to these policies and provide its input when necessary during the policy development process. That requires the capacity for GAC to monitor issues on a long-term basis. Government(s) particularly interested in a given PDP and following closely its development, is/are encouraged to provide input in the work of the GAC on the given issue. In a more advanced stage of a PDP, when a 21 day1 public notice is issued by ICANN to its various constituencies for comments on policy being considered for adoption by the Board, it has been noted that for a number of governments and for a variety of reasons, including inter-agency coordination within national governments, insufficient resources devoted to the GAC, limited secretarial support in synthesizing different input from the governments, etc., this 21 day public notice has not been found to be sufficient. Therefore, earlier indications from the Board about public policy considerations of those issues that will soon be considered for adoption could be considered helpful in securing timely responses from the GAC. Timely and Precise Routine Communication Taking into account GAC's limited resources as well as the specificities of governments' consultation and decision-making processes, communication between the ICANN Board and the GAC should be timely. It should become a rule that to the extent possible all communications should be made at least 30 days before the ICANN meeting. GAC will make any effort to respond to timely communications but will alert ICANN Board if it is not in a position to give a response at the meeting and will give an indicative timescale. It is also important to ensure precision in communication to ensure it is understandable to a multilingual and multicultural audience. Clarity in communication will help both the GAC and the Board and should be considered not only as a time saver, but also as a confidence building measure on sometimes sensitive issues. GAC is entitled to receive communications on a timely basis, as is the ICANN Board or respective Supporting Organizations (depending on the respective process). Streamlining the decision-making procedures, with full respect to due process, should be aimed at preventing delays in the development of advisory opinions. 27/06/2006 1 ICANN Bylaws Article III, Section 6. 1. a

1 0

Request for issues report from ALAC
by Bruce Tonkin June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

Hello All, I have just heard the ALAC presentation in the public forum. There was mention of a request to produce an issues report on domain name tasting. For reference, please note from the Policy Development process in Annex A: GNSO Policy-Development Process http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA 1. Raising an Issue An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following: c. Advisory Committee Initiation. An Advisory Committee may raise an issue for policy development by action of such committee to commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. I assume if ALAC wants an issues report on this topic that they will formally transmit a request to the GNSO Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council

2 1

Liz Dengate Thrush Internet Entrepreneurship Foundation
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] FYI, The resolution that was passed at the Council meeting yesterday was hand copied on to a condolence message that will be personally delivered by Susan Crawford, ICANN Board member who will represent the ICANN Board. Kind ragards, Glen Liz Dengate Thrush Internet Entrepreneurship Foundation Objective: To award funding grants for use in practical educational advancement of individuals in Internet Entrepreneurship Reason: To assist in recognising the progress made, and desire for further progress, by Liz Dengate Thrush, to improve the awareness and understanding of Internet technologies, and how to utilise the Internet for the improvement of education, entrepreneurship and engagement, with a particular emphasis in ameliorating digital divide issues [Forwarded from Keith Davidson --kim] Process: To work through an establishment process as follows: · Appointment of administrator(s) by Peter Dengate Thrush and InternetNZ · Partnership with NZ Law Foundation, Women in Technology or similar organisation · Development of detailed criteria for the foundation Finance: Initial funding grant by InternetNZ of $20,000 per year for 3 years, and general request for contributions and donations to this fund to the international Internet community. Rationale: The devastating and tragic deaths of Liz Dengate Thrush, her father-in-law (Ron Thrush), brother-in-law (Gavin Thrush) and family friend Heather Taylor occurred in a car accident in Wellington on 24 June 2006. As a tribute to Liz Dengate Thrush, who was an InternetNZ Councillor for several years, InternetNZ wishes to assist in the establishment of a Foundation as outlined above. We have consulted with Peter Dengate Thrush, and will continue dialogue to ensure the Foundation evolves in line with Liz's philosophies and enthusiasm for Internet technologies. InternetNZ will provide a $20,000 cash donation to help establish the foundation, and we invite members of the broader Internet community to also consider making a donation to this cause. Your support will help ensure that some of Liz's favourite projects can be completed. Your Support: If you do wish to support the establishment of this foundation, please either register at www.internetnz.net.nz/Liz. For any further information or clarification please email keith(a)internetnz.net.nz. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: GNSO Council Working Session Today
by Bruce Tonkin June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

Hello All, There will be no formal GNSO Council working session today. I believe that some may be interested in getting together informally. They are free to use this list to announce the details of any such meeting. I will not be attending personally. Regards, Bruce

2 1

Departure Information
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

Dear Council members, FYI Regular checkout time at the hotel is 12 noon. Late check out is 1pm - after that time you will be charged for a full additional day. If you want a checkout after 1pm please notify the front desk immediately. There is no exit tax - a taxi to the airport should cost you approximately 50 dirhams. The network will be up through Saturday in the board & staff workrooms and the hotel. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Copy of GNSO presentation for the ICANN Board public forum
by Bruce Tonkin June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

Hello All, Please find attached a copy of the GNSO presentation used during the ICANN Board Public forum on Wednesday 28 June 2006. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Appointment of Rita Rodin to the ICANN Board
by Bruce Tonkin June 29, 2006

June 29, 2006

To: John Jeffrey, ICANN Secretary From: Bruce Tonkin, Chair, GNSO Council cc: Vint Cerf, Chair, ICANN Board I hereby advise that the GNSO Council has ratified the election result for ICANN Board seat #14 at its meeting on 28 June 2006, and confirm that Rita Rodin has been elected to take up ICANN Board seat #14. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Marilyn Cade: announcement of interest in standing for election to the ICANN board
by Marilyn Cade June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Dear colleagues, I wanted to announce my resignation from the Nominating Committee as a representative from the BC, and advise fellow councilors of my interest in standing for election to the vacant Board seat now open for nomination. In order to stand for election, I have advised the Nominating Committee that I am resigning [from the Nominating Committee]and have asked to be removed from the Nominating Committee list and activities. In order to be fully transparent, I advise the Council that I am disputing an interpretation by the General Counsel regarding my eligibility to stand for election due to the Nominating Committee service. I have filed an ombudsman's appeal and am preparing a Reconsideration Request. In my view, I am fully qualified, now that I have resigned from the Nominating committee to be a candidate for election. The General Counsel has disagreed with my eligibility status, thus my appeals through the ombudsman, and possibly Reconsideration. I don't mean to clog the Council list with this topic, since that would be inappropriate, but please do let me know of any questions you may have. If nominated and seconded, then I'll have a chance to campaign, like any other candidate. At this point, the purpose of this posting is informational. Best regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Hello Ute, > > Does this mean only councillors who voted FOR Formula 1 are > called on for an explanation and their understanding of what > this means? Yes. Greg Ruth noted that he did not want to add a note in support of the purpose. The intent here is not to re-open the debate, but to add clarity to the intent of Council members that voted in favour of the purpose. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding vote during GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 28 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Hello Robin, Ross, Kiyoshi, and Alistair, > > I hope that those Councillors that are not able to attend the > meeting in-person will give serious consideration to > dialling-in for the Council meeting long enough to ratify the > vote, which is the first agenda item. > I would like to thank you all for making the effort to dial-in to ratify the vote. Unfortunately we did not have a phone hook-up for the meeting (there was some problem with the delivery of equipment for the meeting). We ended up using a mobile phone and holding it up against a speaker and microphone. I note that Bret Fausett, as liaison for the ALAC, also made an effort to attending the meeting through the phone hook-up. Your patience and dedication was much appreciated. I also want to acknowledge that those few Council members that were not able to attend the meeting in-person or via phone were travelling on aircraft at the time and couldn't access a phone. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Hello All, and in particular those not here in Marrakech, I just wish to confirm that no action was taken. I reported the motion as a draft motion in the public forum. The motion is now open to improvement prior to the next Council teleconference. Please also note that my intent at least was that the WHOIS task force should continue its work and aim to have a complete report as per the timelines discussed by the task force on Monday morning in Marrakech. The motion does not change the current definition of purpose of the WHOIS service. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Proposed motion on WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Proposed Motion In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments. Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected. Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.

5 5

Re: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS
by Ute Decker June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Does this mean only councillors who voted FOR Formula 1 are called on for an explanation and their understanding of what this means? -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin To: Council GNSO Sent: Wed Jun 28 12:49:11 2006 Subject: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS Proposed Motion In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments. Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected. Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.

1 0

WHOIS motion in today's meeting in Marrakech
by Mawaki Chango June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Bruce, could you please post your complete motion in plain text to the list? thanks, Mawaki

1 0

GNSO working group of volunteers IDN issues update
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

[To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note the added volunteers to the GNSO working group: The registrar members are: - Bruce Tonkin, Melbourne IT - Werner Staub, CORE (registrar) and .cat - Yoav Keren, Domain The Net Technologies (registrar) - Paul Diaz, Network Solutions Sophia Bekele, CBS International, and Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council Avri Doria, Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council Ram Mohan, Afilias (operator for .info, .org, .mobi, and .in) Cary Karp, gTLD Registries representative to the GNSO Council June Seo, gTLD Registries representative to the GNSO Council Alistair Dixon, Telstra Clear Ltd., and CBUC representative to the GNSO Council + other CBUC participants not yet named. Marilyn Cade, CBUC representative to the GNSO Council Mawaki Chango, NCUC representative to the GNSO Council Charles Shaban, TALAL ABU-GHAZALEH & CO.International (TAGI) IPC representative. Please contact me if there are still names to add. We would like to confirm the list as soon as possible. Thank you very much, Kind regards. Glen Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 5

Options for WHOIS purpose
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Hello All, In light of the extensive feedback we have received this week, I believe we have the following options: (1) Revise definition of purpose (2) Keep current definition, but expand on what that definition means (3) Leave definition as is for now, until the task force completes its work on recommending any changes to WHOIS (e.g changes to what is made public, and how data that is not public can be accessed by legitimate users). Then re-evaluate the definition. Lets discuss this further in the Council meeting tomorrow. In any case, I recommend that the task force continue its current work program. Any work on purpose should be done at the Council level. Note that in cases where the task force decides to remove certain data elements from public access, the mechanism to access those elements may or may not be called part of the WHOIS service in future, and may or may not use the current port-43 protocol. E.g We may end up with a revised "WHOIS service", and a separate "Dealing with bad people" service, or maybe a "Standard WHOIS service" and "Advanced WHOIS service". Rather than worrying about what it is called for now, or worrying about the technical protocols, lets focus on the functional aspects. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 3

FYI - background on communication equipment problems
by Denise Michel June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

See note from Steve Conte, General Manager IS (below) regarding communication equipment problems. Addendum from Steve: I can't stress enough that this is NOT an issue with Morocco (the destination) or the local hosts here. They have bent over backwards to not only adapt to my issues, but have gone above and beyond by calling and working with the Moroccan government and customs here to try to get my shipment in. This is a great group. Update: 27 June 2006 -- The equipment did not make it. Steve is taking steps to ensure this does not happen again. -------------------------------------- 25 June 2006 Greetings, I just wanted to give you a heads up on some logistical issues I'm having for this meeting. The shipment of my video equipment was delayed in the US for four days and then returned to Marina del Rey the day after I left for Morocco. I've had a colleague cavalier this for me while I was in transit and he did a great job on getting the shipment back out. As of last web tracking, the equipment is in Belgium, I'm presuming awaiting a plane to Rabat to be routed here. I'm hopeful that my equipment will arrive on Monday, at which point I'll spend whatever time it takes to get this up and running. In the meantime, since I was aware of the logistical issues prior to departing for Morocco, we've taken some steps to attempt to webcast and/or capture as much of the meeting as possible until my equipment gets here. I've brought a spare camera with us in a suitcase and using our breakout laptop for ccNSO, we're able to provide a webcast stream for the main room events. The webcast will be limited to a non-mobile (ie, no pan or zoom) shot of the stage including the podium. I'll supplement this with a voice-only stream. If my equipment isn't here for the ccNSO, I've brought a portable mp3 recorder (my own personal one) to capture the audio of the ccNSO sessions and will post them as best I can during the meeting so as to minimize the time-delay of them. I'll let Chris Disspain know of my logistical issues as well. To top it all off, my laptop has a bad case of narcolepsy and has decided to go into sleep mode every few minutes, causing me to struggle for every single task I need to do online (my laptop has gone to sleep four times so far during this email alone, with an average of 5 minutes to get it going again.). We're working on getting this problem resolved but being a weekend, it has also been a pretty significant challenge to face. To be very clear, none of the above issues are the result of our local hosts. They have been extremely accommodating to adapting to these challenges and all divisions of the hosts have done a fantastic job here. I apologize for the impact this is potentially causing and I'm making every effort to minimize this impact, but as some of you have mentioned to me, it has already been noticed. I take my role of supporting the board and these meetings extremely seriously and I'm making every effort to make this meeting as successful as possible from an operational/logistical perspective. Sincerely, Steve -- Steve Conte General Manager, Information Systems ICANN

1 0

Statement on WHOIS from a group of registrars
by Bruce Tonkin June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Hello All, The statement below is a work in progress and is not yet an official registrars constituency statement, however the undersigned registrars have supported this statement. These registrars manage a substantial majority of WHOIS records for gTLDs. Discussion on this topic is publicly archived on the registrars mailing list. Regards, Bruce Tonkin We the undersigned registrars wish to confirm that we will continue to collect the data (commonly called WHOIS data) as required by the registrar accreditation agreement (all of which is currently displayed to the general public), and will continue to provide access to such data by law enforcement, intellectual property, ISPs, and others through appropriate processes. Registrars are open to improve those processes for more efficient access by legitimate users. Registrars store this information for the lifetime of their agreement with ICANN plus an additional 3 years. Registrars also note that other useful data such as the IP (Internet Protocol) address used by a registrant when registering a domain name and credit card information is also stored. This information is also available for law enforcement access through appropriate processes. Registrars continue to support privacy protection for the Personal Data of natural persons. List of supporters as of 9:30 AM Wednesday (6/28): Network Solutions SRSPlus Namesecure eNom Namebay Active 24 Dotster AusRegistry Melbourne IT Schlund CORE Moniker.com Nominalia Tucows GoDaddy Directi Domain The Net NetNames Stargate Holdings Corp Encirca Register.com Name.com Name Intelligence CORE* Nominalia* Schlund* NOTE: * registrars only endorsed the original version. Support for the current draft is assumed

1 0

Re: [council] Options for WHOIS purpose
by Ute Decker June 28, 2006

June 28, 2006

Thank you Bruce, agree. I will not be able to participate today but realize we may need move ahead with this. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin To: Council GNSO Sent: Tue Jun 27 19:55:40 2006 Subject: [council] Options for WHOIS purpose Hello All, In light of the extensive feedback we have received this week, I believe we have the following options: (1) Revise definition of purpose (2) Keep current definition, but expand on what that definition means (3) Leave definition as is for now, until the task force completes its work on recommending any changes to WHOIS (e.g changes to what is made public, and how data that is not public can be accessed by legitimate users). Then re-evaluate the definition. Lets discuss this further in the Council meeting tomorrow. In any case, I recommend that the task force continue its current work program. Any work on purpose should be done at the Council level. Note that in cases where the task force decides to remove certain data elements from public access, the mechanism to access those elements may or may not be called part of the WHOIS service in future, and may or may not use the current port-43 protocol. E.g We may end up with a revised "WHOIS service", and a separate "Dealing with bad people" service, or maybe a "Standard WHOIS service" and "Advanced WHOIS service". Rather than worrying about what it is called for now, or worrying about the technical protocols, lets focus on the functional aspects. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

United States Government Contribution to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) on WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, I have transcribed the paper hand-out that I received at the end of the GAC/GNSO meeting on WHOIS on Monday 26 June 2006 from Suzanne Sene in the interests of making sure that those that were not physically present could see the contribution. Any errors in transcription are mine. Regards, Bruce Tonkin United States Government Contribution to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) on WHOIS The United States Government (USG) would like to officially express its views on the GNSO's WHOIS Task Force report dated March 15, 2006 and the April 12, 2006 vote on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS. The USG views a public gTLD WHOIS as critical to ensure that international and domestic agencies, businesses and consumers have continued timely and unrestricted access to accurate and complete WHOIS information for the stability and security of the Internet and international community. A public gTLD WHOIS is essential to: * assist each nation's law enforcement agencies, both civil and criminal, in resolving cases that include the use of the Internet, including child pornography, violent crimes, missing persons, wire fraud, cyber crime, consumer fraud, identify theft, phishing, and other violations of consumer privacy and data security; * combat intellectual property infringement and theft by being able to identify cybersquatters, trademark infringers and counterfeiters, copyright pirates and other individuals engaged in intellectual property rights violations; * support Internet network operators that are responsible for the day-to-day operation, security and stability of the Internet; * protect the rights of consumers by facilitating, for example, their identification of legitimate online businesses; and * Assist businesses to investigate fraud, phishing, and other law violations that affect their business interests and interests of their customers. The USG also recognizes a need to protect the privacy interests of individuals and, like many other nations, protects the privacy of residents of the United States through enforcement of applicable national laws. Based on the foregoing, the USG believes that Formulation 1 of the Purposes of WHOIS data identified in the "Final Task Force Report on the Purpose of WHOIS and of the Whois Contacts", is problematic as it does not reflect the range of public policy interests of a fully functional WHOIS regime. Specifically, the USG is concerned that Formulation 1, which advances a narrow, technical definition of the purpose of WHOIS, would prevent the range of legitimate uses of Whois databases and impede law enforcement's ability to prosecute crimes, prevent consumer fraud, and protect consumer privacy by allowing perpetrators to hide behind the shield of anonymity. The USG will continue to work through the GAC to achieve a consensus and understanding with the GNSO on this very critical issue. SUZANNE RADELL SENSE GAC Representative - USA June 2006

1 0

GNSO Council Remote participation June 28, 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, There have been serious issues with equipment that has not arrived which includes our web casting and meeting support gear so although we are trying to get a telephone connection for the GNSO Council meeting there is no guarantee at this point. I will be able to tell you what the situation is just before the GNSO Council meeting starts at 10:00am local time. We will do out best to make a brief connection for the ratification of the vote. We do apologise for these circumstances, but they are beyond our control. Thank you very much. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0