August 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Regarding Redrafted IDN ToR
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 9, 2006

Aug. 9, 2006

Hello All, I had conference call with the chair of ICANN Board (Vint Cerf) and Chair of the ccNSO (Chris Disspain) along with several ICANN staff members, to discuss coordination of work on IDN TLDs. The general concerns raised were: (1) The rules for creating new IDN-gTLDs should be consistent with the rules for creating new ASCII-gTLDs. (2) Any rules with respect to allowable characters, scripts, languages etc in the TLD strings for new IDN-ccTLDs should be consistent with the rules for new IDN-gTLDs. The discussion was fairly consistent with some of the discussions of our last conference call. There was support for the current draft of the GNSO IDN terms of reference. The terms of reference already make clear that work on IDN-gTLDs will make reference to the work in PDPDec05 on new gTLDs (e.g TOR 2a), and that we will identify and document any policy issue for which it is essential that policy is harmonized for all IDN-TLDs (TOR 1b). It was suggested that once the GNSO approves its terms of reference, that we should create a cover letter for communication to the other supporting organisations, and advisory committees (including President's Advisory Committee for IDNs) that sets out some general principles and objectives of the work. The cover letter should also give examples of policy issues that would require harmonisation between the ccTLDS and gTLDs. We can probably expand on the current preamble. We should work with the ccNSO in identifying some of these issues to include in the cover letter. Note that any recommendations that are intended to apply to the ccTLDs will need to go through the ccNSO policy development process. For example, the GNSO may develop a draft recommendation that relates to an issue that is common to ccTLDs and gTLDs. This recommendation would then need to be taken through the ccNSO process. If our recommendation is as a result of wide consultation and careful consideration, we would hope that the ccNSO process could be fast tracked. The converse could also apply where a recommendations is developed outside of the GNSO process, and we could fast track its consideration within the GNSO. We may decide to delay making a final decision on the recommendation until we have confidence that the recommendation will also be supported by the ccNSO. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft minutes/transcript GNSO Council meeting 3 August 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 8, 2006

Aug. 8, 2006

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes/transcript of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 3 August 2006. The IDN discussion is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of the GNSO Council teleconference. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. The audio is also available at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20060803.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug 3 August GNSO Council Teleconference Agenda Mp3 Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 August 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 Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies 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 - absent Robin Gross - NCUC. - absent - apologies Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies 11 Council Members (16 Votes quorum) 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 - absent - apologies Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Quorum present at 12:10 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any statements of interest No updates recorded Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 June 2006. (http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02685.html) Philip Sheppard seconded by Lucy Nichols, moved the adoption the minutes. Motion approved. Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 28 June 2006 were adopted. Item 3: Vote to initiate IDN-gTLD PDP [PDP-Jul06] - updated terms of reference Philip Sheppard - I'm broadly happy with the issues report as written. My only suggestion would be that the text, that was useful under Term of Reference 1 On page 11 of the report, the Term of Reference 1 is a description of matters as opposed to foreseeing an action, ending on the phrase 'we should address the following additional terms of reference ' and goes on to describe it. To be clear, what the expectations of the terms of reference are, my suggestion would be a re-numbering to make as an introductory paragraph, paragraph 2 which is currently 1 a and b of the proposed Terms of Reference, and number the Terms of Reference accordingly from what is currently 2. Bruce Tonkin - I had noted that as well. That is a formatting change rather than substance but it makes sense. Cary Karp - with specific reference to the document distributed this morning, the Revised Issues Report, what strikes me as a mismatch between a basic tenet of the revised Terms of Reference and the summary at the start of the Issues Report and that is how the policy development process, interfaces and/or is meshed with the equivalent ccNSO action. The summary says "It is recommended that the GNSO launch a focused policy development process, in close consultation with the ccNSO and the broader ICANN community. However by the time we get to John Jeffrey's thoughts on the matter and the Terms of Reference, we are speaking exclusively on 'g' issues. Am I only one perceiving this? I need further clarification. Bruce Tonkin - the issue is, our mandate under the bylaws is only for gtld by definition, that is what the GNSO is allowed to do, so that's why the Terms of Reference are drafted in that way. If it is called gTLD, it's current title, it probably needs to make that a little clearer early on in the Issues Report that it focuses on gTLD issues because it was requested by the GNSO. Olof Nordling - we can easily accommodate that. in the summary, what it says is: "It is recommended that the GNSO launch a focused policy development process," That can be further specified, and also in the introduction it is highlighted. It is true there's been some movement in that respect since the Issues Report was first conceived. Cary Karp - my concerns are two. If we are talking about issues that apply to the entire TLD space, even if there are specific aspects of that discussion that apply to the cc's and others specifically come to the 'g's'. These two policy development processes have to be in reasonable harmony with each other in terms of extent and there is a very clear concern about there being possible contradictions between the two of them. Some coordination is necessary. I would be quite interested to know what the ccNSO is planning before making a commitment to a detailed policy development process from the 'g' side. Not suggesting that there be a single process but these things need to be clearly balanced. Marilyn Cade - my discussion is related to this topic and I would like to make my comments before you give a response to Cary. I share .. segregation of some of the work and want to be sure we plan, make it clear in our terms of reference and implement the needed interaction with other advisory committees and SOs. I would slightly disagree with the interpretation of the bylaws. I believe we are encouraged to work with other SOs and Advisory Committees. In the elaboration and introduction of IDNs into the TLD space, there has to be discussion of where harmonization is needed and what the implications are of the decisions made in what today are called cctlds Bruce Tonkin - if I can summarise, for Marilyn Cade, in the terms of references the explicit mention of the need to interact with the other Advisory Committees and SOs. Marilyn Cade - that is a start of getting us there. Bruce Tonkin - let me respond to Cary's question. Coming out of Wellington I had assumed the ccNSO would create a policy development process around this. In Marrakech I found out they seemed reluctant to do that. There is still the sense that ccTLD managers deal with things in their own country and the ccTLD managers felt they would be proposing to ICANN, this is the TLD that we want and ICANN has some process for dealing with that. There has been a suggestion, not yet written up, of potentially creating an alternative table of IDN based ccTLDs. I had assumed that this suggestion would be written up for comment. That hasn't happened. We are still a bit in the dark about what the ccNSO intends to do, they haven't progressed at all. The ccNSO as an SO has not progressed the suggestion and in terms of how ICANN would deal with requests from individual ccTLD managers, that hasn't been progressed either. Philip Sheppard - in the report on section E before the recommendations, that we launch a policy development process on the 'g' issues in cooperation with the ccNSO and the GAC. The General Counsel opinion says it is within scope on the gtld issues. The terms of reference describes those issues. That clear laying out would seem to me to capture the points we are all referencing here that the work cannot go on in isolation from the ccTLDs and the GAC. Cary Karp - a point of information. The ccNSO will realize that policies to do with languages have to do with several nation states. It is inconceivable that this will work at all if languages are considered as governmental rights and are being considered separately by the 'g's. The issues must be treated in the exact same manner by all the bodies dealing with it, if it's a single or parallel effort. Bruce Tonkin - I understood they were parallel but coupled processes. We are taking the lead here by saying these are the issues we are starting to work on. I would like a liaison from the ccNSO with the committee we form. Once they set up a structure on their side, that would be reciprocal. At regular points the two groups would get together as a whole to synchronize. So maybe it's a case of writing that up as an intent as part of the terms of reference if that gives people more comfort that there is an intention to harmonise. Cary Karp - why not have this as a terms of reference? We will be meeting face to face not far from now, maybe we should take inventory of the remaining issues that require articulation and defer voting until we are all together. Bruce Tonkin - we have so far a suggested change from Philip Sheppard to move 6.1 into the introduction. The suggestion on interaction with the ccNSO, is that also part of the introduction or are we making one of the terms of references, we are tasking the committee to do that interaction? Marilyn Cade - I would prefer we task the task force to do that interaction. Philip Sheppard - we just need staff to turn paragraph 1 under recommendations: "It is recommended that the GNSO launch a policy development process on the gTLD issues outlined in the 2 December 2005 resolution, as expanded upon during discussions in Wellington and Marrakech, in cooperation with the ccNSO (on the ccTLD aspects) and the Government Advisory Committee (on the public policy aspects), as well as in close consultation with the broader ICANN community. It is further recommended to support this process by a dedicated communication plan to be developed by ICANN staff." into the new terms of reference 1. Maureen Cubberley - on cooperation with other groups, particularly the cc's, my colleagues have said much of what I want to but there is one piece, on page 11 of the new version, at the end of the recommendation section, counsel notes: "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 ,and does not become over-broad and begin to encompass more questions than can be successfully answered in one policy development process. So where we have in one place it appears there is latitude to work with other groups, the ccNSO particularly, this statement, by the General Counsel, tends to narrow the focus. I would agree we need to look at each one of the terms of reference individually. I would think the most logical exercise is what Bruce proposed. When we get to terms of reference : "4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop policies to guide the specific contractual criteria needed for gTLDs with IDN labels, to be made publicly available prior to any application rounds." that is where we separate into 'cc' and 'g' issues. Up until that point it seems to me there's much value in sharing the work. Marilyn Cade - Maureen, you're supporting, my interpretation of the General Counsel's comments. I did not read the General Counsel to be restricting the research and preparatory work and analysis the task force should undertake, but that specific policy we are charged to put forward for the TLD space has to be focused on what would be classified on generic names, whatever generic is determined to mean. Would that be consistent with what you think? Maureen Cubberley - I can't imagine generic being country codes. Marilyn Cade - This has been discussed before, but I don't know if all councillors have been in all sessions. The present definition of a country code is restricted to the ISO 3166. There are countries that might want to open that up and use a 3 letter code, There are countries that might want to use a full name or some version of their name. EG, The United States of America which could be called .US, United States, the United States of America and America. Under the present definition of country codes, only .US falls into the definition. Maureen Cubberley - so the way it's written it doesn't leave a latitude. Marilyn Cade - I don't agree. If the General Counsel is telling me as a GNSO councilor that we already know what the limitations are that might fall into a new designation of name, we have not thought as a community, what the issues are, in relation to that last example, I gave (US, America, united states). Some countries have restrictive laws that effect the use of their name, and would want to be restrictive and determine what versions of their names may be used. Other countries do not have those laws, there may be practices under the UN system to be followed, but there are broader questions, that is: Does a country want to have 3 versions of a name that are limited to national sovereignty? And do they want to be the only entity to decide that these names have national boundaries and certain characteristics? Most of my experience and in discussions on the topic at the ITU and with others, most governments will think their view should be paramount on that last topic. But, as Cary said, there will be implications for such issues in the IDN space. Maureen Cubberley - I understand. So my question is if, on this call, was there a decision on whether we'll adopt these terms of reference now, subject to discussion, or will we discuss further by email in another meeting? What I have heard makes me want to go back and look at these terms of reference. Bruce Tonkin - That is the intent Maureen, we only have 14 or 16 votes. We don't have enough Council members to be comfortable with initiating a policy development process on this call. We will use the input of this call for the terms of reference. On our last call we did not discuss in any detail. Maureen Cubberley - ok, thank you, it makes me feel more comfortable. Bruce Tonkin - To pick up on what Marilyn said, is exactly right. I tidied up the language to refer only to gTLDs, because that is what the GNSO does, but actually, as it is defined, a gTLD is anything other than what is on that ISO 3166 list. It is very broad and this group might define that further and decisions might be taken further down the track, but right now, there are none of those decisions, so it is still basically in scope, anything other than what is on the ISO list is in scope. Maureen Cubberley - Thank you for the clarification, Marilyn and Bruce. Marilyn Cade - one comment for the record. I'm not suggesting that a decision we make would not have significant political implications and that those would need to be discussed with the SO and in settings that involve the broader cc community. The cc community is not yet fully represented within the SO and that is a challenge for them to address in terms of how they get broader input. There will also have to be discussion with the governments in a structured way. Bruce Tonkin - a lot of that discussion still needs to happen. There were very early suggestions heard in Marrakech in one of the Public Forums on IDNs and they have not gone any further with respect to, may be carve out a bit of work. That suggestion was made that there should be a separate list created and it would contain only country names, potentially 2 characters in length, those characters may be of different scripts but that's very early stuff. Nothing has been written down or widely discussed amongst the cc's or the ccNSO. Still early days for them. We, as the GNSO need to start thinking about these policy issues. And then start writing them down and we'll start to get more engagement from the ccTLD's, and as Marilyn says, I'm talking about the ccTLD managers and not the ccNSO, and that will push the ccNSO to look at it as well. Alistair Dixon - a question. The General Counsel's view is the policy development process should be narrowly focused on discrete gTLD policy issues. Issues like languages don't strike me as a discrete gTLD issue. It is an issue that is equally relevant in the cc situation. Are you suggesting that by consulting with the cc's we will be able to address this non-discrete policy issues? Bruce Tonkin - languages issues are not constrained to IDNs. Language exists within the work we are currently doing within PDPDec05, because different languages can be represented by the Latin script in use today. It has been talked about very much and I hope to talk about it in Amsterdam. Some of these issues we already need to think about and IDNs will bring those into focus a bit more, because when you start looking at some of the scenarios, "This is more complex than I thought", and we start to do some of the thinking, then we need to coordinate that thinking, with other groups, so I don't think that it means that we don't do any work on language, I think that we do have to consider that but, what Cary is saying, is that if we do some work on that, and another group does some work on that , what we do not want is to have two different answers. So the work needs to be coordinated. Cary Karp - I can exemplify on the general point I raised before. Let us assume that a half a dozen Arabic speaking countries, are interested in participating in this and each wants to have some form of the name of its country represented using Arabic script. Since Arabic has significant variations, so it is quite rightly that there will be some detail of the way the Arabic script is used, that these countries may regard as a debate, it may not be outright controversial. That is not really important to the gTLDs how we use any given script as long as we have a clear warrant for doing it and doing it in a responsible manner, but we would have our heads handed to us if we pretended that we were the ones who decided how Arabic script ought to appear in the TLD space. This will have to be resolved by the speech community itself. But the delusion that such issues can be easily resolved, is something that we have to be on our guard against. With regard to Latin script there are also similar issues. For example, the way accents are applied in certain contexts in the French use of the French language, differ from the way accents are applied in the French Canadian use of the French language and because avoiding user confusion is the prime reason why we are discussing IDNs, such seemingly small issues are important to resolve up front. There's no way for the 'g's to take the lead in this nor is there any way that 'c' are going to be able to treat this as a governmental issue. They have to address this in a broad forum as well. To say nothing about the additional issue that arises that not all national governments are happy with how their cc's are being operated. Bruce Tonkin - are we happy, I am trying to get a forum handling with GNSO where we start talking about policy issues understanding them some more, then once we have more understanding in the GNSO, we interact with other groups. Are we comfortable with putting in the first terms of reference a specific task to interact with other groups where there are overlapping issues? Marilyn Cade - that is a minimum of what we should do but it's also high level enough to allow us to develop appropriate activities under it. So I would say yes. Then if we take it as one of our first tasks, beginning to figure out what the interactions might be. Maureen Cubberley - an observation. Given the level of expertise in our group in the person of Cary who knows more about the specifics of this issue than most of us. It would be worthwhile to develop a catalogue of these specific examples that will have an impact in more than one realm so we don't lose it. It's extremely valuable as these examples of potential conflicts in the way the policy or operation of an IDN system working are identified and we keep a list and that at the time they are being discussed in that level of detail we contribute. We get in to detail from time to time and say 'that is too detailed'. Bruce Tonkin - that makes sense. The issues should be documented as they are raised. Like the new gTLD policy, you have a test case and test whether your policy works. Cary Karp - one way to fold this back in is a clear policy concern for the GNSO to be adequately informed about language requirements by the governments on differing language requirements, that may have varying opinions on those requirements, and that this would be straightened out in a forum elsewhere where we don't necessarily participate. It is a 'g' specific concern to know what the c's are going to do with language. Bruce Tonkin - yes, a couple of sentences, there Cary? Cary Karp- let me listen to the mp3 first of this meeting. Bruce Tonkin- Glen - can you get this transcribed? Glen - yes Bruce Tonkin - if Olof could pick up on these discussions, based on a transcription. Marilyn Cade - time frame for the policy development process (pdp). I would like us to officially and formally acknowledge the policy development process time frame is not appropriate to this task force and not to ignore the inappropriateness of the time frame but to be clear in launching the policy development process that we would develop an appropriate and achievable time line to undertake this work. So that in launching the pdp, staff are not constrained to push us into deadlines. Instead, given the complexity and importance, we should develop an appropriate timeline. Bruce Tonkin - how would you see the timeline being developed? Is the group itself ? From the way I have managed project, get the group to come back to me to with what they think the time line is. Marilyn Cade - I am not suggesting that staff would not put together timelines, I am suggesting that we give them guidance and give ourselves guidance in the terms of reference that note that the present time limitations are not suitable to the work of this task force. Bruce Tonkin - what that means is that you might put into the introduction:' it's expected the timeline is not appropriate' and then the first task of the group that does this work, is to actually come back to the Council with a time frame. Cary Karp - one of the things that we could comfortably peg that time line to, is the pace at which the technical testing and such things are going to be proceeding. I will be coming to the August meeting with Tina knowing what the IETF has in mind in terms of advancing the protocol basis. And one of the things that Tina and I will have to do during that meeting, is see to it that they realise that we have a time line too and we will be happy to peg our timeline to theirs if they can give us useful numbers to do that. I would also like to point out that the present discussion, although perhaps not quantifiable on how long it ought to take, is certainly an essential aspect of a policy development process. Bruce Tonkin - OK - Should try to capture that. One of the first steps when the policy development process is initiated is to ask the constituencies to prepare positions, the time is three weeks. I think that we ought to explicitly extend that time line so that there is enough time for people to think about and understand the issue before they put pen to paper into a constituency statement. Tom Keller - I am looking for clarification for: term of reference 5.c. "Be particularly mindful of detail which, although initially considered in the IDN context, may otherwise be relevant to the New gTLD PDP. The association of two separate labels with the same TLD is an example of this, given that the linguistic justification for such action can as easily be derived from two languages that can be adequately represented using ASCII characters as it can from a situation where one or both labels requires IDN representation." Cary Karp - Bruce has already pointed out that there will be situations where two separate language representations of a single label may be requested, but both of those labels can be represented in ASCII, there are language issues that are not IDN issues. Bruce Tonkin - I think Tom, this is one of those points, a bit like what Philip said about 1a and 1b, it is more or less a statement of fact, it is not really a terms of reference, so much. What it is basically saying is that when you start thinking about the IDN issue, you realise that a lot of these issues apply to ASCII TLDs as well in the context of language specifically. Tom Keller - I would like to have some examples. Cary Karp - the situation of the library community, which is a perfect analogy to the museum community is considering the potential value of having a TLD dedicated to itself, but they can't get past the selection of the label because In English the word 'library' means 'library' but in French the word 'librairie' means 'bookstore' the absolute opposite of this research like academic facility. So they would need to have some label resembling 'library' and some label representing 'bibliothèque'. For example .lib and .bib which are both ASCII labels, but they are two entirely different groups of languages representing the exact same TLD. Philip Sheppard - Of course it is only the arrogance of the English speaking races who assume .com does not derive from French word "commerce" and .info does not derive from the Italian word "informatzione" Cary Karp - advocates from those communities fail to make this point that the discussion matures the Anglophone arrogance is justified (joke) Alistair Dixon - What I was going to say has already been discussed. Bruce Tonkin - any other comments? Update the terms of reference and post it to the mailing list. I am trying to get a sense of when we make a decision. Is the suggestion that we vote in Amsterdam assuming we have quorum? Is that what people are suggesting? Cary Karp - might it be wise in the light of realising the intricacy of all this, to suggest that we indeed we might call the question while in Amsterdam, but if we discover further levels of complexity that we should perhaps defer the proceeding to an absolute formal action a while longer. Amsterdam is a reasonable date to consider voting on this, but we may learn more between now and then. Marilyn Cade - Can I ask a clarifying question about the point that Cary has just made? I feel it important that we find a way to officially launch our work. I also understand the point made about getting the terms of reference right because the terms of reference does act as a framework and in some cases, my experience is actually, it can be too binding, we then find it difficult to revise the terms of reference or find the need to change the terms of reference. How do we achieve launching work in the creation of a forum without, I use the term forum loosely here, how do we launch the work without approving an interim terms of reference. At the same time I respect the point Cary made. Maureen Cubberley - I was offline. I heard the last part of what Marilyn had to say about we have to devise the terms of reference in order to move forward and then the difficulties in changing them, and I wondering if we could we borrow something form the legal world and separate some of the elements in the introductory remarks that seem to be more that than terms of reference, and present them in the same way that you would see recitals presented before the elements of a specific issue are presented, so that we would co-opt some of general things that are observations to be kept in mind, but are not specific to the terms of reference. I wonder if thinking along those lines might get us to a point where we could refine the way we develop our terms of reference. Bruce Tonkin - quite a few of these points we could move up into an introduction, the equivalent of the whereas clauses the board uses. So we could certainly do that. My question actually Maureen is partly when we would take a decision to do something next, and I was suggesting to perhaps do it in Amsterdam. Cary suggested that we may get more information and we might want to delay it further, but mainly we just pencil it in to try and do in Amsterdam. If people are not comfortable moving forward, then we will schedule another meeting at that point. Maureen Cubberley - that sounds logical Bruce Tonkin - One of the things I will have to check on is whether we will have quorum of actual Council members in Amsterdam because some constituencies are sending members who are not Council members. I am not clear on that yet. We will see how we go. Or we may be able to do a teleconference at a time in Amsterdam where those not participating in person can dial in. So we will have a try with who is there, who can dial in and what time, and see if we can schedule a short formal Council meeting over that 3 day period. Is there any other business someone wants to raise under this meeting? Olof Nordling - Could we just recap on what we do the mean time; because I reckon we will have some input for modifying the terms of reference? Bruce Tonkin - We would like to get the terms of reference updated by early next week based on the transcript of this call. Olof Nordling - indeed and to the lists for further comments? Bruce Tonkin - I'll preliminarily schedule a meeting in Amsterdam depending on people's availability, and schedule half an hour for any formal business we need to conduct. Item 4: Update on planning for Amsterdam meeting (29-31 August 2006) Bruce Tonkin proposed: The first day and a half reviewing the recommendations, and taking into account constituency or other comments whether they need to be improved further. - working through each of the Terms of Reference spending at least 1 - 2 hours on each. - taking IDN case scenarios, and test if the proposed principles produce the expected outcomes expect them. - Thursday would be testing Olof Nordling - proposed recapping, on Thursday, the previous IDN committee findings? On Wednesday night a group dinner is planned. Remote participation will be available and details of the conference bridge will be sent out shortly. Item 5: Any Other Business 5.1 PDP Feb 06 Maureen Cubberley proposed scheduling a date for the PDP Feb 06 task force to have a teleconference. Further notice of this would be sent to the task force list. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 13:21 UTC Next GNSO Council meeting during the Amsterdam meeting in August. Details tba. see: Calendar Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Regarding Redrafted IDN ToR
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 8, 2006

Aug. 8, 2006

Hello All, I have updated Olof's last draft slightly - by adding in a few examples to help clarify the meaning of the text. See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Preamble The following terms of reference for further work are focused on GNSO activities and therefore address gTLD considerations. Subsequent to working group assessment of the Preliminary Issues Report, the terms of reference were adopted by the GNSO Council on xx August 2006. In addition, the GNSO Council resolved that policy development activities relating to the introduction of generic Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels (IDN-gTLDs) shall be guided by the following considerations: I. Given the urgency of current interest in fully localized domain names, and the limited range of potential outcomes of the impending technical tests of devices for entering top-level IDN labels into the root zone, the policy for the inclusion of IDN-gTLDs can begin to be assessed. II. Policy development will proceed under the assumption that top-level IDN labels will be added to the root zone, awaiting the outcome of the requisite initial trials. III. Determining that a proposed new IDN label is adequately differentiated from a pre-existing label requires comparison in graphic, phonetic, and semantic terms. Two levels of differentiation are necessary, of which the one pertains to situations where the two labels are being considered for delegation to the same organization, and the other where the labels are to be delegated to independent organizations. The former case can be further subdivided into two situations. In the one, the intention is for the same set of sub-domain names to appear under multiple TLD labels (e.g given example.tld1, you will also find the equivalent example.tld2), and in the other independent name trees are to be established (ie given example.tld1, the label "example" may not exist in .tld2). IV. It is necessary to be particularly mindful of detail which, although initially considered in the IDN context, may otherwise be relevant to the New gTLD PDP. The association of two separate TLD labels with the same meaning is an example of this (e.g .warm and .chaud, or .lib and .bib), given that the linguistic justification for such action can as easily be derived from two languages that can be adequately represented using ASCII characters as it can from a situation where one or both labels require IDN representation. V. The implementation of policies based on an aliasing mechanism (e.g where example.tld1 resolves to the same location as example.tld2) may require the development of new technical resources if the tests of the currently available alternatives (as referenced in I above) determine that none are viable. In general, care should be taken to recognize distinctions between technical and policy concerns, as well as cultural and political considerations. Addressing their manifold interdependencies should be approached as collaborative action with other organizations as appropriate to any given case. VI. In view of the complexities and interdependencies involved in the policy development task, the pre-determined standard PDP timeline must be adapted to allow sufficient time for all the necessary activities and interaction steps. Terms of Reference 1. Initial and General Provisions a. As an initial task, in line with Consideration VI above, plan the necessary activities and interaction steps for this PDP in cooperation with ICANN staff, and develop a suitable timeline for the PDP that takes into account the timeline for the technical tests. Such interaction would include interaction with the ccNSO, GAC, SSAC, RSAC, and ccTLD managers as required. b. In general, during this PDP, identify and document any policy issue for which it is essential that policy is harmonized for all IDN-TLDs and develop the related policy for IDN-gTLDs in interaction with other relevant entities, including other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, in a way that ensures harmonization of the policy outcome. 2. Selection Criteria for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding selection criteria in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop modified or additional criteria for the inclusion of IDN labels in subsequent action toward ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding allocation methods in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop modified or additional allocation methods that may be applied to gTLDs with IDN labels. 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop policies to guide the specific contractual criteria needed for gTLDs with IDN labels, to be made publicly available prior to any application rounds. 5. Additional Policy Aspects Regarding Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. With specific regard to Consideration III above, determine whether the script used for an IDN-gTLD label can, or should, be exclusively propagated on all lower levels in the sub-domain tree (allowing for the general exceptions attaching to that script as referenced in the ICANN IDN Guidelines). If such a procedure is viable, intention to implement it may serve as a differentiation criterion or otherwise be invoked in the consideration of a request for a new label.

1 0

GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report- Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 7, 2006

Aug. 7, 2006

[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] The GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report – Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing Top Level Domains has been be posted to the GNSO's website at: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pcc-pdp-03aug06.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Webform for Public Comments on Initial Report on new gTLDs.
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 7, 2006

Aug. 7, 2006

REMINDER: http://icann.org/announcements/announcement1-28jul06.htm Comments due by August 18, 2006 There is a web form to facilitate comments: http://survey.icann.org/cgi/comments: This form is to facilitate gathering public comments on currently active issues in the ICANN policy development process. Please fill in the identifying information below, and select the issue you wish to comment upon. Name: Title: Organization: Email: Email again: Issue: New gTLDS After submitting this form you will be presented with a second form with space for comments on the selected issue. When that form is submitted, your email address will be sent a "confirm" message verifying that you wish to publish the comments. Note that the confirm will not be sent if you have recently submitted and confirmed other comments. Comments may also be sent to: newgtlds-comments(a)icann.org. Comments will be viewable at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-comments. ....................................................................... GNSO Council's Committee on the introduction of new top level domains has released its Initial Report 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 . 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 this web form, http://survey.icann.org/cgi/comments 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, at newgtlds-questions(a)icann.org. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Redrafted IDN ToR
by Olof Nordling Aug. 4, 2006

Aug. 4, 2006

Dear Councilors and colleagues, As requested at the Council call yesterday, following the Council's deliberations on the IDN Terms of Reference, I have consolidated the proposed changes in the drafting below. The former ToR 1 and 5 a,c,d have been moved as considerations to the preamble section and a new ToR 1 covers a) PDP timeline adaptation and b) interaction. I hope this properly reflects the meeting outcome and I look forward to any comments. Very best regards Olof PS. In view of the questions for clarification during the call, some rephrasing of the former ToR 5 a-d could also be envisaged. Not done in the version below, though. Preamble The following terms of reference for further work are focused on GNSO activities and therefore address gTLD considerations. Subsequent to working group assessment of the Preliminary Issues Report, the terms of reference were adopted by the GNSO Council on xx August 2006. In addition, the GNSO Council resolved that policy development activities relating to the introduction of generic Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels (IDN-gTLDs) shall be guided by the following considerations: I. Given the urgency of current interest in fully localized domain names, and the limited range of potential outcomes of the impending technical tests of devices for entering top-level IDN labels into the root zone, the policy for the inclusion of IDN-gTLDs can begin to be assessed. II. Policy development will proceed under the assumption that top-level IDN labels will be added to the root zone, awaiting the outcome of the requisite initial trials. III. Determining that a proposed new IDN label is adequately differentiated from a pre-existing label requires comparison in graphic, phonetic, and semantic terms. Two levels of differentiation are necessary, of which the one pertains to situations where the two labels are being considered for delegation to the same operator, and the other where the labels are to be delegated to independent registries. The former case can be further subdivided into two situations. In the one, the intention is for the same set of sub-domain names to appear under multiple TLD labels, and in the other independent name trees are to be established. IV. It is necessary to be particularly mindful of detail which, although initially considered in the IDN context, may otherwise be relevant to the New gTLD PDP. The association of two separate labels with the same TLD is an example of this, given that the linguistic justification for such action can as easily be derived from two languages that can be adequately represented using ASCII characters as it can from a situation where one or both labels require IDN representation. V. The implementation of policies based on an aliasing mechanism (as implicit in III above) may require the development of new technical resources if the tests of the currently available alternatives (as referenced in I above) determine that none are viable. In general, care should be taken to recognize distinctions between technical and policy concerns, as well as cultural and political considerations. Addressing their manifold interdependencies should be approached as collaborative action with other organizations as appropriate to any given case. VI. In view of the complexities and interdependencies involved in the policy development task, the pre-determined standard PDP timeline must be adapted to allow sufficient time for all the necessary activities and interaction steps. Terms of Reference 1. Initial and General Provisions a. As an initial task, in line with Consideration VI above, plan the necessary activities and interaction steps for this PDP in cooperation with ICANN staff and develop a suitable timeline for the PDP. b. In general, during this PDP, identify and document any policy issue for which it is essential that policy is harmonized for all IDN-TLDs and develop the related policy for IDN-gTLDs in interaction with other relevant entities, including other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, in a way that ensures harmonization of the policy outcome. 2. Selection Criteria for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding selection criteria in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop modified or additional criteria for the inclusion of IDN labels in subsequent action toward ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding allocation methods in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop modified or additional allocation methods that may be applied to gTLDs with IDN labels. 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop policies to guide the specific contractual criteria needed for gTLDs with IDN labels, to be made publicly available prior to any application rounds. 5. Additional Policy Aspects Regarding Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels a. With specific regard to Consideration III above, determine whether the script used for an IDN-gTLD label can, or should, be exclusively propagated on all lower levels in the sub-domain tree (allowing for the general exceptions attaching to that script as referenced in the ICANN IDN Guidelines). If such a procedure is viable, intention to implement it may serve as a differentiation criterion or otherwise be invoked in the consideration of a request for a new label.

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 3 August 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 3, 2006

Aug. 3, 2006

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on August 3, 2006 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20060803.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New IDN Issues Report
by Olof Nordling Aug. 3, 2006

Aug. 3, 2006

Dear all, As promised during the last Council call, please find attached an updated version (including, inter alia, the new suggested ToR) of the IDN Issues Report attached for the 3 August conference call. Best regards Olof

2 2

Revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 20 July, 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 3, 2006

Aug. 3, 2006

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 20 July 2006. In "Item 3: Vote on tabled WHOIS motion from Marrakech" The following paragraph has been removed: Mawaki commented "I am not sure yet what getting who voted in support of formulation one, to state their reasons why they supported formulation 1 will achieve, but I am happy to try it and see what we learn." Thank you, 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 to respond to that contention as 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." (BRUCE TONKIN: CHAIR, GNSO COUNCIL) - 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

1 0

Visas for Brazil
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 2, 2006

Aug. 2, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The GNSO Council members can be included in ICANN's automatic visa program for Brazil. Please let me know, off the list, whether you would like to avail yourselves of the opportunity and what passports you hold. 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