June 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

FTC Statement as presented at the GAC/GNSO meeting - Monday 26 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a copy of the presentation from Jon Leibowitz in the GAC/GNSO session on WHOIS on Monday 26 June 2006. I have attempted to provide a plain text version below. Note I have not included the footnotes. Regards, Bruce Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") Meeting Concerning Whois Databases Marrakech, Morocco June 2006 I. Introduction Good morning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak here today about Whois databases. I am Jon Leibowitz, one of five Commissioners of the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") in Washington, D.C. The FTC is an independent federal agency of the United States government, the lead agency charged with protecting Americans' privacy, and the only agency in the United States empowered to enforce both competition and consumer protection laws. The FTC believes that the Whois databases, despite their limitations, are nevertheless critical to the agency's consumer protection mission, to other law enforcement agencies around the world, and to consumers. The use of these databases to protect consumers is at risk as a result of the Generic Names Supporting Organization's ("GNSO") recent vote to define the purpose of Whois data as technical only. The FTC is concerned that any attempt to limit Whois to this narrow purpose will put its ability to protect consumers and their privacy in peril. The principal consumer protection statute that the FTC enforces is the FTC Act, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The FTC Act authorizes the FTC to stop businesses engaged in such practices. The FTC also can seek monetary redress and other equitable remedies for consumers injured by these illegal practices. The FTC is a civil law enforcement agency without criminal authority. The FTC has used its authority against "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" to take action against a wide variety of Internet-related threats, including Internet auction fraud, Internet-based pyramid schemes, websites making deceptive health claims, and websites promoting "get rich quick" schemes. More recently, the Commission has focused its actions against deceptive claims delivered through spam, "phishing" schemes, and spyware. In many of these cases, the FTC has worked cooperatively with its consumer protection counterparts across the globe. The FTC's goal in bringing these cases has been to help ensure that consumers are free from deceptive practices that undermine the promise of the Internet. In addition, the FTC has made a high priority of protecting consumers' privacy and improving the security of their sensitive personal information, both online and offline. The FTC has brought several law enforcement actions targeting unfair and deceptive practices that involve the failure to protect consumers' personal information. Indeed, the FTC recently created a new Division of Privacy and Identity Protection to address specifically the need to protect consumer privacy and the security of consumers' personal information. The FTC also promotes consumer welfare in the electronic marketplace through education, outreach, and advocacy. For example, FTC staff provides guidance to businesses advertising and marketing on the Internet. FTC staff educates consumers about what they should look for before making purchases and providing information online. The Commission also advocates before legislative bodies; on several recent occasions, for example, the Commission has testified before Congress on protecting consumer privacy and data security. This statement addresses the importance of public Whois databases in enforcing consumer protection laws and in empowering consumers. It describes how the FTC uses Whois databases for its law enforcement purposes, discusses the importance of consumer access to Whois data about commercial websites and other legitimate uses of Whois data, addresses the privacy concerns that some stakeholders have raised about public access to Whois databases, and concludes with some of the FTC's recommendations on how to move forward. II. How the FTC Uses Whois Databases FTC investigators and attorneys have used Whois databases for the past decade in multiple Internet investigations. Whois databases often are one of the first tools FTC investigators use to identify wrongdoers. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of quickly accessible Whois data to FTC investigations. For example, in the FTC's first spyware case, FTC v. Seismic Entertainment, the Commission alleged that the defendants exploited a known vulnerability in the Internet Explorer browser to download spyware to users' computers without their knowledge. The FTC alleged that the defendants' software hijacked consumers' home pages, resulted in an incessant stream of pop-up ads, allowed the secret installation of additional software programs, and caused computers to slow down severely or crash. The software in this case was installed using so- called "drive-by" tactics - exploiting vulnerabilities to install software onto users' computers without any notice. Using Whois data, the FTC found the defendants, stopped their illegal conduct, and obtained a judgment for millions of dollars in consumer redress. It is uncertain whether the FTC would have been able to locate the defendants without the Whois data. In another matter, the FTC cracked down on companies that illegally exposed unwitting consumers to graphic sexual content without warning. The Commission charged seven entities with violating federal laws that require warning labels on e-mail containing sexually-explicit content. In these cases, accurate Whois information helped the FTC to identify the operators of websites that were promoted by the illegal spam messages. Information in Whois databases is most useful when it is accurate. Indeed, the Commission has advocated that stakeholders work to improve the accuracy of such information, because inaccurate data has posed significant obstacles in FTC investigations. In some instances, though, even inaccurate Whois information can be useful in tracking down Internet fraud operators. One of the FTC's recent spyware cases involved defendants that used free lyric files, browser upgrades, and ring tones to trick consumers into downloading spyware on their computers.18 Rather than receiving what they opted to download, consumers instead received spyware with code that tracked their activities on the Internet. In this particular investigation, several of the defendants' websites were registered to a non-existent company located at a non-existent address. Despite the registrant's use of false information, FTC staff was able to link the websites to each other because all of the registrations listed the same phony name as the administrative contact in the Whois databases. Of course, with a "narrow purpose" Whois, not even such inaccurate registration information would be available. Having "real-time" access to Whois data is particularly important for a civil law enforcement agency like the FTC. Where a registrar is located in a foreign jurisdiction, the FTC often has no other way to obtain the information it needs. The FTC cannot, in most cases, readily require a foreign entity to provide us with information. Thus, particularly in cross-border cases, Whois databases are often the primary source of information available to the FTC about fraudulent domain name registrants. In short, if ICANN restricts the use of Whois data to technical purposes only, it will greatly impair the FTC's ability to identify Internet malefactors quickly - and ultimately stop perpetrators of fraud, spam, and spyware from infecting consumers' computers. III. How Consumers Use Whois Databases Consumers also benefit from access to Whois data for commercial websites. Where a website does not contain contact information, consumers can go to the Whois databases and find out who is operating the website. This can help consumers resolve problems with online merchants directly, without the intervention of law enforcement authorities. Consumers do in fact regularly rely on Whois databases to identify the entities behind websites. FTC staff recently searched the FTC's database of consumer complaints, and found a significant number of references to the term "Whois." These results indicate that when consumers encounter problems online, the Whois databases are a valuable initial tool they use to identify with whom they are dealing. Consumer access to Whois also helps the FTC because it allows consumers to gather valuable contact information that they can pass on to the FTC - information that might no longer be available by the time the agency initiates an investigation because the website operators have moved on to different scams. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD") has recognized that consumer access to Whois data about commercial websites serves an important public policy interest. In 2003, the OECD Committee on Consumer Policy issued a paper unequivocally stating that "[f]or commercial registrants, all contact data should be accurate and publicly available via WHOIS." In support of this conclusion, the paper says: "Easy identification of online businesses is a key element for building consumer trust in the electronic marketplace. Because a Web site has no obvious physical presence, consumers are deprived of many of the usual identifying characteristics that help instil trust in a traditional retailer . . . While the most obvious location for an online business to provide contact details is on the Web site itself, domain name registration information can serve as a useful compliment [sic]." This OECD paper represents an international consensus about the importance of Whois data for consumers. IV. Other Legitimate Uses of Whois Data There are other legitimate private users of Whois databases whose views and concerns should be reflected in the Whois policy development process at ICANN. These are businesses, financial institutions, non-governmental organizations, and intellectual property rights owners, all of which heavily rely on access to accurate Whois data. Although the FTC does not represent these entities' interests in the Whois debate, their use of Whois databases can help consumers. For example, a trademark owner concerned about the misuse of its name by "spoofing" its website is not only protecting its own business interests but is protecting its customers from being "phished." The Red Cross recently explained how it used Whois data to shut down fraudulent websites that mimicked its website after Hurricane Katrina in connection with donation scams. The simple yet crucial point is this: many legitimate uses of Whois data by the business community and other non-governmental organizations have an important, and often ignored, consumer protection dimension. V. Whois Databases and Privacy Concerns about the privacy of domain name registrants have driven much of the Whois debate. The FTC, as the primary enforcement agency for U.S. consumer privacy and data security laws, is very concerned about protecting consumers' privacy. Thus, the Commission has always recognized that non-commercial registrants may require some privacy protection from public access to their contact information, without compromising appropriate real-time access by law enforcement agencies. The FTC supports the further study of how this goal could be achieved. In the meantime, however, at the very least, ICANN should preserve the status quo and reject limiting the Whois databases to technical uses. Restricting public access to Whois data for commercial websites and depriving the public of the ability to find information about such websites would contravene well-settled international principles. The 1999 OECD Guidelines on Electronic Commerce state that consumers should have information about commercial websites "sufficient to allow, at a minimum, identification of the business. . . [and] prompt, easy and effective consumer communication with the business." Thus, commercial website operators have no legitimate claim for privacy, and the public should continue to have access to their Whois data. Moreover, the existing availability of Whois databases can actually help enforcement agencies find out who is violating privacy laws and, consequently, help prevent the misuse of consumers' personal information. For example, Whois databases were invaluable in FTC investigations in phishing cases where the defendants sought to steal sensitive personal and financial information from consumers. In addition, the spyware cases discussed earlier also involve serious threats to consumer privacy, as spyware can monitor consumers' Internet habits and can even retrieve sensitive consumer information, including financial information, by logging keystrokes. Whois data has helped the FTC to stop these privacy violations and, hopefully, will continue to do so. VI. Recommendations Based on the foregoing discussion of the FTC's consumer protection and law enforcement experience, the FTC respectfully makes the following recommendations. First, the GNSO should reconsider and reverse its position that the Whois databases should be used for technical purposes only. If this narrow purpose is adopted, the FTC, other law enforcement agencies, businesses, and consumers will not be able to use the Whois databases for their legitimate needs. This would hurt consumers around the world and could allow Internet malefactors to violate consumer privacy with impunity. The FTC recommends that the GNSO reverse its position at this stage and before the Whois task force considers other outstanding Whois issues in light of this narrow definition. Second, the FTC has found it immensely helpful in developing its position to reach out to consumer protection and law enforcement partners in the United States and overseas. The FTC is particularly pleased to be joined today by consumer protection enforcement colleagues from other countries who will share their views. The FTC is confident that such outreach between ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") representatives and their consumer protection and law enforcement colleagues will reinforce the serious law enforcement and consumer protection implications of losing access to Whois databases. Certainly, the current direction of the Whois debate will seriously impair efforts of criminal and civil law enforcement agencies to stop online fraud and other illegal conduct. Third, the FTC recommends carefully considering improvements in Whois databases. For example, as the OECD statements referenced above make clear, there is simply no reason to prevent access to contact information for a commercial website. The FTC urges ICANN to consider additional measures to improve the accuracy and completeness of domain name registration information. The FTC is also interested in exploring the viability of "tiered access" as a solution capable of satisfying privacy, consumer, and law enforcement interests. Restricting the purpose of the Whois databases does not satisfy any of these interests and is a step in the wrong direction. Maintaining accessibility and enhancing the Whois databases would make great strides toward fulfilling the promise and safety of the Internet. In sum, the FTC believes that improvements need to be made to the current Whois database system and is committed to working with others toward a solution. In the meantime, Whois databases should be kept open, transparent, and accessible so that agencies like the FTC can continue to protect consumers, and consumers can continue to protect themselves.

1 0

New link for correspondence on gnso.icann .org
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

[To:council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, All the recent correspondence that has been sent to the Council and task forces will be published in one place under "Correspondence", included it in the list of links on the left hand side of: http://www.gnso.icann.org. This link is not yet up but will appear shortly. Thank you for the suggestions. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Public Forum slides
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a Powerpoint slide pack used during the GNSO Public Forum. I have incorporated the slides produced by Jordyn Buchannan and presented by Avri Doria. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Mission and WHOIS formulation 1
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Here are a couple of slides used in the GNSO public forum that compare the ICANN mission with WHOIS formulation 1. Note that any policy development we do as the GNSO needs to be consistent with ICANN's mission. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Interpretation of whois purpose
by Avri Doria June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hi, Ever since we voted for the whois purpose, there have been varying interpretations of what we meant when we voted. These extend from Bruce's explanation, if i understand it correctly, that there was no difference between the two formulations to my understanding that there was a fundamental difference between the formulations. While I understood that Bruce's personal belief today was his belief even at the time of the vote, I do not believe that it ever became the GNSO's position. For the most part, the fact that we had a split vote across the two formulations is enough for me to conclude that the GNSO council as a body, felt that there was a difference between the two positions; one was seen as more restrictive then the other or perhaps one was seen as more expansive then the other. My interpretation of: > issues related to the configuration of the records associated with > the domain name within a DNS nameserver. is that is covers any technical or operational issues that may be related to the name. I do not agree that it extends to: > ... , intellectual property, consumer protection, SPAM, fraud etc > all result from the configuration of a DNS record > > The definition makes no constraints on the types of issues as was announced as the GSNO position during the GAC meeting. I believe that this is inaccurate as an expression of the GSNO's position and interpretation of the chosen purpose of whois. I understand that it may be the intention of some registrars and registries to behave as if that is what it means, but that is not the same as saying that this is what the council believes it means. I also believe that using this as a definition is similar to saying that 'in the beginning there was the configuration record' and all things emanate from it. Not only do I believe it is an inaccurate expression of the significance of the council vote, it is my belief that to extend the definition this way is tantamount to making ICANN a de-facto legislative and law enforcement agency. And I think that is road we should not follow. The mission of ICANN is technical and operational and the policy related to those technical and operational activities, and not legislative or law enforcement. And while ICANN and all of its constituencies must obey the law, all the laws not just some of the laws and both national and international law and treaty, it is not in the position to make law or to enforce law. As was recognized in the earlier GSNO resolution regarding adherence to national laws, it is up to nations to define what is allowed and what is proscribed, and it is up to national law to define the nature of lawful access to the information contained in the configuration records. The balance of lawful access to information with privacy and consumer protection is too complex for the GNSO/ICANN to resolve, especially since that balance differs among the nations. We should leave legislation to national legislatures and international law making bodies. And we should leave the law enforcement to the plethora of police forces that are already chartered throughout the world. ICANN should not be in the business of deciding what we do or don't give to the police - they can and will define that through national and international law. a.

3 2

[Fwd: Please Distribute Info for Tonight' s Reception]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

FYI GALA DINNER AND SHOW ¨CHEZ ALI¨ ▪ 7:45 pm: meeting point at the Conference Center Lobby (reception). ▪ 8:00 pm: All buses depart from the Conference Center. ▪ Conference Badge is required to board bus and enter venue ▪ Bus ride to Gala Dinner is approx. 15 minutes. ▪ Open-Air Venue: please bring a sweater or light jacket ▪ Casual Dress ▪ Return transportation provided after the show (taxis are available if you must return early) Diane Rae Schroeder General Manager, Conferences, Administration & Finance ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 United States +1-310-823-9358 (phone) +1-310-823-8649 (fax) www.icann.org -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Letter from Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Homeland Security
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Please see attached a copy of the letter from the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Homeland Security in the USA. I note this letter has been sent to: ICANN US Government Agencies involved in an ICANN Working Group (Commerce Department, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Federal Trade Commission, Homeland Security Department , and State Department) Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Family Tragedy Forces ICANN Board Member to Return to New Zealand
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

FYI From: Keith Davidson <exe.dir(a)internetnz.net.nz> Just got this info: Peter advises Liz's service will be Monday, 3 July at 2 pm, at Old St Paul's in Thorndon. Still unsure, but likely, it will be a combined service for wife, brother, father. Keith -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

From American Hotel & Lodging Association regarding WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

1201 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 289-3120 (202) 289-3185 fax www.ahla.com June 22, 2006 Vinton G. Cerf Chairman Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Dear Mr. Chairman, We are writing to express our serious concerns about a resolution adopted on April 12 by ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to define the "purpose of Whois" as only to "resolve issues related to the configuration of records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." Those of us in the travel and hospitality industries depend on ready access to Whois data to enhance accountability and transparency online, and we believe such a policy change will have a seriously detrimental effect on our consumer protection efforts both in the U.S. and abroad. Travel and hospitality companies use Whois in several ways: 1) to identify parties responsible for registration of misleading domain names, which are often the source of online frauds or phishing schemes; 2) to prevent or investigate misconduct facilitated by misleading registrations; 3) to cooperate with law enforcement to protect consumers in cases of fraudulent websites; and 4) to protect our legitimate intellectual property rights. If the "purpose of Whois" is defined narrowly as proposed by GNSO, most of the data now in Whois would be cut off from public access - including data as fundamental as the name of the domain name registrant. If the change were to be implemented in new ICANN rules, most of the current public and business uses of Whois would become virtually impossible. Consumer protection is the primary concern in Internet commerce. Our businesses need access to the Whois database to protect the privacy and security of our customers and to reduce the risk of online fraud, including identity theft. Internet users would lose significant privacy protections under the narrowly defined "purpose of Whois." For example, cases of fraud or trademark infringement would not be considered "technical issues." Since time is of the essence in addressing these cases, we must be able to respond as quickly as possible. The current long-standing rules on access to Whois are the best way to fulfill this important consumer protection need and they should be maintained. We, therefore, strongly urge ICANN to reconsider the GNSO Council's April 12 resolution. We recommend that you preserve and enhance access to Whois data for purposes of protecting consumers and fighting fraud. We hope that ICANN will work to further enhance the accuracy of the Whois database. There is a tremendous public interest value in a rich Whois data set with information on registrants and administrative contacts. We thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns, and we would be happy to assist you in every way possible to address these issues. Sincerely, Geoff Ballotti President, North America Division Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc Christopher L. Bennett Executive Vice President and General Counsel Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Lyle L. Boll Sr. Vice President and General Counsel Millennium Hotels and Resorts Elisabeth Roth Escobar Vice President & Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property Marriott International Inc. Lynn Goodendorf Vice President Information Privacy Protection InterContinental Hotels Group, Inc. David Kong President & CEO Best Western International, Inc. Joseph A. McInerney, CHA President and CEO American Hotel & Lodging Association Scott McLester Senior Vice President, Legal Cendant Corporation, Inc. Scott Normali Senior Vice President Distribution - Website Development & Marketing Hilton Hotels Corporation Douglas Verner Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary Guest Services, Inc.

1 0

Letter from the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC) regarding WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a letter from the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC) regarding WHOIS. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Policy Recommendation on privacy from the chair of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM)'s US Public Policy Committee
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

________________________________ From: Eugene H. Spafford Sent: Monday, 26 June 2006 9:29 PM Subject: Comment on whois privacy policy Greetings. I am the chair of the ACM's US Public Policy Committee.? ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery http://www.acm.org, is an educational and scientific society uniting 80,000 of the world?s computing educators, researchers and professionals to inspire dialogue, share resources and address the field?s challenges.??The ACM U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) www.acm.org/usacm serves as the focal point for ACM?s interaction with U.S. government organizations, the computing community, and the U.S. public in all matters of U.S. public policy related to information technology.? We have been informed that recently ICANN approved a new policy about disclosure of information (privacy)? held in the "whois" database.? ?We have also been informed that this new policy is being reconsidered as a result of intense lobbying by various organizations. The attached is an official policy document of USACM with 24 recommendations for protecting the privacy of personal data held in collections such as the "whois" database.? We would ask that you refer to this as a form of "best practice" for the protection of personal information.? ?Although we are not in a position to register any specific, formal statement regarding your decision of final disclosure rules for the "whois" data, we urge you to consider your decisions in light of our privacy recommendations, and to make decisions consistent with those recommendations.? To do so is to provide appropriate privacy to the Internet public. If you need additional information about these recommendations, please feel free to contact me . Regards, Eugene H. Spafford, PhD Chair, USACM

1 0

Letter from the Office of Fair Trading in London
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Attached is a copy of a fax from the Office of Fair Trading in London regarding WHOIS. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

From the International Franchise Association
by Bruce Tonkin June 27, 2006

June 27, 2006

Hello All, Please see the copy of the fax sent to ICANN by the International Franchise Association regarding the recent Council decision on WHOIS purpose. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2
by Bruce Tonkin June 26, 2006

June 26, 2006

Hello All, > > The GNSO Council and ICANN Board working dinner will be in > 'FES 2' at 7:30 this evening. > I will endeavour to catch Paul or Vint today to get a feel of what they would find useful for the dinner. >From the discussions on Sunday it appears that the Council didn't want to focus on a single topic. It would be useful for Council members to post to the list any issues that they think should be raised with the ICANN Board. Even if we don't have a single issue, I think we do need to be fairly focussed on a limited number of important issues. We should also avoid duplicating any discussions that may have been had with the Board in individual constituency meetings. I would like to recommend that we at least raise the issue of meeting planning again. Regards, Bruce

3 3

Copy of presentation used in the GAC/WHOIS session - Monday 26 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 26, 2006

June 26, 2006

Hello All, Please see the attached presentation that was used in the GAC WHOIS session, at 10:30am today, Monday 26 June 2006. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

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