June 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO working room is Karam 1
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org; gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note that the GNSO working room is Karam 1 and not Karam 2 as previously announced. Both rooms are next to each other in the conference center and above the passage archway, there is a bold sign Salle KARAM 1 & 2. See you there! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: Election Results and list of ballots]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Dear Council Members Please find the voting results forwarded from Kent Crispin. Each council member will be sent the list individually to check his or her vote and these will be confirmed at the GNSO Council meeting in Marrakech at 10:00 local time. Council members who will not be physically present at the meeting have been sent the dial in number. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Here are the results from the election. I've listed the ballot id and the vote for that ballot id, so each voter can verify that their vote has been correctly recorded. Note that some of the ballots were worth two votes; in the interests of anonymity I didn't show which ones. Note that this note is being sent to the council list, and hence archived on the web. Round 1 results B0572e82ffD:20060611151843:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B1f400cebeD:20060613125029:[X] B1 - Michael Geist B24ba6b0b1D:20060614200921:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B2d50444baD:20060615075003:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B32973d298D:20060608222417:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B37a9f2be1D:20060611214015:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B52e3e098cD:20060608083753:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B74923e867D:20060613122026:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B7bbb9e143D:20060613113258:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B7e34ad516D:20060612222259:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard B816b87f77D:20060612063350:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B87354a987D:20060608104302:[X] B1 - Michael Geist B92dccb779D:20060608204209:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard B9cda7d84fD:20060612222910:[x] B1 - Rita Rodin Baf2f7fc59D:20060608084128:[x] B1 - Michael Geist Bc34abd143D:20060609125627:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bc3ac3edc3D:20060608082754:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bc5543485dD:20060613030142:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Beb3e5745aD:20060608084441:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin Beefcfa04eD:20060612154557:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bf278ff9a4D:20060608083726:[X] B1 - Michael Geist (*) required hand verification Everyone voted. Totals (counting those who got 2 votes): Rita Rodin: 12 Philip Sheppard: 11 Michael Geist: 4 ================================================================ Round 2 results Votes cast: B019ad5a68D:20060615100115:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B02dd2c346D:20060615220757:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B14f511e95D:20060621060727:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B19ec5c2e0D:20060615102827:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B377dcee24D:20060619022200:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard B3a829a592D:20060615162709:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B47fc48f15D:20060615135555:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) B5263da004D:20060615131637:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B5ca392747D:20060615102707:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B63664fbecD:20060616091740:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B7d83acb40D:20060620005636:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B7df6511cfD:20060615180222:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard B8dc830639D:20060620231637:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin B97c7053aeD:20060615145646:[x] B1 - Rita Rodin Ba0c86fb26D:20060619111657:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bb0f88bc09D:20060618114007:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bbb64e0fbbD:20060615100357:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin Bbfe98ca3eD:20060621070404:[x] B1 - Philip Sheppard Bd269bcc95D:20060621030033:[X] B1 - Rita Rodin Bdbae3f122D:20060621052714:[X] B1 - Philip Sheppard (*) required hand verification There was one missing ballot. Totals (counting those who got 2 votes): Rita Rodin: 15 Philip Sheppard: 11 ================================================================ Best Regards Kent -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Ute Decker June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Forwarding the second letter sent by AIPLA today for further clarification: == From: Michael K. Kirk [mailto:mkirk@aipla.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:20 PM To: 'Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au' Cc: 'vint(a)google.com'; 'sharil(a)cmc.gov.my' Subject: FW: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your observations regarding the comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association on the GNSO Council vote on the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service. Please find attached our reply to your observations. Regards, Mike Kirk -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 21 June 2006 03:33 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Hello All, I have read the letter from the American Intellectual Property Law Association. I don't understand how the letter relates to the formulations 1 or 2. It seems that members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work. The letter raises issues about the importance of the data, and the need for access to that data by law enforcement and other legitimate parties. This seems entirely consistent with the current terms of reference of the WHOIS task force. I have sent the following reply to clarify that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate. The more important work has yet to be done, which is developing better access controls. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Dear Mr Kirk, I will pass on your letter to the GNSO Council and the WHOIS task force. I will note however that the GNSO Council does believe that its decision is consistent with your requirements below. The decision makes no change to the requirement to collect the data or the requirement that the data must be accurate. Thus the data will still be available to prove any IP infringement. In fact one of the objectives of improving controls on access to data is that it will lead to higher data accuracy as registrants will be more comfortable in providing their true contact information. 1. A pattern of behavior that can lead to an inference of bad faith which, under the UDRP, can result in the transfer of a domain name from a bad faith registrant is frequently only provable through WHOIS; 2. Unchecked IP infringement undermines business viability and technical stability and could result in Internet fragmentation; 3. Accurate and available information is essential for law enforcement in crimes including spamming, denial of service attacks, identity theft and account fraud, hate literature, terrorism and child pornography; 4. The requirement to provide accurate contact and identity information acts as a deterrent to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cybersquatting, phishing, typosquatting and other IP cyber infringements and facilitates enforcement of IP rights. The objective to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information is consistent with the aims of the GNSO. The current work is focussed on considering methods for access control that ensure that only those with a legitimate need have access. This work has not yet reached any recommendations. Your letter does not seem to explain why the American Intellectual Property Law Association thinks formulation 1 is inconsistent with those aims. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

5 11

new string/re diversity
by Marilyn Cade June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

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

Second reply to the American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Bruce Tonkin June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 8:00 AM Subject: RE: Regarding response from American Intellectual Property Law Association Hello Mike, Thanks for your quick reply. YOU STATE: In the Final task force report on the purpose of WHOIS and of the WHOIS contacts dated March 15, 2006, it is stated that "Task 1 of the task force terms of reference requires the WHOIS Task Force to define the purpose of WHOIS. Defining the purpose is important as it will guide work on the other work items in the terms of reference. RESPONSE: Agreed. Defining a purpose is always a good start when studying a system. However given that the formulations are very similar, and that not all members of the task force or the Council could agree on a single definition, it seems sensible to proceed to see where formulation 1 will take us with respect to the further work. The impact of formulation 1 can then be seen in the context of any recommendations with respect to changing access to data. If the recommendations do not get broad support, then that would seem the best time to revisit whether the definition of purpose is wrong. I recommend that the work product be viewed as a whole, rather than focussing further energy on the topic of purpose (many months have already been spent on this debate). With respect to the formulations, lets consider the actual differences. They only differ in the last few words, ie Formulation 1: "issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. Formulation 2: "can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." With respect to "issues" the two formulations are equivalent. Formulation 2 explicitly lists technical and legal as categories of issues, but by comparison formulation 1 has no limitations on the types of issues. In some ways formulation 1 could be seen as a wider definition, as it makes not attempt to name any particular issues. Taking the next point of difference: Formulation 1: "related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver" Formulation 2: "related to the registration or use of a domain name" The difference here is far more subtle. For a domain name to be actively used for intellectual property infringement - by that I mean that using the domain name as an identifier to reach an Internet location that may have offending content, or using a domain name in an email address for the purposes of receiving responses to some sort of fraud etc - requires a particular configuration of the records in a DNS nameserver. Formulation 2 is in some ways narrower, as it refers to registration, but does not refer to subsequent configuration of DNS records. Note these DNS records are typically configured via an NS (nameserver) record in the gTLD zonefile, as well as DNS records in the nameserver computer (which can be operated by individuals , organisations, ISPs, etc). Thus formulation 1 would seem to cover all the possible scenarios where a domain name is actively involved in any intellectual property issues, and is perhaps the more general of the two definitions. Formulation 2 uses the term "use of a domain name". This is a less precise term than used in formulation 1. In this context who is the "user"? - the registrant or other Internet users. I have seen domain names used by Internet users in the same way as any other word, symbol, or trademark to deliberately confuse an Internet user. This is commonly done in two ways: (1) the domain name is part of a faked "From" address in an email (the domain name is not intended to be used for return email, it is purely a word intended to mislead) usually without any involvement of the domain name registrant or the operators of the nameservers for that domain name. (2) as part of the content of an email or the contents of a website, where the domain name appears again as a word or image as part of a hyperlink. An Internet user clicks on the hyperlink (effectively just a symbol) and gets directed to an Internet location completed unrelated to the domain name. In the cases above the domain name itself is misused in the same way as any trademark may be misused. In this case the domain name registrant along with the operators of the related DNS nameservers is the victim. So the term "use of a domain name" can have meanings outside of the mission of ICANN. I think the reason for such debate over the two formulation is more related to different language used in the technical versus the intellectual property community. If we focus on the more complex problem of improving WHOIS, it may well be that the differences in the two formulations are not material. Ultimately the wording of the purpose could certainly be improved to use language that everyone clearly understands. YOU STATE: While it is technically correct to state as you do that "that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate," basing the further work of the task force on the narrow definition of the purpose of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will almost inevitably lead to recommendations that the data collected and the access provided to that data be more limited than is currently the case. RESPONSE: Any changes to data collected is out of scope for this particular policy development. There seems to be a mis-conception that the data is only collected so it can be displayed publicly by the WHOIS service. This is not the case, there are a range of operational reasons why the data will continue to be collected along with other data (such as credit cards, incoming IP addresses etc). Stating a purpose of the WHOIS service does not directly impact what data is collected. I do agree that access may be more limited than is currently the case, however this could result from either of the two formulations. It is important to distinguish access to data by the general public, from access to data by entities that have a specific need. For example registrars collect credit card information from registrants which is not made public, and provide this to law enforcement agencies for legitimate purposes through well established processes. The terms of reference of the task force note that if any data is removed from general public access, that the task force must also specify how that data will be accessed by those with a legitimate need. I hope that your association will continue to be involved in the more challenging work ahead. Regards Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Reply from American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Bruce Tonkin June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

Hello All, I received a reply from Michael Kirk on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, which was copied to the chair of the ICANN Board, and the chair of the GAC. Mr Kirk attached a document in Microsoft Word format, but I have put it in plain text format below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ======================================================================== ================== Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your observations regarding the comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association on the GNSO Council vote on the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service. Please find attached our reply to your observations. Regards, Mike Kirk ======================================================================== ================== June 21, 2006 Mr. Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your reply to the comments submitted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association regarding the GNSO Council vote favoring the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service and for your reassurances about the "aims of the GNSO." We understand that no final decisions have been made, however, we must respectfully say that we are perplexed by your statements that you "don't understand how the letter relates to formulations 1 or 2" and that "members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work." In the Final task force report on the purpose of WHOIS and of the WHOIS contacts dated March 15, 2006, it is stated that "Task 1 of the task force terms of reference requires the WHOIS Task Force to define the purpose of WHOIS. Defining the purpose is important as it will guide work on the other work items in the terms of reference. [BEGIN emphasis] The purpose of WHOIS - when defined - will have a significant impact in determining the operation of WHOIS." [END emphasis] Looking at the two formulations, Formulation 1: "The purpose of the gTLD WHOIS service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." Formulation 2: "The purpose of the WHOIS service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party or parties for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." We simply cannot see how using the narrower definition of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will not affect the outcome, or "have a significant impact in determining the operation of WHOIS" as stated in the final task force report. The future work of the task force, if it follows Formulation 1, will focus on providing information "...sufficient to...reliably pass on data [for resolving]... issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." This is considerably narrower and more limited than the Formulation 2 definition "...to provide information sufficient to...pass on data...to resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name." While it is technically correct to state as you do that "that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate," basing the further work of the task force on the narrow definition of the purpose of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will almost inevitably lead to recommendations that the data collected and the access provided to that data be more limited than is currently the case. AIPLA therefore maintains its request that the GNSO adopt a definition meeting the needs of all Internet users and that the ICANN Board closely monitor the policy development process, bearing in mind the importance of preserving the existing requirements to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information. Thank you for consideration of the views of AIPLA. Sincerely Michael Kirk Executive Director

1 0

Marrakesh Schedule updates
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org; gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please see: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jun06.htm and http://www.icann.org/meetings/marrakech/gnso-agenda.html for the latest updates on the schedules. Thank you and see some of you there! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by 'kent crispin' June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:58:18AM -0500, Kiyoshi I. Tsuru wrote: > I haven't received my ballot either. Hi Kiyoshi Your ballot was definitely sent to you, and, according to my logs, successfully received by your mail server. Unfortunately, the election is now closed, and there is nothing further that can be done about it. Had I known about your problem earlier it would have been very easy to send you another copy, but unfortunately, I didn't hear anything about a missing ballot until now. Your ballot was sent out at approximately 10 am PDT on June 15; here are the log entries of the ballot being sent, and received by your mail server: Jun 15 10:01:27 greenriver sendmail[28416]: k5FH1Rlt028416: from=<tally(a)icann.org>, size=3438, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<200606151701.k5FH1RbC028415(a)greenriver.icann.org>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=greenriver [127.0.0.1] Jun 15 10:01:28 greenriver sendmail[28418]: k5FH1Rlt028416: to=<ktsuru(a)bgmt.com.mx>, delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, pri=33438, relay=mail.bgmt.com.mx. [72.32.2.231], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (ok 1150390885 qp 5155) Once at your mail server, of course, I can't track it further. The logs record 201 messages that have been successfully delivered to ktsuru(a)bgmt.com.mx over the past month or so. On two occasions, the messages were delayed a couple of hours; neither of these occasions was in the time frame of this election. Best Regards Kent Crispin -- kent(a)icann.org p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649

4 3

Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by 'kent crispin' June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

Hi Marilyn On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:51:11PM +0000, Marilyn Cade wrote: > This response is not directed at technical staff. However, this situation > with voting is a little strange. I have run many elections, and from my perspective there was nothing unusual about this one. It's part of an extended history of email elections in the ICANN environment, and details, including the use and hazards of email to distribute ballots, have hashed out in excruciating detail long beforehand. The procedures for this election were posted at http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm. The nature of email is well-known to everyone concerned. In particular, it is well-known that, like physical mail, email can be lost or delayed. We handle that contingency by 1) allowing a full week for balloting, 2) providing an alternate web-based interface, and 3) resending ballots whenever there is a request. In extreme cases (documented in the procedures) votes can be collected via personal contact with the Secretariat. Implicit in this arrangement is that people who want to vote are responsible for their mailboxes. We can't control peoples spam filters, or their accidental deletions, or their ISP's servers, or simply not noticing the email message in their box. > Three people did not receive ballots, It was sometimes necessary to resend, but in fact, there was only one person who did not ultimately receive a ballot, and, to my knowledge, that person did not request another until after the election was over. Everyone else not only received a ballot, but voted. > although technical staff validate the sending of ballots and receipt but not > in the mailbox of the intended recipient. Delivery is verified to the extent it is technically possible. Once mail is delivered to the remote server it is out of our hands, and it becomes the responsibility of the recipient. We cannot examine the recipients mailbox (most people would think that was a good thing :-)). > I ask that the election "team" work out a way to allow all councilors to vote. > We have documented complaints about the flow and receipt of ballots. > > This needs to be addressed by the General counsel, and adm staff > responsible for managing the election, and a process addressed for councilors > who did not receive the ballots but stated their intention to vote. > > Let's not have a contested election over technical failures. >From my perspective, there have been no reports of anything remotely resembling either a technical failure or a process failure. > I voted in the first round and have a "sent" message in my email outbox. > Yet when I asked for verification of receipt, my vote was not received. > The second round seems to have worked for me. Recall that email is an imperfect medium. In fact, your first round vote was ultimately received, and your vote was counted. It is up to others to decide, of course, but from my perspective this was a perfectly reasonable election. Best Regards Kent -- Kent Crispin kent(a)icann.org p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649

2 1

Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by kent crispin June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:45:30AM -0300, Anthony Harris wrote: > I have to advise that am unable to vote as have > not received the second round ballot as of yet. Hi Tony -- your ballot has been sent to you 3 times. All mail sent to you from that server has been received by your server. For example, the last ballot, re-sent at Glen's request this morning, shows this log entry: Jun 21 06:58:42 greenriver sendmail[6937]: k5LDwd5h006935: to=<harris(a)cabase.org.ar>, delay=00:00:03, xdelay=00:00:03, mailer=esmtp, pri=33281, relay=mail1.cabase.org.ar. [66.192.185.4], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (OK id=1Ft3E8-0008Cp-KG) Best Regards Kent Crispin -- kent(a)icann.org p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649

3 2

SECOND ROUND BALLOT
by Anthony Harris June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

I have to advise that am unable to vote as have not received the second round ballot as of yet. Tony Harris

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding vote during GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 28 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

> > Please note that we are scheduled to ratify the election > result at our meeting in Marrakech on Wednesday 28 July 2006: > It should read 28 June 2006 above. My apologies. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Bruce Tonkin June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

Hello All, I have read the letter from the American Intellectual Property Law Association. I don't understand how the letter relates to the formulations 1 or 2. It seems that members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work. The letter raises issues about the importance of the data, and the need for access to that data by law enforcement and other legitimate parties. This seems entirely consistent with the current terms of reference of the WHOIS task force. I have sent the following reply to clarify that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate. The more important work has yet to be done, which is developing better access controls. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Dear Mr Kirk, I will pass on your letter to the GNSO Council and the WHOIS task force. I will note however that the GNSO Council does believe that its decision is consistent with your requirements below. The decision makes no change to the requirement to collect the data or the requirement that the data must be accurate. Thus the data will still be available to prove any IP infringement. In fact one of the objectives of improving controls on access to data is that it will lead to higher data accuracy as registrants will be more comfortable in providing their true contact information. 1. A pattern of behavior that can lead to an inference of bad faith which, under the UDRP, can result in the transfer of a domain name from a bad faith registrant is frequently only provable through WHOIS; 2. Unchecked IP infringement undermines business viability and technical stability and could result in Internet fragmentation; 3. Accurate and available information is essential for law enforcement in crimes including spamming, denial of service attacks, identity theft and account fraud, hate literature, terrorism and child pornography; 4. The requirement to provide accurate contact and identity information acts as a deterrent to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cybersquatting, phishing, typosquatting and other IP cyber infringements and facilitates enforcement of IP rights. The objective to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information is consistent with the aims of the GNSO. The current work is focussed on considering methods for access control that ensure that only those with a legitimate need have access. This work has not yet reached any recommendations. Your letter does not seem to explain why the American Intellectual Property Law Association thinks formulation 1 is inconsistent with those aims. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Regarding vote during GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 28 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

Hello All, Please note that we are scheduled to ratify the election result at our meeting in Marrakech on Wednesday 28 July 2006: 10:00 Marrakech, 6:00 Washington, 11:00 UTC, 12:00 Brussels 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 think this is important as the first round of the election showed that the result is likely to be close, and I think it is important that the full Council ratify the election result. Please notify the GNSO Secretariat if you cannot call in, or if there is anything we can do to facilitate this (e.g dial out to you, or move the time of the vote during the meeting). If necessary we can schedule another time/date for the purpose of ratifying the result, but I think it would be useful to be able to formally appoint a new Board member, prior to the ICANN Board meeting in Marrakech on Friday 30 June 06. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Letter from the American Intellectual Property Law Association regarding WHOIS decision
by Bruce Tonkin June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council Dear Mr. Tonkin, On behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, I am forwarding comments expressing the Association's serious concerns regarding the vote of the Generic Names Supporting Organization favoring the narrow Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service in the context of ICANN's mission and core values. We thank you in advance for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Michael K. Kirk Executive Director American Intellectual Property Law Association 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 203 Arlington, Virginia 22202

1 0

temporary change of email address
by Maureen Cubberley June 21, 2006

June 21, 2006

Please accept my apologies for cross-postings. >From June 21 - July 10, I will be unable to access this email account. I will be able to receive email at mcubberley(a)gov.mb.ca Thanks, Best regards, Maureen

1 0

Updated Marrakesh schedule
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 20, 2006

June 20, 2006

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Please find attached a provisional schedule, particularly related to GNSO Council and constituency meetings where the names of the meeting rooms have been added. In the following url you will find the plans of the conference Center (click to view details) : http://www.icannmarrakech.org/index.php?lang=en&Id=3 then click on the diagram. The schedule will also be available at: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Working room
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 20, 2006

June 20, 2006

Dear All, Please note that the GNSO working room is called Karam 2 and is situated in the Palais des Congrès, Marrakesh conference center, Avenue Mohammed VI, Marrakesh. Please find below the plans of the conference Center (click to view details) : http://www.icannmarrakech.org/index.php?lang=en&Id=3 then click on the diagram. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Dinner with ICANN Board - Monday 26 June 2006, 7:30pm in Marrakech, Morocco
by Bruce Tonkin June 20, 2006

June 20, 2006

Hello All, I have just confirmed with Diane Schroeder today, that the GNSO Council has a dinner meeting with the ICANN Board on Monday 26 June 2006, at 7:30pm. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO related Marrakesh Schedule
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 19, 2006

June 19, 2006

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Please find attached a provisional schedule which is particularly related to GNSO Council and constituency meetings. The schedule will also be available at: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun The GNSO Council has rooms reserved at the Hotel Mansour Eddahbi Marrakech. Your room has been reserved under your name and you will be responsible for the costs, unless you are a Nominating Committee appointee. This hotel was previously managed by the Kempinski chain and some taxi drivers may know it as the Kempinski. Please take a taxi to the hotel from the airport - it will cost approximately 50 dirhams and takes about 5 minutes depending on the traffic. The hotel address is: Hotel Mansour Eddahbi Boulevard Mohammed V 40 000 Marrakech. Morocco Telephone: +221-24-33-91-00 Fax: +221-24-33-91-20/21 The wireless Internet from the conference will be available in the lobby areas of the hotel, as well as the conference center. There is a charge for the hotel's high speed Internet in your room. You must get a card from the cashier in the lobby to use it. The meetings will be taking place in the building next door to the hotel - Palais de Congres - if you walk out the front door of the hotel and turn left - the entrance to the Palais de Congres is on the corner. The weather in Marrakech is very warm - the hotel and Palais de Congress are both air conditioned, however you will need to go outside to get to the Palais de Congres. Following is a link to the five day forecast for Marrakech - http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/MOXX0004.html. We will be expecting the Prime Minister for the Welcome Ceremony, so please pack accordingly. In Muslim countries people tend to cover themselves rather than expose themselves. Trains are not particularly reliable, so if you intend to do any touring make enquiries locally about chauffeur driven cars or car hire. If you have any questions please let me know. 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

RE: [council] IDN Food for Thought
by Bruce Tonkin June 15, 2006

June 15, 2006

Hello Mawaki, Thanks for your input. Just a reminder that at this stage we are simply making sure we have captured the issues correctly, and then prioritise the issues to work on. With reference to the policy development process in Annex A of the bylaws: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA We are still at step 2. The purpose of the working group is to help us advance to step 3 - vote on initiating a PDP, along with a terms of reference We also need to identify how we will coordinate our work with the ccNSO which also has an interest in this area. We are not yet at a point where we are seeking specific policy recommendations, axioms, principles etc. This will happen in step 7 (d) where we collect constituency statements against a terms of reference. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

IDN Food for Thought
by Mawaki Chango June 14, 2006

June 14, 2006

Bruce & Council, especially IDN Task force, I am due to travel this weekend, attending an academic conference at the Havard Law School next week and hopefully from there onward to Marrakesh. With all the work involved including the parallel and after hour events I will need to attend to discuss some research with the other collegues, I will try but am not sure I will be able to make it for the upcoming calls on IDN. I have prepared some comments and put forward some guiding principles that I joyfully name "axioms," but of course you may call them guidelines or principles, or whatever. They are based on my current understanding of the issues, and I'm opened to discussions. You may want (or not) to consider them during your discussion on the calls, and if I'm not there, I will catch up in Marrakesh. Olof, if relevant, please consider as input for the next iteration of the report. The comments are in the attached file, as well as in plain text below. Thanks for your attention. Mawaki --- INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES (IDN) AT THE TOP-LEVEL COMMENTS ON THE GNSO ISSUES REPORT & PROPOSAL OF POLICY AXIOMATICS June 14, 2006 *** Note: The quotes are from the IDN Issues Report dated 9 May 2006, with the page number [in brackets] *** "These two approaches [DNAME-records and NS-records] are not mutually exclusive. Accordingly, if both are technically feasible, one of these approaches will not preclude the use of the other, pending policy considerations." [p. 3] Does this mean that one approach might be chosen for one IDN-TLD and the other for another IDN-TLD? Assuming that it is excluded to implement both approaches to the same IDN-TLD, does it imply that once the policy considerations dictate a choice, only that choice will be implemented for all IDN-TLDs? "DNAME records imply a situation where the operator of an existing TLD would map it into some other script equivalent, either synonymous to or a transliteration of the original TLD. NS records allow the creation of a new TLD that can be proposed by any entity regardless of whether it is currently operating a top-level domain or not." [p. 3] The policy issues the community is faced with derive from assumptions that can only be addressed by replying to one fundamental question that is three-fold (which is somehow also related to the two technical approaches above put forward). The question is: 1) Will all the IDNs (incl. those mapping an internationalized equivalent onto an existing TLD) be treated as new gTLDs? 2) Or will they always be treated merely as translation/ transliteration of an initial TLD. 3) Or a mix of the two approaches: IDNs that (semantically) map onto existing TLDs will follow 2) and those completely (semantically) new will follow 1). Each of the above options leads to serious policy & political issues that will need to be assessed. Given the dynamics and the rationale behind the increasing demand for IDN, it might be worth considering as an axiom (though it may be seen as a postulate or premise). "During these discussions, the need to connect to the ongoing policy development process for new gTLDs was also highlighted, with a view to map the IDN-related issues to the issue areas already identified in the ongoing PDP for new gTLDs, notably selection criteria, allocation methods and contractual conditions." [p .4] Axiom 1: ------- Each IDN, that is, each IDN label shall, to the fullest extent possible, be considered and processed as a new TLD either it is meant to be generic or country codes, at least for management purpose. However, at political level, it must be recognized that any IDN-ccTLD shall enjoy the same prerogatives as the ccTLD, especially with regard to the sovereignty of the related country. The five policy issues enumerated (a, b, c, d and e) on p. 5 nail down to three policy-scenarios, distributed over country codes or generic names: 1) Application by an incumbent registry for an IDN based string that relates to the TLD it has been operating; 2) Application by a third party for an IDN string that relates to an existing TLD operated by another registry; 3) Application by a party for a totally new IDN-TLD. "What are the advantages and drawbacks of having a TLD (<.tld>) and its internationalized equivalent (<.idn-tld>) in the same TLD or in two different TLDs? - In particular, is there a policy preference to have domain names under <.tld> and <.idn-tld> resolve to the same website or to different sites? - Ancillary aspects are whether <idn-domain>.<idn-tld> should be the same as <idn-domain>.<tld>, whether the registrant of <domain>.<tld> also should have <domain>.<idn-tld> and similar aspects regarding combinations with <idn-domain>.<tld> and <idn-domain>.<idn-tld>?" [p. 6-7] "Provided that an internationalized equivalent of a TLD exists as <idn-tld> in some script, should there be a policy for what script(s) may be used at the second level, such as <idn-domain>.<idn-tld>? In other words, should the script used on the second level match the script used in top-level? Given that, with specific exceptions, mixing of scripts is prohibited on the second level, should the same rule apply to the top-level?" [p. 7-8] First, it must be understood that the demand for IDN is not just for the sake of having colorful strings in the DNS; it is deeper than that, and it will renew and expand the Web contents. It is more likely that the website behind a domain name under <.idn-tld> will have a different form of content, adapted to the community that uses the related IDN script, from the corresponding website for the same domain name under <.tld>. This will be even more so when the domain name itself will be in IDN format, i.e. <idn-domain>.<idn-tld>. Thus, there should not be a policy preference that could prevent both domain names to resolve to different websites. Though it is desirable to have an homogeneity throughout levels of the DNS, it is clear that a lot of languages will still remain outside of the TLD, increasing chances for continuing mixing of scripts. If inter-level mixing is inevitable due to IDN being already implemented at the second level (domain names), intra-level mixing should however be avoided. So the rule of no mixing of scripts on the second level should apply to the top-level, too. The non-homogeneity of the string <idn-domain>.<tld> is due to the historical precedence of ASCII-based TLDs, leaving no choice to the rest of the world to register IDN domain names under ASCII TLDs. As other types of scripts will become available in the TLD, there will be more and more homogeneity in the registration of IDN-domain names with the corresponding IDN-TLD. But again, provisions should be secured to enable the registrants and the users to have different contents (at least in terms of language, presentation, layout, etc.), or the same, at those different addresses combining ASCII and IDN standards. In other words, <domain>.<tld>, <idn-domain>.<tld>, <idn-domain>.<idn-tld>, and <domain>.<idn-tld> should potentially remain different addresses (URLs). "Should entities other than the existing TLD registry be entitled to run an IDN equivalent or equivalents of this TLD? If so, under what policies should the new registry manage the <.idn-tld>? Are there special considerations required in this regard concerning TLDs with eligibility requirements?" [p. 6] I fail to see any good reason to answer No to the first question, and addressing the second one is an important part of the substantial work that needs to be done by the GNSO Council on the IDN issue. "Should a registrant in <.tld> have a prior right to register in the IDN version <.idn-tld>? Would current domain name holders feel that they are forced to register in the IDN equivalent for brand protection? Does an intellectual property rights holder in one or more jurisdictions have a prior right to register in an IDN version?" [p. 8] Without prejudice to whether or not there will be sunrise period at introduction to each IDN-TLD, all competitors should be treated on an equal basis. Axiom 2: ------- A name is a specific string of characters meant to be an identifier of a unique entity. Having property rights over a name does not entitled to property over matching strings in other set of characters, or over its equivalents in virtually all language scripts. It also and always must be reminded that a domain name is not a trademark. ICANN should be careful not to act as if entrenching a pre-eminence of the English language on top of the other languages. "What selection and approval processes should apply for translation and/or transliteration of an existing <.tld> to its script equivalent(s) <.idn-tld>? Should any transliteration be phonetic (= transcription) or definitional/literal? Should a registry be able to determine its own equivalent(s), subject to an approval process involving input from the community, including governments?[] Should there be a limit on the number of IDN top-level labels per existing TLD? If so, how many IDN strings should be allowed per existing TLD? For ccTLDs, should such a limit be related to the number of official languages or scripts used within the respective country?" [p. 6] Axiom 3: ------- ICANN must stay away from micro-management and centralized planning. It is not the responsibility of ICANN to create [or not] internationalized equivalents of existing TLDs, or if transliteration should be phonetic (= transcription) or definitional/literal. Those are not global policy issues, and it is not the ICANN/GNSO to address them. It is not the duty, even less the competence, of a registry to determine or make decision in naming standards that necessarily have linguistic, cultural and political implications. Unless otherwise constrained by technique, the rationale for ICANN should rather be to set up guidelines to the effect of assessing and addressing requests from the community, not to define in advance the nature and the number of the IDN labels. Otherwise, ICANN would need to set up, in a centralized manner, a Global Academy of high-level linguists and language historians to effectively solve the problem. Registries are nothing else than businesses and the core competences of ICANN are technical. Furthermore, the fact that English is the language of origin, thus the lingua franca, of the Internet and its (earlier) infrastructures does not and must not make it the necessary origin of all language on the Internet, its infrastructures and in its governance mechanisms (and this is not at all contradictory to having English as the primary working language). This means things, including among the core Internet logical resources, may be created directly from potentially any language, not just be justified, as a result of translation or transliteration, by the pre-existence of an archetype in English. Axiom 4: -------- The fact that English language is a precursor in the invention and governance of the Internet should not be translated and entrenched into a character of pre-eminence. "Should the IDN based string relate to an official language within the country of the ccTLD? In cases when a language can be represented in multiple scripts, should each script be entitled to a separate IDN based string?" [p. 6] There should be a local/national advisory committee including all the relevant stakeholders (notably, with policy as well as technical expertise, e.g. from the RIRs, etc.) in order to build consensus, especially where the IDN representation might not be straightforward. Such committee will act as a buffer between ICANN and the user communities, filtering the naming issues that might be addressed at local level from those to be addressed by ICANN, especially in cases of multiple languages in the same community or multiple scripts for the same language. Mainly two scenarios can be considered: i) The issue is country-specific: the variety of competing options remains in the confines of the same country, and it is up to the local communities to reach consensus for language and script representation at national level. In this case a local/national advisory or steering committee may be the best approach; ii) The issue is clearly transnational: different countries not only share the same language, but identify with it, or have historical claims over it, while actively using it currently. Then after ICANN receives a consensual application from one of these countries, it shall seek international expert advice in consultation with the other countries that might have claims over the concerned language and IDN. In such cases, ICANN should definitely encourage cross-country consultations to build consensus prior to application, and joint applications. In the latter case, countries in Africa and Asia using English or French (as a legacy of the latest wave of colonization in History) may not have that level of claims that will justify adopting a different IDN script for the same TLD that already exists and is based on the (American/UK) English language or on the French language as written in France (apart from the fact that those languages are not representative of the level of variety we are trying to achieve through IDN). However, due to its multicultural environment the English language in a country like, e.g., South Africa may have totally assimilated non-English words (from local origin) that are not found elsewhere. A new TLD application based on such words, even by an English speaking community in this case, may account for IDN depending on if by IDN we just mean a non-ASCII based script, or a different lexis and access for different (more local) users. In general and on the long run, local communities should be empowered and entitled to a representation in the TLD space and in different scripts, as long as there is a demonstrated support and commitment to sustain the IDN-TLD. Even in countries where there are local languages different from, not only the official, but the national language due to national sovereignty (e.g., French territories in the West Indies), there shouldnt be barriers at ICANN level for the local communities in those territories to apply for IDN, irrespective to whether or not the national language has already been introduced into the TLD. Indeed, the creole languages in West Indies or elsewhere, either based on French, English or Dutch, should be able to apply for IDN-TLD in the eyes of ICANN, though it might be advisable that the latter seeks consensus from the GAC and the countries involved. The same applies, obviously, to African languages, from those with a long writing tradition such as the Amharic (Ethiopia) with its ancient and original script and the Swahili for example, to those spoken by millions of people and that are also being more and more written and coded, such as Hausa, Bambara, Wolof, etc. "What is the accepted representation of a country name in non-Latin scripts? As ISO 3166 provides for translations of its labels into other scripts, what status should be given to these translations regarding IDN based strings? Should there be a requirement that any party aspiring to run an IDN version of a ccTLD must be located within the geographic territory associated with the ccTLD?" "What considerations need to be made for languages and scripts used across multiple countries?" [p. 6] Axiom 5: -------- Where ISO-3166 provides for translations of its labels into other scripts, the IDN-ccTLD in the corresponding language and script shall be consistent with ISO-3166. However, there is no reason to think that IDN-ccTLDs will be proliferating all over the world. Given that ccTLDs are intended for more specific uses under country-specific policies, it will be mainly up to the country to figure out whether or not they want IDN version of their ccTLD and if so, in what language scripts. Apart from ASCII and scripts that are of significance for the concerned country, it is unlikely that they request more IDN-ccTLD. The IDN-ccTLD should follow at least the same requirements as the ccTLD. However, it might be relevant to add more specifications, given a narrower and more localized client/user base. In any case, at a time of increasing ccTLD redelegation where countries are being recognized sovereign over the ccTLDs (all active only in their ASCII version so far), it wouldnt make sense to give less recognition to IDN-ccTLD. The language behind the ASCII standard has no special virtue per se (or in nature), other than the fact that it is more practiced internationally than other languages. Regarding languages that have some variances in their script (orthography?), French and English are spoken with some variances in different countries but the UN, for example, only use one standard French and one standard English. It should even be more feasible to standardize naming scripts (not based on full names but on a few coding letters/characters) in languages that have comparable variances. Where in some places, e.g. in Asia, the script is substantially different and used in different countries, the issue should be regarded as of two different languages; for IDN can be seen, at least from ICANN perspective, first as a question of graphics with cultural and political identities attached to it, and it should be concerned with the graphics but stay away from any temptation of establishing linguistic norms, or language classification or taxonomy. In sum, ICANN should establish clear procedures for the application process and assessment; it should consult with country representatives (GAC, ccTLD, etc.), and should call, and encourage particularly the communities involved, for public comments and inputs. After due process, its decision should be final.

1 0

Notice of GAC meetings
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG June 14, 2006

June 14, 2006

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org;pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, The GNSO will be meeting with the GAC in two open meetings in Marrakech, Morocco, to allow more time for discussion. One will be on Sunday 25 June 2006, and one will be on Monday 26 June 2006. The meeting on the afternoon of Sunday 25 June 2006, will be for the GNSO to brief the GAC on current policy development activities around new gTLDs, contractual conditions of existing gTLDs, and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). The meeting on Monday 26 June 2006 from 10:30am to 12:30pm has been arranged at short notice to accommodate recent requests from some GAC members to provide advice to the GNSO as it relates to the concerns of governments with respect to WHOIS policy development, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between WHOIS policies and various laws and international agreements, or where WHOIS policies may affect public policy issues. The GAC members are bringing some subject matter experts to assist in providing advice. Members of the GNSO Community will have the opportunity to ask questions of these experts. More detailed agendas for these meetings will be available soon. You are all invited to attend. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Wednesday 28 June 2006 in Marrakech, Morocco
by Bruce Tonkin June 14, 2006

June 14, 2006

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Wednesday 28 June 2006 Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Ratify results of Election for ICANN Board seat #14 Item 3: Initial report on new gTLD policy - identify next steps and update timeline Item 4: Update on WHOIS policy work - identify next steps and update timeline Item 5: Update on policy work on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs - identify next steps and update timeline Item 6: Update on Policy work on Internationalised Domain Names - report from GNSO working group - identify next steps and update timeline Item 7: Update on GNSO Review Item 8: Discuss how to address correspondence to the GNSO Council Item 9: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Copy of Letter from International Trademark Association (INTA) to chair of ICANN Board on the recent WHOIS vote
by Bruce Tonkin June 13, 2006

June 13, 2006

Hello All, The attached letter was sent to the chair of ICANN by the International Trademark Association (INTA). Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO

1 0