July 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Domain Name Marketplace Workshop -- Council and constituency members' participation strongly encouraged
by Denise Michel 21 Mar '07

21 Mar '07

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

2 3

Statement of Interests for Ross Rader
by Ross Rader 14 Oct '06

14 Oct '06

Statement of Interests I am the Director of Research and Innovation for Tucows Inc., an ICANN accredited registrar and internet services vendor. Tucows is a minority shareholder in Afilias LLC, with roughly an 8% shareholding. Neither Tucows, nor I, is in possession of, nor have access to Registry Sensitive or Registry Proprietary information as defined by any relevant registry operating contracts as a result of this relationship. Tucows provides consulting and application hosting services to other registrars and internet services providers. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any of these customer organizations nor am I specifically involved in providing services to them. The URL for this statement is: http://www.byte.org/blog/_WebPages/StatementofInterestsforRossRader.html -ross

2 2

Revised Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 20 July 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 20 July 2006. Please let me know if you would like any other changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................... 20 July 2006 Proposed agenda and meeting documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C - absent - apologies Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries June Seo - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 14 Council Members ICANN Staff Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Quorum present at 12:07 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Marilyn Cade requested two topics under Any Other Business: 1. Council input to the ICANN strategic plan 2. Council input to the program committee for the ICANN meetings in Sao Paulo The Secretariat asked for approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 May 2006 and 28 June 2006 to be added to the agenda. Item 1: Update any statements of interest No updates noted Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 May 2006 and 28 June 2006. The minutes of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 June 2006 were deferred to the next Council meeting on 3 August 2006. Philip Sheppard moved for the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 May 2006. The adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 May 2006 was unanimously approved. Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 18 May 2006 adopted Item 3: Vote on tabled WHOIS motion from Marrakech Bruce Tonkin reminded Council that the motion in response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, based on the discussions at the Marrakech meeting, and seconded by Tony Holmes, had undergone further discussion on the GNSO council mailing list. Bruce Tonkin proposed withdrawing the motion on the table from the Marrakech meeting and replacing it with two separate motions: - one relating to the WHOIS service - one relating to the data that is collected by registrars. Motion One on the WHOIS service "The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: (1) Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. (4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report. Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion (see below)." Two friendly amendments were proposed: (a) by Cary Karp amending the language in (1) to read "Any Council member who.. " (b) by Bret Fausett, the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council, as ALAC had participated in the work of the WHOIS task Force, for the motion to include the option for an Advisory Committee that supports the current definition to also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council. The amendments were accepted and the motion proposed by Bruce Tonkin was seconded by Marilyn Cade. Discussion on the motion clarified the following areas: - The assertion that the voted definition of the WHOIS purpose is that of the WHOIS service is consistent with the WHOIS Task Force Terms of Reference that request the definition of the purpose of WHOIS service. - The definition refers to data that is made public, but some of the data collected to display via WHOIS , may be collected for other purposes. - There was uncertainty in the community why the council voted in favour of formulation 1, and while it was not possible for the Council as whole to give a response, the intent of the present motion was to give individual council members the opportunity to explain why they supported the motion. Mawaki Chango commented that after speaking against the initial motion proposed in Marrakesh, he was comfortable with the latest change that did not request, but gave the opportunity to the council members to explain their vote, if they so wished. Mawaki noted, however, that the new version of the numbered paragraph (1) of the Motion One may introduce a non desirable imbalance with the numbered paragraph (2), assuming that they were coupled in the initial design of the motion, so that those who voted for the current definition should explain their rationale while the staff would compile and present the rationale of those who opposed that definition. In the current version of the motion, only those of the relevant Council members who are willing to do so may provide an explanation of their vote for the current definition. With the likelihood that there may only be a few, the request to the staff to compile the opposing views may become less relevant. - Calling on an elected constituency representative to account individually for their vote retroactively caused some concern as some constituencies direct how their representatives should vote on a particular issue. A reference was made to the ICANN Board vote on the dotCOM agreement where members stated their reasons for their vote. Clarification was given that Board members had a standard procedure where after a formal vote, any Board member could voluntarily go on record and comment on their vote. It was generally accepted that at any time a Council member would have the opportunity to explain a vote via the public GNSO Council mailing list. It was also noted that several Council members may choose to make a joint statement. Mawaki Chango commented that without prejudice of how the Board conducted its consultations and deliberations prior to its final decisions, the Council had had lengthy debates and exchange of arguments before the WHOIS definition vote, all of which was documented on a public mailing list. In fact, most of the letters the Council had received were not asking for an explanation of the vote, but contending that the Council voted for the wrong definition, and therefore, should change its vote. Mawaki considered any further explanation as a response to that contention was useless for that very reason, which he believed was related to what the Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin, called "the end objectives of those that support the two formulations," in his email to the Council list, dated 20 July 2006: 'regarding Powerpoint presentation in the GNSO/GAC workshop on Monday 26 June 2006. "It seems to me that the debate is not really about the formulations - which are really almost the same purely from a language point of view, but the concern is about the end objectives of those that support the two formulations. I think there is far more variation in the end objectives of the various constituencies, than there is variation in the two formulations. [...] Rather than waste further time on debating the formulations, it seems to me personally that we probably need to move on and discuss a possible reference implementation e.g the operational point of contact (oPOC) that may not be quite as bad or good as some had hoped, but it might actually improve the effectiveness of the WHOIS service for us all." Mawaki further commented that he was not sure what would be achieved by having explanations from those who voted in favour of formulation one, but he was happy to go through the process and see what could be learnt. - The motion's intent was to direct the WHOIS task force to continue its work, while taking additional input into consideration. - The timeline mentioned in the motion referred to the' task force report' in the policy development process in the ICANN bylaws, which is the report that deals with the complete terms of reference and is published for public comment before the Final Report is produced. The expectation is that the task force report would be ready for public input at the Sao Paulo meetings, but this could be subject to change depending on the progress of the WHOIS task force. . The Government Advisory Committee should be made aware of the timeline and their assistance sought to accommodate the process. Philip Sheppard and Ross Rader both supported the motion and called the question: Bruce Tonkin seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed a motion on the WHOIS service: "The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: (1) Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that supports the current definition may also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council. (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. (4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report. Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion. The motion passed by voice vote. 20 votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Mawaki Chango, Robin Gross, Avri Doria, Ute Decker, Ken Stubbs, Cary Karp, June Seo, Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader, Tom Keller. Council members absent who did not vote: Alistair Dixon, Tony Harris, Lucy Nichols, Kiyoshi Tsuru, Norbert Klein, Sophia Bekele, Maureen Cubberley. Decision 2: "The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: (1) Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that supports the current definition may also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council. (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. (4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report. Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion. Bruce Tonkin introduced the second motion and stated that it related to the data that is collected by registrars and what happened with that data collected. It was intended as a parallel activity to the WHOIS task force work. The definition of "Personal data" in clause 1.6 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement: Personal data refers to any identified or identifiable natural person. It was noted that even a work address for a natural person could be considered as personal data. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed the motion: "The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating: (i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended; (ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator); (iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and (iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them. To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, the GNSO proposes the following steps: (1) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. (2) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of cctld registry or cctld registrar agreements with registrants, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants. (3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current uses and abuses of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service. (4) Supported by the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's, such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC, regarding the purposes for collecting Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives." The motion carried with a vote by acclamation. There were no abstentions and no votes against Decision 3: "The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating: (i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended; (ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator); (iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and (iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them. To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, the GNSO proposes the following steps: (1) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. (2) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of cctld registry or cctld registrar agreements with registrants, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants. (3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current uses and abuses of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service. (4) Supported by the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's, such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC, regarding the purposes for collecting Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives." Item 4: Vote to initiate IDN-gTLD PDP [PDP-Jul06] - updated IDN issues report with proposed terms of reference to be provided by Olof Nordling by 13 July 06 Bruce Tonkin stated that there had been requests for more time to work on the IDN Issues Report and the proposed terms of reference before initiating a policy development process. Olof Nordling reported that the focus of the IDN Issues Report, since the Marrakech meeting, had been on the proposed terms of reference in preparation for approval at the current Council meeting. It was suggested that staff should work towards a substantive report representative of all workshops, historical materials on the topic and taking into account any input from councillors . The Constituencies are encouraged to reflect on what impact IDNs have on the current policy work on new gTLDs and whether the current policy assumptions are correct, because IDN based gTLDs are a subcategory of new gTLDs. The Council, in consultation with the constituencies should progress with parallel work on refining the terms of reference . A new draft of the terms of reference will be available by 27 July, 7 days before the next Council meeting on 3 August 2006 where a vote will be taken to initiate a policy development process. Item 5: Update on PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs - confirm planning for face-to-face meeting Dr Liz Williams reported that the latest version of the New gTLDs report, which reflects the inputs from the GNSO public forum in Marrakech and other commentary from the 15 June meeting was being reviewed by Dan Halloran, deputy General Counsel. Council members should work closely with their constituencies to consult on the revised report which will be released in the week of 24 July, and bring the feed back to the face to face meeting in Amsterdam. Appropriate questions are being developed for a public comment period and Council members are encouraged to provide input. A face to face meeting for the committee for new gTLDs, open to interested observers, has been scheduled for 29, 30 and 31 August 2006, in Amsterdam. The Initial Report will be sent to the other Supporting Organisation, the GAC and the ALAC for review and comments. The Final report is targeted for presenting to the Board at the ICANN meetings in Sao Paulo. Dr. Liz Williams wished her thanks to be recorded to all those who had contributed and been closely involved in the process. Item 6: Update on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for existing gTLDs Dr Liz Willaims reported that the three actions items from the Marrakech meeting were underway: Release an updated version of report Propose a draft schedule Propose a series of materials The updated version of the Report on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for existing gTLDs which includes the input from the Marrakech meeting is being reviewed by Dan Halloran, deputy General Counsel, and will be released shortly. In the interim period, a request has been made for recommendations with respect to written materials and related experts. It is expected that at the end of September the impact of the expert materials on the preliminary report could be evaluated. An opportunity for a discussion or briefing from experts in this area required more work from the task force to identify where the specific input from specific people might fall. Marilyn Cade was not in agreement delaying this step and considered that access to advice and dialogue with anti-trust and competition experts earlier in the process, would be more advantageous. Dr. Liz Williams undertook to consult with the task force chair, Maureen Cubberley, on the issue of experts and the date for the next task force meeting. Item 7: Any other business: 7.1 Input to the ICANN Strategic plan Marilyn Cade called for a group of volunteers, comprising of councillors and constituency members who would be interested in collecting input in those areas of the ICANN strategic plan that impacted the Council to contact her off line. 7.2 ICANN meetings in Sao Paulo Council members should provide input for requirements during the Sao Paulo meetings. Bruce Tonkin suggested that two topics for discussion with the Government Advisory Committee would be new gTLDs and WHOIS. The Secretariat will enquire what visa arrangements ICANN is making for Brazil. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 13:59 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference 3 August at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

LSE Review on GNSO
by Robin Gross 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Dear colleagues, Is there any news on when the GNSO review will be compete? There have been some questions from our constituency on when the London School of Economics (LSE) Public Policy Group will provide its report. Does anyone have any information on the progress of the review? Thank you, Robin

2 1

We Need Your Input to Change the ICANN Website
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: announce[at]gnso.icann.org; regional-liaisons(a)icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/website-enhancement-28jul06.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We Need Your Input to Change the ICANN Website The ICANN web site needs to be changed. It needs to be more accessible. It needs to better reflect the needs of users. The best way to do that is to get your input, comment and advice. A workspace https://st.icann.org/web-enhancements/index.cgi has been created as a forum for you to contribute, by providing suggestions and feedback. All ideas to change the ICANN web site can be discussed within the workspace. You will see that the workspace allows for immediate changes and longer term changes. That's because in the spirit of working participation, we hope to make these changes to the website a work in progress. We hope some changes will occur quickly by agreement, while others may take more consideration. We are doing this because we want the ICANN web site to work for you and reflect the interests of the ICANN community. John Crain, ICANN's Chief Technology Officer, will act as 'gardener' for the workspace. Please add your voice to its redevelopment. Paul Levins Executive Officer and Vice President, Corporate Affairs -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

For information:Proposed .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG gTLD Registry Agreements
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: announce[at]gnso.icann.org; regional-liaisons(a)icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm Please note that ICANN has posted for public information: The Proposed .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG gTLD Registry Agreements On 27 June 2006, ICANN posted for public information proposed new registry agreements for the operation of each of the .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registries. ICANN staff continued to work with each of the current operators of these registries to finalize these proposed agreements and appendices. On 18 July 2006, the ICANN Board of Directors approved the posting of each of these proposed agreements for public comment. A public comment period will remain open until 5:00 PM PDT/California, 28 August 2006. At that time the comments will be submitted to the Board of Directors for the Board to consider at its meeting on 13 September 2006. .BIZ Agreement Appendices Comments can be posted to: biz-tld-agreement(a)icann.org Comments can be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement .INFO Agreement Appendices Comments can be posted to: info-tld-agreement(a)icann.org Comments can be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/info-tld-agreement .ORG Agreement Appendices Comments can be posted to: org-tld-agreement(a)icann.org Comments can be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement Key terms for the proposed agreements, and differences from the 2001 .BIZ and .INFO registry agreements and 2003 .ORG registry agreement, include the following: Term of New Agreements. The proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements provide for an initial six year term. Each of the proposed .BIZ and .INFO agreements would expire, absent renewal, at the end of December 2012, and the proposed .ORG agreement would expire at the end of June 2013, absent renewal. Presumptive Renewal. The proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements each provide for presumptive renewal, absent material and repeated breach of the agreement by the registry operator. This is consistent with each of the 2005 .NET registry agreement, and the proposed new .COM registry agreement. With respect to the terms of any subsequent agreement negotiated with the registry operators for the continued operation of the .BIZ. .INFO and .ORG registries, the proposed agreements provide that adaption of renewal terms will be via comparison to the five "most reasonably comparable" gTLDs, as compared to the "five largest gTLDs" language of the 2005 .NET agreement and the proposed new .COM agreement. Lifting of Price Controls on Registry Services. Following extensive consideration and discussion, each of the proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements provide for the lifting of price controls formerly imposed on the pricing of registry services. However, in order to protect incumbent domain name registrants and allow time for planning by those in the registry and registrar communities, the form of registry-registrar agreement proposed with each of the new registry agreements requires six months advance notice by the registry operator of any price increase in registry services. This is consistent with the notice period required under the registry-registrar agreement implemented with the 2005 .NET registry agreement, and the registry-registrar agreement included with the proposed new .COM registry agreement. Fees Payable to ICANN. The proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements provide for a sliding scale of transactional fees payable to ICANN per annual increment of a domain name, starting with $0.15 in 2007 and 2008, $0.20 in 2009 and 2010, and increasing to $0.25 in 2011 and 2012* (*the proposed new .ORG registry agreement has a fee schedule implementation date of July 2007, and will continue through June 2013). The per name transaction fees, however, are subject to adjustment depending on the average price of domain name registrations during each calendar quarter throughout the term of the agreement. Each of the proposed new agreements provide only for a transactional fee component payable to ICANN, with no fixed fee. This is a markedly different approach from the fixed fee established in the 2001 .BIZ and .INFO registry agreements, and 2003 .ORG registry agreement, and is intended to appropriately scale the fees payable by each registry to ICANN to the success or decline of the registry business. Consensus Policy Implementation and Limitations. Each of the 2001 .BIZ and .INFO registry agreements, and the 2003 .ORG registry agreement, required each of the registry operators to comply with and implement established consensus and temporary policies, including as pertained to a list of enumerated topics. This list was updated for the 2005 .NET registry agreement, and the identical list has been incorporated into each of the proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements. In addition, each of the proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements contains the same set of limitations on the adoption of consensus policies as the proposed new .COM registry agreement. This list of limitations is also identical to those limitations provided for in the 2005 .NET registry agreement, with the exception of the limitation on modification to the procedure for consideration of new registry services being limited to two years after the established effective date of the proposed .BIZ, .COM, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements, which is three years following the effective date of the 2005 .NET registry agreement. Process for Approval of New Registry Services. The same set of procedures, steps, and requirements for the approval of proposed new registry services has been included in the proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements as previously seen in the 2005 .NET registry agreement, and the proposed .COM registry agreement. Data Escrow Provisions. The security and functionality of the registry data escrow has been a significant focus in the new forms of registry agreements negotiated by ICANN since 2005. Accordingly, the requirements for data escrow by each of the registries, as well as the requirements for the relationship between registry operator and data escrow agent, have been expanded and clarified in the proposed new registry agreements. Other Standardized Terms. Consistent with the proposed new .COM registry agreement, each of the proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements contains a Section 3.1(f) on the use for statistical purposes only of "traffic data." The 2005 .NET registry agreement did not contain this provision, however the inclusion of this provision was negotiated by each of the .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry operators to provide for consistency with the proposed new .COM registry agreement, although this does not imply that these registries will implement said provision. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Posts, for public comment, Proposed Registry Agreement for Designation of the .ASIA Registry
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: announce[at]gnso.icann.org; regional-liaisons(a)icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28jul06.htm ICANN Posts Proposed Registry Agreement for Designation of the .ASIA Registry On 18 July 2006, ICANN's Board of Directors approved the posting for public comment of the proposed registry agreement between ICANN and DotAsia Organisation Limited. If approved by the ICANN Board, the agreement http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/asia/registry-agmt-28jul06.pdf would designate DotAsia as the registry operator for the newly designated .ASIA registry. Additional information regarding the .ASIA application can be found at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/. The proposed .ASIA registry agreement follows the format of other recent sTLD registry agreements negotiated by ICANN. Specifically, the agreement is for an initial ten year term, and provides for the same set of requirements for: implementation of and compliance with consensus and temporary policies; comprehensive registry data escrow; and approval of new registry services and modifications to existing registry services. The proposed agreement with DotAsia also provides for presumptive renewal, with the terms of any subsequent agreement negotiated with DotAsia for the continued operation of the .ASIA registry to be reasonably modified to be comparable to the terms of the five most comparable TLDs (or such lesser number, if less than five shall be reasonably comparable), provided that fee increases are not to exceed the average of the percentage increase in registry fees for the comparable TLD group within the prior three years. Fees to ICANN under the proposed registry agreement for .ASIA would be transactional only, and would be set at US$0.75 for each annual increment of an initial or renewal domain name registration within the .ASIA registry. Comments on the proposed agreement can be posted to asia-tld-agreement(a)icann.org no later than 5:00PM PDT, 28 August 2006 and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/asia-tld-agreement. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public comment period on Initial Report on new gTLDs.
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: announce[at]gnso.icann.org;regional-liaisons(a)icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note that a public comment period is now open until Friday 18 August 2006 on the Initial Report on new gTLDs. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement1-28jul06.htm The GNSO Council's Committee on the introduction of new top level domains has released its Initial Report (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm ) as part of ICANN's policy development process. This Report is the product of a long series of consultations and meetings about the Terms of Reference http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm#TOR. The GNSO Council's new TLD Committee will meet again in Amsterdam between 29 & 31 August 2006 to consider any further public comments and inputs from ICANN's Advisory Committees and Supporting Organisations before preparing a Final Report for submission to the ICANN Board prior to the Sao Paolo meeting in early December 2006. A public comment period is now open until Friday 18 August 2006 and members of the community are asked to respond specifically to the following questions upon which further discussion is needed. 1. After reading the Initial Report, are there any other selection criteria which may be helpful for a new top level domain application round? 2. Thinking about the issue of application fees for any new top level domain application, is there merit in graduated application fees to assist applicants? 3. Taking into account the experiences from the 2000 and 2004 round of new top level domains, do you have further comments to make about streamlining the application process? 4. Thinking about ICANN's responsibility to ensure competition in registry services operation, do you have any additional comments about how to encourage applications which would serve needs which are not met by the existing top level domains? 5. Looking closely at the technical selection criteria section of the Report, are there any further comments which would assist with identifying appropriate base line technical criteria for new applications? 6. Do you have any further comment to make on the use of the first come first served system for processing applications and then whether auctions or lotteries are appropriate ways of resolving competition between applications? 7. Do you have any further views on the kinds of new TLDs that might be encouraged? Specifically, do members of the community expect the existing differentiation between sponsored, generic, chartered and open TLDs to remain? Comments can be submitted via a web from soon to be posted, or by sending email to newgtlds-comments(a)icann.org. Comments will be viewable at http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-comments. Further questions about any aspect of the /Initial Report /or the policy development process can be addressed to Dr Liz Williams, Senior Policy Counselor, liz.williams(a)icann.org . -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: Statement of Registry Constituency]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

[Council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please see the Response by the Registry Constituency to motion 1 of the GNSO Council passed on 20 July 2006. The attachment has been copied in plain text below. Subject: Statement of Registry Constituency Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:24:41 -0500 From: David W. Maher (Alternate Chair of the Registry Constituency). "Attached to this message is a statement adopted by the Registry Constituency at our teleconf meeting on July 26 in response to Motion 1 passed by the GNSO on 20 July 2006. Step 1 of the GNSO motion says, “Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition (and any Advisory Committee liaison) may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.” The Registry Constituency is posting this statement on its web site at: http://gtldregistries.org/." RESPONSE BY THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY TO MOTION 1 OF THE GNSO, 20 JULY 2006 Ref: Motion 1 approved by the GNSO Council on 20 July 2006. Step 1 of this motion says, “Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition (and any Advisory Committee liaison) may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.” In accordance with the gTLD Registry Constituency (RyC) Articles of Operation, each RyC Council member voted to support Definition 1 as directed by the RyC membership so there does not seem to be any value in individual explanations from RyC Council representatives. But there may be value in explaining the RyC understanding of the meaning of Definition 1 of the purpose of Whois that was approved by the Council on 12 April 2006. The following information is provided for that purpose. Prior to the Council vote on 12 April 2006, the RyC approved support for Definition 1 with the clearly communicated assumption that Definition 1 would not preclude providing access to Whois data to law enforcement agencies and other organizations that have a legitimate need for that access. In fact, in a RyC teleconference meeting before 12 April 2006, before final direction was confirmed for RyC Council representatives to vote in support of Definition 1, the following question was asked: “Does Definition 1 preclude granting access to Whois data by law enforcement and other organizations that have a legitimate need for that access?” The RyC members of the GNSO Whois Taskforce answered ‘no’ to this question. Based on that understanding, RyC Council representatives were directed to vote in support of Definition 1. It is also important to note that this position is consistent with RyC statements made over the past several months regarding Whois access. Three of these statements are quoted below from publicly available documents as noted: • “There are adequate techniques, such as tiered access, that can make WHOIS data available to law enforcement agencies and others that need the data.” [RyC constituency statement in Section 4(e) of the Final task force report on the purpose of Whois and of the Whois contacts dated 15 March 2006 and posted at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tf-report-15mar06.htm] • “The Registry Constituency supports a balanced approach to solving the Whois dilemma. We recognize that there are multiple uses of Whois that need to be recognized and accommodated including those of intellectual property users and law enforcement agencies.” [Statement of Sponsorship by the gTLD Registry Constituency for the ‘Privacy Conference - Building Bridges on ICANN's Whois Dilemma’ held in Vancouver, B.C. on 29 November 2005 and posted at http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2005/2005-11-21_privacy_conf_sponsorship….] • “We recognize that certain parties (e.g., law enforcement, IP) may at times need to have better access to Whois. We suggest that a technical solution be identified which allows legitimate parties to search for the information they need, without requiring registries to turn over all data they have in the Whois (i.e., current bulk access). IRIS could be considered as a potential technical solution.” [gTLD Registry Constituency Statement for Whois Task Force 1 that can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf1-preliminary.html#GTLDR….] It is our hope that this explanation removes much of the misunderstanding and in some cases misrepresentation by third parties with regard to the RyC’s position regarding Definition 1 of the purpose of Whois and in particular with regard to public Whois access.

1 0

RE: point (2) of motion one on WHOIS passed on 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

Hello Mawaki, > I note, however, that > the new version of the numbered paragraph (1) of the Motion > One may introduce a non desirable imbalance with the numbered > paragraph (2), assuming that they are coupled in the initial > design of the motion, so that those who voted for the current > definition explain their rationale while the staff will take > care of compiling and presenting the rationale of those who > oppose that definition. Just to clarify - point (2) of motion one, is not intended to be restricted to only covering the interpretations of those that were against the definition. I think the purpose of point (2) is to help us understand how diverse the interpretations of the definition are. It is not intended to focus on how many support each formulation - as that work has already been done in the WHOIS report. For example two people may agree on the interpretation of the definition, but one may be in favour and one may not be in favour of the definition. For example, two people may believe that the definition means that the WHOIS service will no longer publish the home address of a registrant that is an individual rather than a company. One of the two people may think this is good from a privacy point of view, and the other person may think that this is bad from the point of view of enforcing intellectual property rights. The purpose of the motion is not to re-iterate the well understood objectives of the two people, but to understand if they have the same understanding of the meaning of the definition. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1