July 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting in Marrakech, 28 June 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 17, 2006

July 17, 2006

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting in Marrakech, held on 28 June 2006. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ................................................................................ 28 June 2006 Proposed agenda and meeting documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard/ Charles Sha'ban - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C - remote participation Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars - remote participation Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries June Seo - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.- remote participation Robin Gross - NCUC. - remote participation Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 18 Council Members ICANN Staff Dan Halloran - Deputy General Council Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - Policy Officer Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Wendy Seltzer - ALAC Liaison - Quorum present at 10:20 UTC. Real time captioning Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of agenda Marilyn Cade requested a resolution, related to the recognition of a loss in the community, under Any Other Business Item 1: Update any statements of interest No updates noted Item 2: Ratify results of Election for ICANN Board seat #14 Bruce Tonkin stated that the ICANN bylaws required the Council to ratify that the vote was conducted in accordance with the procedures of the GNSO Council and that each Council member should have checked the vote to confirm that their vote was correctly recorded and that the vote was correct. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed a motion: The GNSO Council ratifies the election results for ICANN board seat number 14, and the results of that election were, Rita Rodin, 15 votes, and Philip Sheppard, 11 votes. The motion carried with 24 votes, 3 votes absent. Charles Sha'ban, Marilyn Cade, Alistair Dixon, Lucy Nichols, Kiyoshi Tsuru, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Bruce Tonkin*, Tom Keller*, Ross Rader,* Cary Karp*, June Seo*, Ken Stubbs*, (*double vote), Sophia Bekele, Avri Doria, Mawaki Chango, Robin Gross Absent: Maureen Cubberley, Ute Decker, Norbert Klein (in transit at the time) Decision1: The GNSO Council ratifies the election results for ICANN board seat number 14, and the results of that election were, Rita Rodin, 15 votes, and Philip Sheppard, 11 votes. Bruce Tonkin congratulated Rita Rodin on her election to the board. At that point Philip Sheppard, the runner up was invited to join the council and received a round of applause. Item 3: Initial report on new gTLD policy - identify next steps and update timeline Bruce Tonkin referred to his presentation in the GNSO public forum on 27 June 2006 which covered the Status Report on new gTLD policy work and the proposed timelines: - Initial Report - update by July. - followed by a public comment period - a physical meeting is planned between the Marrakech and Sao Paulo meetings to finalize the report - Final Report presented to the community in October - target - present the Final Report to the ICANN Board at the Sao Paulo meetings. Government Advisory Committee (GAC) advice has been sought at an early stage on whether there are any particular types of strings, such as country name strings, that they would advise not to be used for the purposes of a new gTLD. Item 4: Update on WHOIS policy work - identify next steps and update timeline An extensive amount of input was received from organizations, individual governments and from government agencies expressing concern that according to the WHOIS formulation voted on by Council, organizations would only be able to use the information in WHOIS for purely technical purposes. Further it appeared that members of council had different interpretations of the formulation amongst those that both supported and rejected it on the basis of a particular interpretation. Bruce Tonkin read a work in progress statement from a group of registrars who manage a substantial majority of WHOIS records for gTLDs. The option before Council was to consider expanding on the formulation by making either statements of clarity or statements of principle that underlie the formulation. Bruce Tonkin proposed drafting a resolution which would capture the discussion and suggestions made by the Council members. Bruce clarified that the purpose of the resolution, was to authorise a work plan. It did not change the definition of purpose, but allowed for broader dialogue with the community, in particular, the government public policy community. Bruce further clarified that a straw pole was important as the Council support was needed for the statement to be presented in the ICANN Public Forum on Thursday 29 June 2006.. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed as a draft resolution under consideration: In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments. Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the the RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) is collected. Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself. Tony Holmes added a friendly amendment to point four: "and any further clarification as it becomes available from council." The straw poll count was 12. Item 5: Any Other Business: Marilyn Cade, seconded by Avri Doria proposed the following motion: A beloved member of the Internet and ICANN family, Liz Dengate Thrush, was killed last week in a tragic car accident that also took the life of three other members of her family. Liz was a well known leader and contributor to the Internet, and many of the ICANN community knew Liz personally through her participation in ICANN's meetings, and her leadership in InternetNZ and in New Zealand. Liz was the wife of Peter Dengate Thrush, a long standing contributor and leader in the global Internet community, and in the New Zealand Internet community, and an ICANN board member. The GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO, sends heartfelt condolences to Peter Dengate Thrush, to Liz's and Peter's children, Clare, Phoebe, and Henry, to the families of Liz and Peter in their tragic loss and to Liz's many loving friends, for the tragic loss of Liz and other members of their family. The motion was unanimously accepted. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for attending. The meeting ended: 12:30 local time Next GNSO Council teleconference 20 July 2006 at 12:00UTC see: Calendar Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Final Call for Comments and Background Report on a Proposed Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space
by Bruce Tonkin July 15, 2006

July 15, 2006

________________________________ From: John Jeffrey [mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2006 11:16 AM To ICANN Board Chair, Supporting Organization Chairs, and Advisory Committee Chairs: Please note that ICANN has posted today a Final Call for Comments and Background Report on a Proposed Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14jul06.htm> In accordance with the previously adopted procedure <http://www.icann.org/general/review-procedures-pgp.html>, this message will serve as a request to the ASO AC for advice on this proposed global policy (to be submitted by 12 August 2006), and as a final call for comments to all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (to be submitted no later than 4 August 2006). Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. John O. Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

Experts in various areas
by Marilyn Cade July 14, 2006

July 14, 2006

Dear Colleague, I have undertaken to develop some names in the area of economics/related studies that can be considered as experts for the PDP 06 work. However, I strongly urge that we, as Council, undertake to develop a broader strategy, and supportive recommendation for the identification, retention, or consultation with 'independent experts'. I'm delighted to see in the Operational Plan identification of the need for an economist for ongoing consultation for staff, and for the TFs/Council. But, since that may take a while. I've tried to gather some possible names. I did a web search, and also talked to the OECD and to the EC Competition authorities and came up with a few names to suggest for PDP 06. Dr. Martin Cave, London Dr. Andrew Odlyzko, University of Minn., USA Dr. Sam Paltridge, OECD Dr. Michael Katz - former FCC and FTC economist I also think we need competition authorities to 'consult' with. The European Commission has used a firm - Analyses Consulting, offices in London and US - to study competition. They also have an excellent report on the status of competition in various markets in Europe and it might be that we could 'borrow' some discussion time with them. We can invite experts from government agencies to 'discuss with us' and not pay them, since they wouldn't be able to take compensation. They would have to be speaking from present positions or views about their countries' laws, or perspectives, tough, not freelancing or speculating, but that kind of dialogue could also be beneficial. I suggest that we invite an anti trust attorney - but not the retained counsel for ICANN, but someone independent, as well. So, I'd suggest a competition and anti trust authority from the US FTC, European Commission, and perhaps Australia or Japan. I can get some names from contacts I have, probably. There is also a possibility of anti-trust expertise from one of the NGOs. I've been giving thought to the practicality of our calendars, and we may need to show some flexibility in our scheduling of the planned face to face. _____ From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:28 AM To: pdp-pcceg-feb06(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] PDP Feb 06: Preliminary Report Colleagues As I haven't received any further inputs since the Marrakech meeting, I will be proceeding with the release of the Preliminary Report by Wednesday 19 July, COB Brussels time. This will enable all Council members the chance to read the report prior to the Council meeting on Thursday 20 July. I am working on developing, as per the minutes of the Marrakech meeting, suggestions for expert materials for the group to review through August and September. I will distribute a draft for comment as quickly as I can. Of course, any questions or last minute comments, please come back to me. Kind regards. Liz .................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

1 0

Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 14, 2006

July 14, 2006

Hello All, Below is a revised motion derived from the tabled motion discussed in Marrakech, and taking into account feedback I have received since. The main changes are in step (3), where I have attempted to link the language to current clauses in the registrar accreditation agreement, and included a requirement to consider privacy and law enforcement perspectives. I have also left out SSAC, as most of the focus in Marrakech was on Government input and additional public input. We will of course continue to liaise with the SSAC as we do with the ALAC. We have not yet heard any concerns from SSAC or ALAC with the current definition of the WHOIS service. I have also added a list of the relevant data elements. Comments/improvements welcome. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Proposed Motion on WHOIS The GNSO Council notes that the current WHOIS definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself. 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 will 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 Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the minimum purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected and retained. The dialogue should seek to balance privacy and law enforcement concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and must take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Note that one of the purposes would be for the public display of some or all of the data as per the recent definition of the purpose of WHOIS. Note that Registrars are required (clause 3.7.7.4) to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating the purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended, and the intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator). (4) 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 and any further clarification as it becomes available from Council. (5) The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference and the outcomes of the dialogue with governments, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. List of data that must be collected and retained by registrars: ************************************************************** *************************************************************** The following is commonly referred to as the "WHOIS Data": ********************************************************** (a) The name of the Registered Name; (b) The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name; (c) The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website); (d) The original creation date of the registration; (e) The expiration date of the registration; (f) The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder; (g) The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and (h) The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name. In addition there is: ********************* (i) The name and (where available) postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number of the billing contact; (j) In electronic form, the submission date and time, and the content, of all registration data (including updates) submitted in electronic form to the Registry Operator(s); (k) In electronic, paper, or microfilm form, all written communications constituting registration applications, confirmations, modifications, or terminations and related correspondence with Registered Name Holders, including registration contracts; and (l) In electronic form, records of the accounts of all Registered Name Holders with Registrar, including dates and amounts of all payments and refunds.

2 1

RE: [council] Final IDN Issues Report
by Bruce Tonkin July 14, 2006

July 14, 2006

Hello All, Here is an excerpt of the General Counsel's opinion: General Counsel's opinion: The General Counsel's opinion is that the development of policies relating to ICANN's introduction of IDN gTLDs is within the scope of the GNSO and the ICANN policy development process. The General Counsel notes that care will need to be taken to ensure that any PDP on IDNs stays narrowly focused on discrete gTLD policy questions in line with the limited intended ambit of the policy development process as set forth in the ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, and does not become over-broad and begin to encompass more questions than can be successfully answered in one policy development process. The General Counsel's office will continue to work closely with ICANN's policy development staff and the GNSO on the appropriate scope of the PDP as work on IDNs evolves and additional specific policy development tasks are defined. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] IDN Issues Report
by Bruce Tonkin July 14, 2006

July 14, 2006

Hello All, Below is an extract from the issues report just released by Denise of the proposed terms of reference for decision in the Council meeting on 20 July 2006. With respect to the policy development process described in http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA we have completed step 2: Creation of Issues Report. We are now up to step 3 and step 4 of the PDP process. 3. Initiation of PDP c. Vote of the Council. A vote of more than 33% of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the PDP; unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case a Supermajority Vote of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP will be required to initiate the PDP. And 4. Commencement of the PDP At the meeting of the Council initiating the PDP, the Council shall decide, by a majority vote of members present at the meeting, whether to appoint a task force to address the issue. If the Council votes: a. In favor of convening a task force, it shall do so in accordance with the provisions of Item 7 below. b. Against convening a task force, then it will collect information on the policy issue in accordance with the provisions of Item 8 below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin F. Proposed Terms of Reference The following terms of reference for further work are focused on the GNSO activities, which should address gTLD aspects, as recommended by the GNSO working group assessing the Preliminary Issues Report. 1. Should IDN Top-Level Domains be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available, in particular the results of technical tests regarding IDN top-level domains, assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of IDN-gTLDs. b. With a positive presumption regarding a) above, awaiting the final outcome, address the following additional terms of reference. 2. Selection Criteria for IDN Top-Level Domains a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding selection criteria in the New gTLD PDP, develop modified or additional criteria, as appropriate, for IDN-gTLDs which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new IDN-gTLDs domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. 3. Allocation Methods for IDN Top-Level Domains a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding allocation methods in the New gTLD PDP, develop modified or new allocation methods, as appropriate, for selecting new IDN-gTLDs. 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for IDN Top-Level Domains a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP, develop policies to guide the specific contractual criteria needed for new IDN-gTLDs, to be made publicly available prior to any application rounds. 5. Additional policy considerations regarding IDN Top-Level Domains a. For two IDN-gTLD strings for the same purpose with the same operator, should the same second level strings in these TLDs resolve to the same Internet location? b. In cooperation with the ccNSO and the GAC, taking into account their considerations and findings regarding IDN top-level domains, determine policies to ensure consistency in approaches and interdependencies, as appropriate from a gTLD perspective. c. For IDN-gTLDs, should the script used in a string at the second level match the script used in the string at the top level?

1 0

GNSO Council Meeting 20 July: Shinkuro room
by Liz Williams July 14, 2006

July 14, 2006

Colleagues I have opened a shinkuro room for the meeting for 20 July. If you would like to participate through shinkuro, please accept my invitation to join the room. Kind regards. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

2 2

Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 11, 2006

July 11, 2006

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 20 July 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00am Los Angeles, 8:00am Washington DC, 9:00am Buenos Aires, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 19:00 Phnom Penh, 22:00 Melbourne, 00:00 Auckland) Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Vote on tabled WHOIS motion from Marrakech - updated motion to be provided by Bruce Tonkin by 13 July 2006 Item 3: 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 Item 4: Update on PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs - Dr Liz Williams - confirm planning for face-to-face meeting Item 5: Update on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for existing gTLDs - Dr Liz Williams Item 6: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Revised Proposed dates for Council meetings
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 11, 2006

July 11, 2006

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find a revised list of proposed dates for Council meetings. JULY 20, 2006 at 12:00 UTC. AUGUST 31 to September 2, 2006 Proposed face to face policy working group - PDPDec05, IDNs. (Location to be decided - please let me know off the list if you have a preference) SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 at 12:00 UTC. OCTOBER 19, 2006 at 12:00 UTC. NOVEMBER 16, 2006 at 19:00 UTC. DECEMBER 2 - 8, 2006 Sao Paulo Meetings (Generally it is worth ariving a day earlier than any scheduled public meetings (e.g workshops etc). If you have any questions, please let me know. Thnak you. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Regarding meeting on PDP-Dec05
by Bruce Tonkin July 11, 2006

July 11, 2006

Hello All, I have posted a note to the new gTLDs policy development mailing list on the possibility of a face-to-face meeting around 31 Aug to 2 Sept 2006. I assume all Council members will get that message, but if not see the archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/ Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0