January 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Domain Name Marketplace Workshop -- Council and constituency members' participation strongly encouraged
by Denise Michel March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

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

2 3

Response from GoDaddy regarding action taken with respect to a .org domain name
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 19, 2007

Feb. 19, 2007

Hello All, Earlier this week there was a posting about a specific case of action taken by a registrar over a domain name. I don't think the Council list is the appropriate place for discussing specific disputes, but rather the list should be used to highlight general issues that apply to multiple situations which may require policy action. Given that there is a public posting on this list, I gave the Registrar, GoDaddy, the right of reply. See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz, Vice President, Corporate Development & Policy, GoDaddy We believe, under the circumstances, that we took the appropriate action. This was not about "a controversial speaker" or freedom of speech. This was about inappropriately acquired MySpace credentials being made public. The posted credentials exposed tens of thousands, many no doubt minors, to potential harm. The site publisher could not be reached and we took the appropriate action as allowed under our Registration Agreement and Terms of Service. We stand behind our actions. The author of this note, and the NCUC chair that decided to forward it to the Council list, have indicted us in the very same manner they are accusing us of. They have not even attempted to contact us for an explanation, and have ignored our own response to the CNET News.com article. In fairness, we ask that the Council also consider our response, as well as the responses of others who have taken a different view of our actions. GoDaddy Response: http://news.com.com/5208-1025_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=24518&messageID=2… As awful as this article describes GoDaddy...: http://news.com.com/5208-1025_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=24518&messageID=2… Im sick...: http://news.com.com/5208-1025_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=24518&messageID=2… Am I in the Twilight zone here???: http://news.com.com/5208-1025_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=24518&messageID=2… (This response is apparently from a MySpace user as indicated from a post on her blog, linked to in the above response.) Tim Ruiz Vice President Corporate Development & Policy GoDaddy.com --------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Monday, 29 January 2007 7:35 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] [Fwd: [Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Recent Actions By Go Daddy]] The Chair of the NCUC has asked that the mail below be circulated on the Council list. Thank you. Glen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Recent Actions By Go Daddy Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:53:30 -0500 I would like to draw attention to the recent actions of the Go Daddy registrar in its decision to pull a .org domain name at the request of social networking site myspace.com because a third party had placed on the site a list of passwords and accounts of myspace users. http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6153607.html This strikes me as a serious abuse of power by a registrar, and should alarm the users of this constituency. If registrars can exercise such unrestrained authority over registrants, then no controversial speaker is safe. If there is not already a procedure for addressing this, I would strongly urge this constituency to take appropriate action. Harold Feld -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Travel support for February GNSO meeting in Marina del Rey
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 9, 2007

Feb. 9, 2007

Dear Council and Constituency members, In order to facilitate GNSO's policy development activities, ICANN will provide travel support for the Marina del Rey GNSO meeting/s (22-25 February 2007) for one representative of each GNSO constituency, the NomCom-appointed Council members, the GNSO Liaisons, and the Chair, as needed. The terms of this travel support, which are outlined below and will be coordinated by Glen, are the same as those used for the GNSO's Amsterdam intersessional meeting last year. Please contact Glen directly with any questions. Regards, Denise Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org denise.michel(a)icann.org 1. Designated Council members need to contact Glen <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> directly to confirm travel support. Each traveler must complete a travel request form (attached) outlining: • Dates of departure and return • Destination • Purpose of trip • Estimated costs • Projected outcomes Email completed forms to <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> who will facilitate ICANN approval. 2. Once your travel is approved, please contact ICANN's travel agent directly to arrange for the booking and purchase of your airline ticket: Nadine Davidson TravelStore Platinum 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 325 Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA (310)575-5540 x 15419 (310)575-5541 fax Nadine.D(a)TravelStoreUSA.com If other travel arrangements are needed (train, etc.), please alert <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, Los Angeles Marina del Rey, 13480 Maxella Avenue, Marina del Rey, CA 90292. The rooms are 129 US$ per night, excluding tax, but including free Internet connectivity. Breakfast is not included but there will be a generous snack with the welcome coffee in the morning. Rooms have been reserved for the participants so as soon as you know your travel plans, please let <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> know so that the hotel bookings can be confirmed with your dates. 3. ICANN will pay for the following: • Economy-class travel booked by an ICANN travel agent or by the traveler at the lowest possible cost; • Accommodations at a hotel pre-selected by ICANN. All other costs will be borne by the traveler including meals, local travel and related incidentals. In the case of an upgrade, ICANN will pay up to the cost of an economy-class ticket as quoted from an ICANN travel agent. In the case where two consecutive trips are taken (one funded by ICANN and one non-related/personal) ICANN will pay the lower of the two airline segments to and from the meeting or the equivalent of a round-trip economy-class ticket from the point of origin to the meeting. 4. Upon completion of the trip, each traveler is asked to acknowledge full participation in the Council meeting by sending a brief email to Glen describing the value realized from the trip, and providing any suggestions they may have for improving such meetings. There will be remote participation and details will follow. Kindly inform <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> as soon as possible whether you will be participating remotely and the details will follow. The meeting agenda is being developed and will be posted as soon as it is available. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Updated 2007 GNSO Council Statements of Interest
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 1, 2007

Feb. 1, 2007

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Please find the updated 2007 Statements of Interest for the GNSO Councillors. They are ordered according to constituencies: 1. Registrar Constituency 2. Commercial and Business Users Constituency 3. Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency 4. Non Commercial Users Constituency 5. Intellectual Property Interests Constituency 6. gTLD Registries constituency 7. Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO Council Please let me know if there are any other updates you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ...................................................................... Registrar Constituency Bruce Tonkin - Registrar Constituency - GNSO Council chair I am employed full-time as Chief Technology Officer by Melbourne IT Limited. Melbourne IT has a registrar accreditation agreement with ICANN. Melbourne IT also has a contractual relationship with most gtld registries (for a current list see http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html) and many cctld registries as a registrar. .................................................................... Ross Rader - - Registrar Constituency I am the Director of Research and Innovation for Tucows Inc., an ICANN accredited registrar and Internet services vendor. Tucows is a minority shareholder in Afilias LLC, with roughly an 8% shareholding. Neither Tucows, nor I, is in possession of, nor have access to Registry Sensitive or Registry Proprietary information as defined by any relevant registry operating contracts as a result of this relationship. Tucows provides consulting and application hosting services to other registrars and Internet services providers. I am not an officer, director, consultant, or employee of any of these customer organizations nor am I specifically involved in providing services to them. The URL for this statement is: http://www.byte.org/blog/_WebPages/StatementofInterestsforRossRader.html ........................................................................ Thomas Keller - - Registrar Constituency I'm a full time employee of Schlund+Partner AG. Schlund+Partner AG is ICANN accredited and is conducting business with almost all major gTLDS and ccTLDs. Schlund holds a minority share in Afilias LLC for investment purposes.Besides domain name registrations Schlund is mainly offering webhosting and email services to end users. I'm a member of the DENIC Technical Advisory Council. ....................................................................... ....................................................................... Commercial and Business Users Constituency Philip Sheppard - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am Public Affairs Manager for AIM - European Brands Association, a Brussels-based trade association involved in public affairs activities. AIM represents the branded goods industries in Europe on key issues which affect the ability of brand manufacturers to design, distribute and market their brands. AIM's membership groups 1800 companies of all sizes through corporate members and national associations in 21 countries. These companies are mostly active in every day consumer goods. AIM's mission is to create for brands an environment of fair and vigorous competition, fostering innovation and guaranteeing maximum value to consumers. I hold various non-remunerated directorships unrelated to ICANN. I am a contact point for several domain names. Honorary positions: - President 2007 International Public Relations Association (IPRA), the global professional association for the PR profession. - I am a Freeman of the City of London. ...................................................................... Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am employed full-time by Yahoo! Inc., as Senior Legal Director. I have been elected to the GNSO Council by the Commercial and Business Users Constituency. Yahoo! is a leading global Internet brand and one of the most trafficked Internet destinations worldwide. Yahoo!'s mission is to connect people to their passions, their communities, and the world's knowledge. I engage ICANN issues from Yahoo!'s perspective as a premier online brand and diversified business, highly valuing the perspectives of our customers, partners and users. Yahoo! has hundreds of thousands of online business customers and partners which advertise and provide services to our global audience. We are interested in seeing all of these businesses succeed and grow. These businesses work with Yahoo! because we have earned one of the world's largest audiences, requiring that the 'user perspective' remain extremely important to us always. And, of course Yahoo! is a famous brand that is extremely challenging to protect and enforce online, worldwide. I believe businesses of all types and sizes share our interest in the rapid growth of internet commerce, balanced with fair protection of existing property interests. I look forward to working with the Council to address the many serious issues that existing businesses encounter as a result of ICANN policy. ............................................................................ ISPCP Constituency Anthony Harris - ISPCP Constituency I am under contract as full time executive director of CABASE, a non-profit Internet industry association, incorporated as such in Argentina since 1999. - consulting work done for ICANN - NONE - consulting work done for a gtld or cctld registry, or current applicant to become a gtld or cctld registry - NONE - consulting work done for a registrar - NONE - employment with a registry or registrar - NONE .......................................................................... Greg Ruth - ISPCP Constituency I am a Senior Consultant for Verizon Business, a global communications, security and technology provider. My duties consist primarily of providing consulting services. As a multi-national organization, Verizon Business has many customer and vendor relationships, and some of those relationships may include ICANN accredited registrars, registries as well as members of other GNSO constituencies. In the normal course of my duties, I have no knowledge of which ICANN related organizations my company is contractually involved with. My position and responsibilities in Verizon Business do not allow me any decision making power, personal involvement, responsibility or other interest in determining or carrying out the contractual relationships in which my company enters. As a global network provider, my company's interest in ICANN is for the security and stability of the Internet. I do not have any relationships or duties outside my company that would involve any issues of interest to or conflict with ICANN, and my duties in the GNSO. This statement of interest will be maintained at: http://www.icannwiki.org/Greg_Ruth_-_statement_of_interest ......................................................................... Tony Holmes - ISPCP Constituency I am employed within BT Group's Chief Technology Office with the responsibility for determining numbering, naming and addressing policy and strategy for BT Group PLC. BT is a large ISP and infrastructure provider and operates in many countries across the world. BT is also an accredited ICANN Registrar, but is not currently operational. I participate in, and hold official positions in a number of other technology focused technical and policy making bodies at both the national and international level, none of which cause conflict with my work in ICANN. I have no employment, contract, financial interest or other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except BT. I am an elected representative of the ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency to the GNSO. ....................................................................... ....................................................................... Non Commercial Users Constituency Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users Constituency I represent the Non-Commercial Users Constituency on the GNSO Policy Council. I am the Executive Director of IP Justice, an international civil liberties organization based in San Francisco. IP Justice is a California not-for-profit corporation and 501(c)(3). I am also licensed to practice law throughout California, and serve on the Board of Directors of the Union for the Public Domain, a not-for-profit corporation based in Washington DC. I teach international copyright law at Santa Clara University School of Law. From 1999-2002, I was an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ...................................................................... Norbert Klein – Non-Commercial Users Constituency I am at present a consultant to a Cambodian non-government organization, the Open Forum of Cambodia, which was created in 1994 to facilitate and to foster communication – not only electronic communication – in the conflictive, post-civil war Cambodian society. My relation to the Internet, and since 1999 to ICANN, originated from the fact that I created in 1994 the first possibility for people in Cambodia to have access to e-mail, and in 1996 I created the possibility to have an e-mail address in Cambodia: .kh Neither I nor the Open Forum of Cambodia have registered a top level domain – we use a secondary domain for our organization, under the ccTLD of Cambodia, .kh For myself, I use a webmail account by the German provider GMX, a GMX ProMail account, for which I pay the normal set fees. Neither we as an organization, nor I as an individual, own or have in any other way an economic interest in any IT or ICT company or related holding. ........................................................................... Mawaki Chango - Non Commercial Users Constituency I am currently a full-time Ph.D. student and Graduate Assistant, and I represent the Non-Commercial Users Constituency on the GNSO Council. In addition, I am involved in social activism through my participation in ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society), as ICT policy advocator, and advisor to the ACSIS’ President. Over the last five years, I have been involved as a consultant with UNESCO, the International Development Research Centre, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (Dakar), the Eduardo Mondlane University (Maputo), and EvalNet (Johannesburg). I have never been involved in any business related to the distribution and operation of Internet resources. ...................................................................... ...................................................................... Intellectual Property Interests Constituency Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am full time employed as Deputy Director for Global Legal Policy by the IFPI Secretariat. I am also elected representative of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) to the GNSO Council. The IFPI Secretariat is the head office of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) representing the recording industry worldwide. IFPI is a non-commercial private sector non-governmental organisation, funded through membership contributions. IFPI is a member of the IPC. IFPI’s members are 1415 record companies, including EMI Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music, and Universal Music and many independent record companies. The IFPI Secretariat provides services to its member and to 48 affiliated national recording industry bodies; and is responsible for co-ordinating international strategies in the key areas of the organisation's work: enforcement of copyright and trademarks, advice on technology and legal developments, relations with governments and national industry bodies, representation in international organisations, litigation, market research, and public relations. .................................................................... Kiyoshi I. Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I, the undersigned, Kiyoshi I. Tsuru am a partner with the law firm of BELLO, GALLARDO, MORALES Y TSURU, S.C., in Mexico City. I specialize in Intellectual Property matters. I serve as a member of the Advisory Committee of NIC Mexico, which is in turn a member of the ccNSO of ICANN. From time to time, I have served as outside counsel to NIC Mexico. I am the country manager for Mexico of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and a WIPO Panelist regarding disputes between domain names and trademarks. ......................................................................... Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency I am employed as a Special Counsel by Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”), a general practice law firm with over 600 lawyers in five offices in three countries. I am resident in Covington’s Washington, DC office and am a member of the District of Columbia bar. I specialize in Internet and trademark matters, and represent trademark owner clients in connection with such matters. Among my responsibilities, I develop and implement offensive and defensive domain name registration, Internet monitoring, and enforcement strategies; reclaim domain names through negotiation, arbitration (under the UDRP, .biz STOP, and .mobi Sunrise Challenge policies, thus far), and litigation; and advise clients on the use of keywords and sponsored links. In connection with advising firm clients of generally noteworthy trademark- or Internet-related developments, I have also provided information and updates on domain name system developments (e.g., posting of reports for public comment, announcements of new policies such as the Domain Name Transfer Policy, .eu Sunrise requirements). All such communications have been, and will continue to be, based solely on publicly available information and documents. From time to time, I register or acquire in my own name domain names for firm clients. I am currently the registrant of several domain names, both on behalf of firm clients and in an individual capacity. From time to time and as circumstances warrant, I have completed and submitted Whois Data Problem Reports on behalf of firm clients. Since 2004, I have been a member of the Registration Practice and DNS Administration Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association’s Internet Committee. I have determined that Covington does not represent ICANN and does not represent any clients in matters in which ICANN is an adverse party. Covington did represent the International Cooperative Alliance in connection with the formation and establishment of DotCooperation LLC, the .coop registry operator, but that matter has been closed for some time. I have also determined that Covington neither represents any gTLD or sTLD registry operator in matters relating to its capacity as a registry operator nor represents any client in matters adverse to such registry operators as registry operators. Based on the responses to my inquiries, Covington does not represent any ccTLD registry operator in its capacity as a registry operator nor does it represent any client in matters adverse to any ccTLD registry operators as registry operators. To the best of my knowledge, Covington does not represent any ICANN-accredited registrar in its capacity as a registrar nor does it represent any firm client in a matter adverse to a registrar as registrar. From time to time, Covington has represented firm clients in intellectual property matters adverse to registrars, and it is likely to do so periodically in the future. I have not been involved in such matters. It is possible that a firm client is an ICANN-accredited registrar, but, if so, Covington does not represent it in such matters. .......................................................................... gTLD Registries constituency Cary Karp - gTLD Registries constituency I am Director of Internet Strategy and Technology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM), an agency of the Swedish government. This is a full-time salaried position. I serve in a similar capacity for the International Council of Museums (ICOM) of which I am an individual member and NRM is an institutional member. I receive a small additional honorarium for that activity. I hold a non-remunerated position as the President and CEO of the Museum Domain Management Association (MuseDoma), the Sponsoring Organization for the .museum TLD. NRM is the largest museum in Sweden and charged with advising private and corporate entities in that country in matters relating to its sphere of expertise. I am regularly involved in such action. Current activity includes a joint initiative with NIC-SE, the operator of the .se ccTLD, which is collaborating with NRM in a project in the context of the Swedish national "Year of Cultural Diversity 2006". I also advise NIC-SE in general matters relating to IDN. I may from time to time receive separate honoraria for advisory services provided as a result of my position at NRM, and may be similarly compensated for writing and speaking engagements. ICOM is an NGO maintaining formal relations with UNESCO and having consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I am directly involved in activity conducted by ICOM in its relationship with UNESCO. I represent MuseDoma in the gTLD Registry Constituency and am the elected representative for the sTLDs on the GNSO Council. I conduct no other activity with, and have no other interests of any kind that involve, entities maintaining business or contractual relationships with ICANN. ........................................................................ Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries constituency 9 December 2006 I am Vice President of Policy and Compliance for VeriSign, Inc. VeriSign is the registry operator for the .com and the .net gTLDs and also provides backend registry services in support of Global Name Registry for the .name gTLD and Employ Media for the .jobs gTLD. VeriSign is also the registry operator for two ccTLDs, .cc for the Cocos and Keelings Islands and .tv for Tuvalu. As an employee who supports VeriSign’s naming services business, I do often have access to Registry Sensitive information including information about registrars. With regard to both our gTLD and ccTLD registration services businesses as well as other VeriSign businesses, our customers and business associates have interests in various ICANN policy issues and may be members of other GNSO constituencies and/or supporting organizations. In addition to registry agreements with ICANN for .com and .net, VeriSign also has obligations to the U.S. Department of Commerce through a cooperative agreement that was initiated in 1993 and has been amended many times since then. Those obligations include providing the A and J root servers as well as support to ICANN in implementing changes in the root zone file. As such, VeriSign is a member of the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee and also works closely with IANA staff in the processing of root zone changes. As a representative elected to the GNSO Council by the unsponsored gTLD registry members of the gTLD Registry Constituency (RyC), I am required by the Constituency’s Articles of Operation to represent the views of those members and the full Constituency as applicable, not my own or VeriSign’s. In that regard, I will endeavor to always qualify any personal statements as such and will follow-up with the RyC to obtain their position. I own shares of VeriSign stock and hold options to purchase additional shares, but the amount of shares I currently own plus the potential shares I could possibly own if I exercised all options is a miniscule number relative to the total number of VeriSign shares. ....................................................................... Edmon Chung - gTLD Registries constituency December 22, 2006 I am currently serving as the CEO for DotAsia Organisation Ltd. DotAsia is the registry operator and sponsor for the ICANN Sponsored gTLD ".ASIA". DotAsia is a not-for-profit membership based organization incorporated in Hong Kong. The current members of DotAsia includes 20 ccTLDs (".AF", ".BT", ".CN", ".ID", ".IN", ".IR", ".JP", ".KH", ".KR", ".KZ", ".MN", ".MO", ".NU", ".NZ", ".PH", ".SG", ".TJ", ".TW", ".UZ" and ".VN") in the Asia community and 3 regional organisations: APNIC, APNG and PAN. APNIC is an RIR in the ICANN ASO. Prior to joining DotAsia, I was the Creative Director of Afilias Ltd. Afilias is the registry operator for the ICANN gTLD ".INFO". Afilias also provides registry services to other ICANN gTLDs, including ".ORG", ".AERO" and ".MOBI", as well as other ccTLDs including ".IN", ".AG", ".GI", ".SC", ".HN", ".BZ", ".VC", ".MN", ".LA", and ".SG". ............................................................................. ............................................................................. Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO Council Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council I represent a California based, privately held company, CBS Enterprise Group, which is engaged in international business. As part of its portfolio of services, the company provides systems integration services through CBS International, which delivers domain registration, web hosting and email services to end users via a reseller, agreement with registrars. Less than 10% of CBS's business is derived from these services. In my personal capacity, I do not have any of my moneys, invested in companies that are in the registrar businesses. I do not believe that any activities of the Council or ICANN could have a material effect on the work I do at CBS International. .................................................................... Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council http://psg.com/~avri/icann-stmt-interest.html I am an independent research consultant and have no employment, contract, financial interest, share ownership or any other business relationship with ICANN, registries or registrars except as a holder, and fee payer, of several domain names in .com, .net and .org. As part of my volunteer activities I have spoken to and given advise to various representatives of indigenous nomadic and semi-nomadic populations on the topic of obtaining an TLD. ...................................................................... Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council 26 December 2006 I am a Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, holding a chair in Computers and Law created 1988. I work within the Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law, (http://www.jus.uio.no/iri/english/index.html) an institution I co-funded in 1970. This makes me an old-timer within this area of law, consequently I also have broad research interests – an inheritance from the time one thought “computers and law” was a very narrow and esoteric field. I have worked extensively with legal information systems, text retrieval and knowledge based methods related to this. My interests in substantial law includes data protection (or privacy), intellectual property law applied to computer programs, databases, integrated circuits, and other material in machine-readable form, and media and communication law. I have in the past been member of the General Board of the Norwegian Research Council, and am currently chairing a research program on vulnerability and society within the NRC. I am a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, doctor honoris causa of Stockholm and Copenhagen, a former Visiting Professor of King’s College (University of London), and have collected many embarrassing honorary prizes or titles. A sketchy home page may be found at http://www.jus.uio.no/iri/english/nrccl/people/associates/bing.html. The NRCCL is mainly financed by the state through the University budget, but accept external contracts. Among these are projects financed by the European Communities (though not a member of the EU, Norway participates on equal standing within the research co-operation), funds made available from the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs (the funds are used to sponsor various activities related to copyright), and funds from NORID, which operates the Norwegian country domain .no. These latter funds are used for our research on Internet governance, which is taught in our international Master of Law and Information Communication Technology programme. This sponsorship has gone on from 2004, and English language anthology is expected to be published 2007. A set of ethical rules ensures the independence of the NRCCL from any outside source of funding. I have in the past been consultant to several international organisations; these include OCED (both ICCP and PUMA), the EU Commission, UNESCO, WIPO, and UNDP. I have also been Norwegian delegate to specialised functions within OECD, WIPO, European Cultural Fund and UNESCO. Currently I am member of the International Advisory Committee of the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme (ending 2007). Nationally, I have served within may administrative or legal functions related to culture, for instance chair of the Art Council, Film Council, Cassette Tax Foundation etc, member of the Royal Commissions of the Freedom of Expression (which lead to an amendment of the Constitution), The Royal Commission of Copyright, and the Commission on Converging Technologies. I currently chair the Data Protection Tribunal. I published my first collection of short-stories 1967, and with my fellow writer Tor Åge Bringsværd is often given the blame from having introduced science fiction to Norway. I have since them – under by own name or the joint by-line Bing & Bringsværd – published stories, novels, dramatic works for stage, television, and radio, and the libretti of four operas. I have translated a large number of fiction and non-fiction works (among them Bill Gates’ autobiography), and edited more than twenty science fiction anthologies. In Norway, I may be better known as an author than anything else. My next novel will be a juvenile scheduled for publication spring 2007. I have served as the legal advisor to creative writers in Norway 1970-90, which certainly has influenced my perspective with respect to intellectual property. Currently, I am partner in the law firm Bing & Co (http://www.bing.no/ ), which mainly has a “back-office” function with respect to other law firms, but also manages my somewhat extensive commercial lecturing. ............................................................................. Alan Greenberg - At Large Advisory Committee liaison to the GNSO Council Other than my ALAC and GNSO participation, I have neither a business relationship nor substantive any involvement with either ICANN or organizations significantly affected by decisions or recommendations made by ICANN or its constituent bodies. ................................................................................. -- Glen de Saint Géry ICANN glen[at]icann.org http://www.icann.org -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

START TIME DELAYED BY ONE HOUR - Council meeting - Thursday 1 February 2007 (now 20:00 UTC)
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2007

Jan. 30, 2007

Hello All, At the request of members of the Intellectual Property Constituency who will be presenting the revised working group proposal, I have delayed the start of the Council meeting on 1 February by one hour. The duration of the conference call will be capped at one hour. New start times are: 12:00 LA, 15:00 Washington DC, 20:00 UTC, 21:00 Brussels, 7:00 Melbourne, next day 2 February 2007 Regards, Bruce Tonkin > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 1 February 2007 > > > > Item 0: Roll call of Council members on the call > > Item 1: Update any statements of interest > > Item 2: Approval of Minutes > > - 18 January 2007 > > > Item 3: Proposed Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" > > - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to consider possible policies > and practices that minimize abusive registration activities and other > activities that affect the legal rights of others. > > - Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to draft terms of reference for > Consideration > > > > Item 4: Process for electing a replacement for ICANN Board seat #13 > > Alejandro Pisanty's term on the ICANN Board concludes 6 > months after the > ICANN annual meeting in 2006 (ie 8 June 2007). As recorded in the > minutes of 19 Feb 04 > (http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml) > Alejandro is not eligible for re-election as he has reached the term > limit provisions in the ICANN bylaws ("no Director may serve more than > three consecutive terms"). > > The GNSO must inform the Secretary of ICANN of its selection for Board > Seat #13 before 8 May 2007. > > Note also at any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting > Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries > located in the same Geographic Region. Rita Rodin was recently > selected by the GNSO to fill ICANN Board Seat #14, and is from North > America. > > (From ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI > , Article > VI, section 8, clauses 1(e) and 3, and Section 2, clause 3) > > The GNSO Secretariat will propose a timeline/process for > consideration. > > > Item 5: Any other business > > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Proposed procedure and timeline for GNSO Elections for ICANN Board seat 13
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 30, 2007

Jan. 30, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find below a proposed election procedure and timeline for the GNSO Elections for ICANN Board seat 13. Call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council: 3 weeks for Nominations: Opens on Monday 19 February 2007 closes on Monday 12 March 2007 Two weeks to verify and interview candidates Monday 12 March 2007 to Sunday 25 March 2007 Start voting - first round Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007 Start voting - second round Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April Start voting - third round Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April Announce results 24 April, or before if the voting is successfully completed. Proposed dates for GNSO Council meeting to confirm results: Thursday 26 April OR Thursday 3 May in time for the GNSO to give due notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual Meeting 2006, which would be 8 May 2007. In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI 3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. [Note the other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Rita Rodin Templates will be available for Nomination and Seconding of candidates All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member. Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm Section 3. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DIRECTORS ICANN Directors shall be: Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making; Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN; Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section; Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet; Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English. Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies. 2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process. 3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8. Section 5. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, the selection of Directors by the Nominating Committee and each Supporting Organization shall comply with all applicable diversity provisions of these Bylaws or of any Memorandum of Understanding referred to in these Bylaws concerning the Supporting Organization. One intent of these diversity provisions is to ensure that at all times each Geographic Region shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. The specific countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the Board, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time (but at least every three years) to determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the Internet. Only GNSO Council members may nominate and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates Accepting Nominations: The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The GNSO Secretariat shall convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list. B. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be "convention style" voting. This consists of sequential rounds of voting until a single candidate receives a majority of the votes on the GNSO Council. (see: Appendix A Convention Style Voting http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm) (There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.) C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE ROUNDS OF CONVENTION STYLE VOTING Start voting - first round Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007 Start voting - second round Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April Start voting - third round Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. GNSO Council members who are candidates, will be replaced temporarily on the Council by a member chosen by the constituency affected and that person will have the right to vote. E. COUNTING OF VOTES: As provided in the ICANN bylaws, http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm, Article X, section 5.2. each GNSO Council member representing either the registrars constituency or the gTLD registries constituency will be entitled to cast two votes in each round, and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote. There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more. F. VOTING Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. 1. Ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address. 2. Ballots should be filled out and returned to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. They should not be copied to any e-mail list. 3. At the scheduled times, the Secretariat will announce the results of each round of balloting by sending a message to the <council(a)gnso.icann.org> mailing list. These announcements will include: a. The number of votes received by each candidate; b. The names of the GNSO Council members from whom ballots were received; and c. The confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted. Item 3(c) will allow each GNSO Council member to double-check that his or her ballot was properly understood, but will not allow others to determine how the member voted. 4. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. G. DISCLOSURE OF THE VOTING The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a Council meeting. Once that occurs, the GNSO Secretariat will prepare and post a full record of all voting, including how each member voted in each round. H. DISCUSSION MAILING LIST DURING ELECTIONS 1. In accordance with a decision as noted in: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-captioning.html http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-minutes.html Public archiving of the GNSO Council list will not be stopped. A separate archive and mailing list will be created for the purpose of managing elections going forward. This list will (a) exclude those Council members who are candidates; but include (b) any liaisons from the ALAC or GAC to the GNSO Council; and (c) the GNSO Secretariat. The list recipients and archiving will be concluded at the end of the process. This list name is elections-gnso(a)icann.org and archives will be posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/elections-gnso/ following the conclusion of the election. 2. Messages posted to the list should be treated as confidential until the end of the elections. The GNSO Secretariat may, however, disclose them to the General Counsel's office to the extent appropriate to obtain advice about how to handle procedural problems that arise during the voting process. The Council list should continue to be used for normal policy development work. Please note that the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel will not be recipients of the special election mailing list during this period, so they should be copied on any particular message that you wish to bring to their attention. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Statement of Interest - Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2007

Jan. 30, 2007

I am employed full-time by Yahoo! Inc., as Senior Legal Director. I have been elected to the GNSO Council by the Commercial and Business Users Constituency. Yahoo! is a leading global Internet brand and one of the most trafficked Internet destinations worldwide. Yahoo!'s mission is to connect people to their passions, their communities, and the world's knowledge. I engage ICANN issues from Yahoo!'s perspective as a premier online brand and diversified business, highly valuing the perspectives of our customers, partners and users. Yahoo! has hundreds of thousands of online business customers and partners which advertise and provide services to our global audience. We are interested in seeing all of these businesses succeed and grow. These businesses work with Yahoo! because we have earned one of the world's largest audiences, requiring that the 'user perspective' remain extremely important to us always. And, of course Yahoo! is a famous brand that is extremely challenging to protect and enforce online, worldwide. I believe businesses of all types and sizes share our interest in the rapid growth of internet commerce, balanced with fair protection of existing property interests. I look forward to working with the Council to address the many serious issues that existing businesses encounter as a result of ICANN policy. Mike Rodenbaugh

1 0

Question re. ICANN Annual Report
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

The second sentence of the 5th paragraph of Paul Twomey's message in ICANN's Annual Report (p.9) says, "GNSO and staff are working together for the establishment and operation of a new generic top level domain (gTLD) program office, to realise the work of the Whois Task Force, and to provide input in the development of Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs)." Can anyone tell what is meant by a gTLD program office? Has the GNSO been working with staff in this regard? Also, on page 25 in the Policy Support section, the 4th paragraph starts out with this sentence: "To consider pre-registration of IDN gTLD labels in the first round for new TLDs, the GNSO recently launched an IDN Working Group . . ." Is this a misstatement or is it true that the IDN working group was launched "to consider pre-registration of IDN gTLD labels"? Chuck

3 4

Outgoing Council member - Marilyn Cade
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

Hello All, This note is to inform you that Marilyn Cade's term on Council as a long standing representative of the Commercial and Business Users constituency has concluded, following the recent completion of the election process within the constituency. Marilyn has been on the Council since the beginning of the GNSO (and its predecessor - DNSO), and has made a significant contribution to the GNSO and ICANN as a whole on a 24/7 basis. Marilyn has been particularly helpful to the Council in assisting with the complex logistics of managing physical meetings of the Council (both at the main ICANN meetings as well as those meetings between the main meetings). As an example, most recently Marilyn was responsible for the successful dinner/lunch formats we used in Brazil to facilitate more interaction with the Board and the GAC at a personal level. Marilyn has been instrumental in building relationships amongst the leadership of the GNSO constituencies, between the GNSO and other groups at ICANN, and between ICANN and other international organisations. At the policy level Marilyn has been a very active participant in nearly all task forces ever created, as well as being a co-chair of the original WHOIS working group that developed the WHOIS data reminder policy (http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.htm ), and the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy (http://www.icann.org/registrars/wmrp.htm) I expect that Marilyn will continue to participate in the various working groups, committees and task forces of the GNSO, but I will ask the Council at our next meeting to formally acknowledge her contribution at the Council level through a vote of thanks. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

New Council member - Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

Hello All, Mike Rodenbaugh has just been appointed to the GNSO Council by the Commercial and Business Users Constituency after the recent completion of their election process. I will let Mike introduce himself to the list, and ask that Mike submit a statement of interest consistent with those of other members on the Council (see http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03124.html ). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

[Fwd: [Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Recent Actions By Go Daddy]]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

The Chair of the NCUC has asked that the mail below be circulated on the Council list. Thank you. Glen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Recent Actions By Go Daddy Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:53:30 -0500 I would like to draw attention to the recent actions of the Go Daddy registrar in its decision to pull a .org domain name at the request of social networking site myspace.com because a third party had placed on the site a list of passwords and accounts of myspace users. http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6153607.html This strikes me as a serious abuse of power by a registrar, and should alarm the users of this constituency. If registrars can exercise such unrestrained authority over registrants, then no controversial speaker is safe. If there is not already a procedure for addressing this, I would strongly urge this constituency to take appropriate action. Harold Feld -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revised outline of work for the working group on rights protection mechanisms
by Ute Decker Jan. 25, 2007

Jan. 25, 2007

As a follow up to the last Council call and in preparation for the upcoming call on 1 February, please find attached the revised outline of work for the working group on rights protection mechanisms (previously 'sunrise working group'). The revised outline aims to implement the comments, material, and input we received since the circulation of the initial draft, including the results of the last Council call. [... apologies for any remaining formatting issues ...] Best wishes Ute + Kristina Ute Decker Deputy Director - Global Legal Policy IFPI London - representing the recording industry worldwide 54 Regent Street W1B 5RE London UK fon: +44 (0)20 7878 7954 fax: +44 (0)20 7878 6832 Email: ute.decker(a)ifpi.org <mailto:ute.decker@ifpi.org> Website: www.ifpi.org <http://www.ifpi.org>

1 0

GNSO Council: REVISED draft minutes 18 January 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 24, 2007

Jan. 24, 2007

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 18 January 2007. The modifications are as follows: - Bruce Tonkin proposed that the language of the timelines could be modified after the current meeting, the concept being that the working group would complete its work one week prior to the ICANN meetings in Lisbon, that is, by 16 March 2007, but the Council may request some follow up work TO BE COMPLETED within 30 days AFTER THE LISBON MEETINGS." - Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the Statement of Work for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) with the modification in the timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin - 3. Working Timeline The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets: 1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25 2. Complete its work and deliver written recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings 3. Respond to any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings. Please let me know if you would like any other changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen .......................................................................... 18 January 2007 Proposed agenda and relevant documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apology received after meeting Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 15 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff John Jeffrey - General Counsel Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor, Asia-Pacific, General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Quorum present at 19:05 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any statements of interest No updates Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006 Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006. Abstentions were noted from Council members who were not yet on the Council on 6 December 2006: Jon Bing, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung. Motion approved. Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 21 December 2006 Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 21 December 2006. Abstentions were noted from Mawaki Chango. Motion approved. Decision 1: The minutes of the GNSO Council meetings on 6 December 2006 and 21 December 2006 were adopted. Item 3: Correspondence Bruce Tonkin mentioned that there had been correspondence from Chris Disspain, the chair of the ccNSO notifying that the ccNSO and GAC were forming a joint working group to work on ccTLD IDNs, and requested a representative from the GNSO. This request has been forwarded to the GNSO’s IDN Working group for action. Item 4: PDP on new gTLDs work - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to review the creation of a reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second level for gTLDs (use: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/jobs/appendix-6-05may05.htm -- Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes to draft terms of reference for consideration Chuck Gomes presented the draft Statement of Work - Version 2 for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) I. Formation of the Working Group The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group. 1. Voting: In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting. 2. Membership The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort. Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act. Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline). The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s). 3. Working Timeline The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets: 1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25 2. Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings 3. Provide any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings. As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO Council. II. Purpose of the Working Group The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations. This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs. The treatment of reserved names is a matter of contract for existing gTLDs and will be a matter of contract for future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries, Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06 does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report to the Council regarding relevant recommendations. III. Working Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach A. To perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following: 1. Review the present treatment and process for reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts - link provided in Background Section 2. Review any other discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.) 3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names - see Background Section 4. Review any relevant technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs -see Background Section and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB, SSAC,etc.) is needed and complete. 5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as needed, including legal and operational, to identify and review any existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names processes and procedures 6. Liaise with the ccNSO and the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessary B. Proposed Working Approach for Working Group: 1. Initially, examine the sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names to consider breaking the broad topic into smaller parts 2. Estimate the complexity of issues associated with each of the sub-elements and briefly describe the elements of complexity (e.g., more controversial issues involving multiple stakeholder groups with competing views might be rated more complex; consultation with the GAC might be rated as more complex; etc.) 3. Prioritize the sub-elements according to these two factors: a. Estimated level of complexity (less complex to higher) b. Importance/relevance to complete any future policy work prior to the introduction of new gTLDs c. Other {to be developed} 4. Identify any sub-elements for which any needed policy work may be able to be completed in time for the introduction of new gTLDs and develop recommendations about how that might best be accomplished/launch development of recommendations 5. Identify the remaining sub elements and establish a working plan to address these, including considering parallel work tracks, if feasible and resources permit, versus sequential work. 6. Prepare and submit an interim report to the relevant PDP group and/or the Council so that any additional policy work needed could be started as soon as possible referencing the Time Line provided by the Council 7. Prepare and submit a final report regarding all of the above for both PDP groups and the Council upon conclusion of work.. Regular progress reports should be provided for both PDP groups and the Council corresponding to scheduled meetings of those groups and the Council. IV. Example of Topics for Reserved Names This section provides an example of a work plan outline for the work of the Working Group. It is provided as an initial resource for potential use by the Working Group and to attempt to help to launch the Working Group quickly, due to the pressures of time limitations. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor prescriptive. It should be assumed that the work will need to ask the question of how reserved names apply to IDNs at both second and first levels, as well as Latin character gTLDs. 1. Identify possible roles and purposes for reserved names at the top level and review and examine those roles and purposes, including how to address the role of reserved names in IDNs 2. Identify and develop proposals to address any policy issues that should be or are under consideration by the existing GNSO PDPs regarding policy considerations related to the role, use, reservation, and release and allocation of reserved names at the top and second level 3. Determine: a. The various roles that reserved names may play in new gTLDs in addressing controversial categories of names, including whether trademark names and country/geopolitical names should have initial or permanent reserved status; etc. b. Whether existing reserved names at the second level should automatically be included at the first level or c. Whether there is different treatment proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the first level d. Whether reserved name requirements need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might vary e. Whether there should be a procedure by which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before adding them to registry agreements 4. Discuss and review processes by which names could be put into reserved status at the top level 5. Discuss and propose processes by which names can be unreserved at the top level and made available for allocation, including discussion of whether there are unique treatments in allocation for names that are reserved 6. Discuss whether and how categories of names can be unreserved and allocated at the second level from the existing categories, including second level reservations in single character[1] and two character labels, and reservations for geographic and geopolitical names, to include examination of any existing technical concerns 7. Reconfirm whether there should be a process by which new names or categories are added to the reserved status in the second level (e.g., should we assume that all new strings allocated for operation as registries are reserved at the second level when they are awarded?) Background Materials and Relevant Initiatives to take into account: Background: 1) Existing Registry Agreements Reserved Names (Annex 6 and other examples) http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm 2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved names http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc./rfc2141.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt 3) Status report on single letter names - to be provided Relevant Initiatives: (1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ (2) PDP 06 [need link] (3) IDN Working Group http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm Attachment 1: Additional considerations: For a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must Meet the following criteria: (A) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) Will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) Implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Bruce Tonkin commented that the use of a working group could lead to a faster policy development process, in that it was a short term approach to identify agreement on certain issues, which could help the Council decide whether or not a PDP process was likely to be successful. The statement of work could be looked upon as an initial issues report. In the context of new gTLDs it is what happens at both the top level and the second level of new gTLDs. In the evolution of gTLDs there were originally very few reserved words at the second level of .com/.net/.org, but since then the list for new gTLD operators has grown, and it would be appropriate for the community to discuss the topic, rather than leave it to the discretion of the staff as in previous gTLD selections Bruce Tonkin proposed that the language of the timelines could be modified after the current meeting, the concept being that the working group would complete its work one week prior to the ICANN meetings in Lisbon, that is, by 16 March 2007, but the Council may request some follow up work to be completed within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings. Alistair Dixon, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed approving the statement of work for the Working Group on Reserved Names with the modification in the timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin. The motion passed by vote of acclamation. Ross Rader voted against the motion with the following explanation on record: "For the record, I am not opposed to having a conversation about this topic in order to discover areas of common interest in the community. However, I am not sufficiently convinced that this issue warrants a high enough priority to pursue it at this time." Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the Statement of Work for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) with the modification in the timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin I. Formation of the Working Group The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group. 1. Voting: In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting. 2. Membership The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort. Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act. Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline). The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s). 3. Working Timeline The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets: 1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25 2. Complete its work and deliver written recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings 3. Respond to any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings. As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO Council. II. Purpose of the Working Group The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations. This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs. The treatment of reserved names is a matter of contract for existing gTLDs and will be a matter of contract for future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries, Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06 does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report to the Council regarding relevant recommendations. III. Working Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach A. To perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following: 1. Review the present treatment and process for reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts - link provided in Background Section 2. Review any other discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.) 3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names - see Background Section 4. Review any relevant technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs -see Background Section and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB, SSAC,etc.) is needed and complete. 5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as needed, including legal and operational, to identify and review any existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names processes and procedures 6. Liaise with the ccNSO and the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessary B. Proposed Working Approach for Working Group: 1. Initially, examine the sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names to consider breaking the broad topic into smaller parts 2. Estimate the complexity of issues associated with each of the sub-elements and briefly describe the elements of complexity (e.g., more controversial issues involving multiple stakeholder groups with competing views might be rated more complex; consultation with the GAC might be rated as more complex; etc.) 3. Prioritize the sub-elements according to these two factors: a. Estimated level of complexity (less complex to higher) b. Importance/relevance to complete any future policy work prior to the introduction of new gTLDs c. Other {to be developed} 4. Identify any sub-elements for which any needed policy work may be able to be completed in time for the introduction of new gTLDs and develop recommendations about how that might best be accomplished/launch development of recommendations 5. Identify the remaining sub elements and establish a working plan to address these, including considering parallel work tracks, if feasible and resources permit, versus sequential work. 6. Prepare and submit an interim report to the relevant PDP group and/or the Council so that any additional policy work needed could be started as soon as possible referencing the Time Line provided by the Council 7. Prepare and submit a final report regarding all of the above for both PDP groups and the Council upon conclusion of work.. Regular progress reports should be provided for both PDP groups and the Council corresponding to scheduled meetings of those groups and the Council. IV. Example of Topics for Reserved Names This section provides an example of a work plan outline for the work of the Working Group. It is provided as an initial resource for potential use by the Working Group and to attempt to help to launch the Working Group quickly, due to the pressures of time limitations. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor prescriptive. It should be assumed that the work will need to ask the question of how reserved names apply to IDNs at both second and first levels, as well as Latin character gTLDs. 1. Identify possible roles and purposes for reserved names at the top level and review and examine those roles and purposes, including how to address the role of reserved names in IDNs 2. Identify and develop proposals to address any policy issues that should be or are under consideration by the existing GNSO PDPs regarding policy considerations related to the role, use, reservation, and release and allocation of reserved names at the top and second level 3. Determine: a. The various roles that reserved names may play in new gTLDs in addressing controversial categories of names, including whether trademark names and country/geopolitical names should have initial or permanent reserved status; etc. b. Whether existing reserved names at the second level should automatically be included at the first level or c. Whether there is different treatment proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the first level d. Whether reserved name requirements need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might vary e. Whether there should be a procedure by which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before adding them to registry agreements 4. Discuss and review processes by which names could be put into reserved status at the top level 5. Discuss and propose processes by which names can be unreserved at the top level and made available for allocation, including discussion of whether there are unique treatments in allocation for names that are reserved 6. Discuss whether and how categories of names can be unreserved and allocated at the second level from the existing categories, including second level reservations in single character[1] and two character labels, and reservations for geographic and geopolitical names, to include examination of any existing technical concerns 7. Reconfirm whether there should be a process by which new names or categories are added to the reserved status in the second level (e.g., should we assume that all new strings allocated for operation as registries are reserved at the second level when they are awarded?) Background Materials and Relevant Initiatives to take into account: Background: 1) Existing Registry Agreements Reserved Names (Annex 6 and other examples) http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm 2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved names http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc./rfc2141.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt 3) Status report on single letter names - to be provided Relevant Initiatives: (1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ (2) PDP 06 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/ (3) IDN Working Group http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm Attachment 1: Additional considerations: For a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must Meet the following criteria: (A) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) Will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) Implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to review the sunrise processes used by recent gTLDs and ccTLDs (e.g .eu) and determine whether a standardised process that is scalable for many new gTLDs is feasible -- Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to draft terms of reference for consideration http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03135.html Bruce Tonkin commented that the current new gTLD report had no recommendation that a sunrise period was needed, but during committee discussions questions arose about what mechanisms there would be to protect trade mark holders during the start-up stages of new TLDs. Kristina Rosette introduced the draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group Proposed Purpose: Analyze processes used to allow owners of trademark and analogous intellectual property rights to register, before the Landrush or general public registration period, domain names corresponding to such rights ("Sunrise processes"), identify commonalities among such Sunrise processes, assess the feasibility of developing and implementing a Sunrise process that is scalable for new gTLDs, and identify and evaluate alternative processes. Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan I. Analyze Existing Sunrise Processes A. Identify Relevant TLDs B. Describe Sunrise Processes 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Submission process and costs of submission 4. Review of applications 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism C. Issues Arising out of or Related to Sunrise Process 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Review of applications 4. Allocation D. Analyze Quantitative Success 1. Number of Sunrise registrations, number of Sunrise registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive 2. Number of Sunrise challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate E. Analyze Qualitative Success 1. Nature of use of names registered during sunrise 2. Whether Sunrise process protects IP rights in a cost-effective manner F. Impact on registries and registrars 1. Resource allocation a) Development of Sunrise process b) Implementation of Sunrise process 2. Revenue generation 3. Other considerations II. Identify Commonalities Among Sunrise Processes A. Eligibility Commonalities B. Procedural Commonalities 1. Submission 2. Review 3. Challenge C. User Satisfaction III. Developing and Implementing Scalable Sunrise Process A. Feasibility 1. Likely to be certain conclusions derived from I and II above -- sunrise registration user satisfaction; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; IP owner concerns B. Content C. Implementation Considerations IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms A. Alternatives B. Evaluation Suggested Working Group Membership* 1. U.S. owner of globally famous brand 2. Non-U.S. owner of globally famous brand 3. INTA Internet Committee member or Sunrise dispute panelist 4. Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative 5. Registrar that participated in Sunrise process 6. Registrar that participated in alternate mechanism 7. Registry with Sunrise process 8. Registry with alternative mechanism 9. Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent 10. Commercial financial institution representative 11. IPC designee 12. NCUC designee 13. ISP designee 14. BC designee * Suggested Working Group Membership is “floor”, not “ceiling” Avri Doria asked, given that in the establishment of new gTLDs there was a known set of rights, that extended into IDNs which presumption pertained to all new gTLDs that needed to be protected, was it the working group's intention to explore the notion of rights and whether there were counter rights to that that would affect the mechanisms that would be acceptable. Kristina Rosette responded not in the broad sense that intellectual property rights would be protected, because all of the new gTLD applications had had a mechanism for protecting prior rights and the Intellectual Property Constituency had not pushed for a sunrise period. But the working group would examine who would be eligible for the sunrise period. Chuck Gomes commented that it was important for the Statement of work to identify problems and in that light, evaluate and analyse their qualitative and quantitative success as well as any alternatives that might be proposed in the future. Bruce Tonkin summarised, the group should consider the role of the sunrise process and the problems that the sunrise process sought to solve. The term 'sunrise' should be elaborated, for example WIPO referred to preventive Intellectual Property protection mechanisms. Rita Rodin commented that in the applications for new gTLDs there was a requirement that applicants provide a mechanisms to provide protection for Intellectual Property rights. John Jeffrey confirmed the statement was correct Any new TLDs will have to deal with protecting Intellectual Property rights and there were mechanism in place to protect such rights. Chuck Gomes commented that there had been in the previous rounds, but it did not necessarily mean that the requirement was going forward. John Jeffrey considered it a good discussion because such issues should be pointed out to the community as issues that have been included and could continue to be included in future rounds. It would be natural to include those provisions and to require that all appropriate laws were followed. There are likely to be intellectual property laws relating to these areas that might require some specific views or concerns relating to these registrations. Bruce Tonkin asked John Jeffrey to restate the wording of the request in the RFP. John Jeffrey proposed sending the specific provisions to the council as well as references requiring compliance with the laws of the contractual agreement. Bruce Tonkin wanted to confirm one of the mechanisms in place in ICANN. Taking the .com example, the mechanism that provided some protection or mechanisms to assist in protection was that the registration agreement for a dot com name, required the registrant to agree to comply to the outcome of a UDRP. It was thus a contractual obligation of the registrant to submit to that process. John Jeffrey commented that also in the newer agreements, such mechanisms existed that required compliance relating to the intellectual property laws. Bruce Tonkin cautioned against the side effects of some of the previous processes. The general language John Jeffrey used was preferable, looking at mechanisms for protecting Intellectual Property rights, rather than presupposing a start-up phase where some had priority rights over others. Ute Decker clarified that the working group attempted to find solutions to alleviate the problem that faced Intellectual Property holders with the launch of new gTLDs. Two separate solutions could be envisaged: - the UDRP which could address problems that have fallen through the net, - a broad brush solution at the beginning of the process was necessary that would obviate a large number of applications having to resort to UDRPs at a later stage. Avri Doria commented that the rights of all should be considered, not only those of Intellectual property holders, but those excluded because they had no such rights. Jon Bing commented that there were other types of protected strings, not only proper names but the examples of dot com domains which corresponded to names of public agencies in non-English language jurisdictions, such as the 'Ministry of Justice' in Norwegian was used as a domain name which could be misleading. The relation between preventing the dispute and resolving a dispute should be considered. Mawaki Chango insisted on the point raised by Avri Doria as to what was exactly the problem intended to be addressed by the sunrise process. In other words, it was important not to carry on with the apparent assumption that it was just about protecting trademarks and intellectual property, if it was not so as Jon Bing pointed out. Mawaki would thus encourage the team working on this issue to try to provide as a complete view as possible of the purpose of the sunrise period and mechanism. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the GNSO Council meet on February 1 2007, to consider a revised draft of the statement of work. Constituencies may start identifying members of the working group in parallel with the revision of the draft statement of work. Bruce Tonkin commented that the outcome of the working group was not on the critical path for the work of the new gTLDs. The working group should focus on concluding its work and providing a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007. Item 5: Update on planning for policy meeting on PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06 in February - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update Bruce Tonkin confirmed that the new gTLD (PDP-Dec05) work would take place on the first two days of the face to face meetings, Thursday 22 and Friday 23 and the PDP-Feb06 work on Saturday 24 and Sunday 25 February. The secretariat reported that some constituencies were considering sending different representatives for the two working sessions and splitting the funding. There would be room for observers, but constituencies were encouraged to identify the observers as soon as possible. ICANN technical staff will assist with the Remote participation. Item 6: Update on progress in WHOIS task force Jordyn Buchanan provided the followingupdate on the WHOIS task force: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03156.html "- We've briefly discussed two new proposals (one from Avri/Wendy/Robin to eliminate Whois or remove all non-technical contact information; and one from Marilyn with ideas to remove port 43 access, limit bulk Whois, and further study the topic). - We've had some further discussions about access to data that might be removed from public view by the TF. We've begun limiting the options from the five presented in the preliminary report. - Public comment period just closed and we've also received several constituency statements. We'll be discussing these next week. - We remain on track for completing our work on February 12 (I hope). Marilyn Cade, who submitted the 'pragmatic steps' proposal, added that it ' suggested moving all access to WHOIS to web based, with security measures; eliminating Port 43; using stronger contracts, enforced by ICANN for bulk access, and having ICANN undertake, and fund a study to inform policy making, not just now, but on a continual and occasional basis'. Item 7: Update on progress in PDP-Feb06 Avri Doria reported that the work on terms of reference 1 4 & 6 were essentially completed. An updated draft report would be forthcoming in February. The schedule has been organised to keep the end date for completion but include the two day face to face meeting in February. Work has started on term of reference 5 and the work should be ready to discuss at the face to face meeting in February. The task force was examining the data collected by registries in order to categorize it. The categories were still under discussion and part of the problem was that the task force did not have a firm grasp of what data was collected. For the next meeting on Tuesday 23 February the task force is considering what data was collected. There is outreach to the registries, the registry liaison and the legal staff, and outside sources with real expert knowledge on what data is collected by registries and how it is dealt with. Avri Doria requested that a registry liaison or legal staff person, attend the PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 February 2007 to inform the task force on registry data and how it is used. Terms of Reference 5 relate to Uses of registry data, and without full knowledge of the issue it would be difficult to consider whether or not a policy was needed. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/tor-pdp-28feb06.html John Jeffrey committed to working with the policy team on having a staff person available at the next PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 January to review the various terms on traffic and registry data. Bruce Tonkin gave a high level overview: The Registry contract is detailed about the data that must be collected and stored for both registries and registrars. Additional data could be collected via logging the activity of registrants that connect to registrars (.e g from which IP address and how often they log into a domain name control panel) or logging incoming DNS queries at nameservers (either at the registry or at nameservers operated by registrars, ISPs, etc) so as to abstain information including IP address, the number of queries from that IP address, and the content of the query (e.g which domain name or resource record was the subject of the DNS query). This would be the Information that could be collected but it is not required. Cary Karp commented that there misperceptions about whose IP address was known to a registry when a resolution request was submitted. There was some belief that the IP address of the end user was probated to the registry and the registry was capable of knowing individually who was asking for the resolution of names which was not true. Bruce Tonkin commented that in many cases the IP address seen by the registry is of a DNS server within an ISP’s network, that in turn is responding to a query from an individual’s computer. There was a need to understand how DNS resolution works. Kurt Pritz proposed that the staff could coordinate an informational discussion among the registries to provide information on how the data is used and what data is available. Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated with the registry. Item 8: Any other business 8.1. Chair for the working group on reserved names Given the statement of work has been approved by the Council a chair is needed to start the work as a deadline has been approved. Chuck Gomes proposed that constituency representatives called for participants from the constituency and that names be provided within a week. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed Chuck Gomes as the interim chair of the working group on reserved names. The motion passed by a vote of acclamation Decision 3: Chuck Gomes selected as the interim chair of the working group on reserved names. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 21:00 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 1 February 2007 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from Item 3: Select a GNSO representative to the ccNSO and GAC joint working group to work on ccTLD IDNs 2. Arising from Item 5: 2.1 Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to revise the draft terms of reference for the sunrise processes. 2.2 John Jeffrey to send the specific provisions in the RFP to the council as well as references requiring compliance with the laws of the contractual agreement. 2.3.Constituencies to start identifying members of the working group in parallel with the revision of the draft statement of work on the sunrise periods. 3. Arising from Item 7 3.1 John Jeffrey to work with the policy team to assign a staff person for the next PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 January to review the various terms on traffic and registry data. 3.2 Kurt Pritz proposed that the staff could coordinate an informational discussion among the registries to provide information on how the data is used and what data is available. 4. Arising from Item 8 Chuck Gomes to call for participants for the reserved names working group within the week. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council drfat minutes 18 January 2007
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 24, 2007

Jan. 24, 2007

Hello Chuck, > My understanding was that it should say (changes in CAPS), > ". . . but the Council may request some follow up work TO BE > COMPLETED within 30 days AFTER THE LISBON MEETINGS." Agreed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council drfat minutes 18 January 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 24, 2007

Jan. 24, 2007

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 18 January 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ................................................................................... 8 January 2007 Proposed agenda and relevant documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 15 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff John Jeffrey - General Counsel Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor, Asia-Pacific, General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Quorum present at 19:05 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any statements of interest No updates Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006 Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006. Abstentions were noted from Council members who were not yet on the Council on 6 December 2006: Jon Bing, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung. Motion approved. Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 21 December 2006 Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 21 December 2006. Abstentions were noted from Mawaki Chango. Motion approved. Decision 1: The minutes of the GNSO Council meetings on 6 December 2006 and 21 December 2006 were adopted. Item 3: Correspondence Bruce Tonkin mentioned that there had been correspondence from Chris Disspain, the chair of the ccNSO notifying that the ccNSO and GAC were forming a joint working group to work on ccTLD IDNs, and requested a representative from the GNSO. This request has been forwarded to the GNSO’s IDN Working group for action. Item 4: PDP on new gTLDs work - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to review the creation of a reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second level for gTLDs (use: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/jobs/appendix-6-05may05.htm -- Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes to draft terms of reference for consideration Chuck Gomes presented the draft Statement of Work - Version 2 for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) I. Formation of the Working Group The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group. 1. Voting: In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting. 2. Membership The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort. Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act. Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline). The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s). 3. Working Timeline The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets: 1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25 2. Complete its work and deliver written recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings 3. Respond to any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings. As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO Council. II. Purpose of the Working Group The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations. This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs. The treatment of reserved names is a matter of contract for existing gTLDs and will be a matter of contract for future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries, Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06 does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report to the Council regarding relevant recommendations. III. Working Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach A. To perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following: 1. Review the present treatment and process for reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts - link provided in Background Section 2. Review any other discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.) 3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names - see Background Section 4. Review any relevant technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs -see Background Section and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB, SSAC,etc.) is needed and complete. 5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as needed, including legal and operational, to identify and review any existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names processes and procedures 6. Liaise with the ccNSO and the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessary B. Proposed Working Approach for Working Group: 1. Initially, examine the sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names to consider breaking the broad topic into smaller parts 2. Estimate the complexity of issues associated with each of the sub-elements and briefly describe the elements of complexity (e.g., more controversial issues involving multiple stakeholder groups with competing views might be rated more complex; consultation with the GAC might be rated as more complex; etc.) 3. Prioritize the sub-elements according to these two factors: a. Estimated level of complexity (less complex to higher) b. Importance/relevance to complete any future policy work prior to the introduction of new gTLDs c. Other {to be developed} 4. Identify any sub-elements for which any needed policy work may be able to be completed in time for the introduction of new gTLDs and develop recommendations about how that might best be accomplished/launch development of recommendations 5. Identify the remaining sub elements and establish a working plan to address these, including considering parallel work tracks, if feasible and resources permit, versus sequential work. 6. Prepare and submit an interim report to the relevant PDP group and/or the Council so that any additional policy work needed could be started as soon as possible referencing the Time Line provided by the Council 7. Prepare and submit a final report regarding all of the above for both PDP groups and the Council upon conclusion of work.. Regular progress reports should be provided for both PDP groups and the Council corresponding to scheduled meetings of those groups and the Council. IV. Example of Topics for Reserved Names This section provides an example of a work plan outline for the work of the Working Group. It is provided as an initial resource for potential use by the Working Group and to attempt to help to launch the Working Group quickly, due to the pressures of time limitations. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor prescriptive. It should be assumed that the work will need to ask the question of how reserved names apply to IDNs at both second and first levels, as well as Latin character gTLDs. 1. Identify possible roles and purposes for reserved names at the top level and review and examine those roles and purposes, including how to address the role of reserved names in IDNs 2. Identify and develop proposals to address any policy issues that should be or are under consideration by the existing GNSO PDPs regarding policy considerations related to the role, use, reservation, and release and allocation of reserved names at the top and second level 3. Determine: a. The various roles that reserved names may play in new gTLDs in addressing controversial categories of names, including whether trademark names and country/geopolitical names should have initial or permanent reserved status; etc. b. Whether existing reserved names at the second level should automatically be included at the first level or c. Whether there is different treatment proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the first level d. Whether reserved name requirements need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might vary e. Whether there should be a procedure by which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before adding them to registry agreements 4. Discuss and review processes by which names could be put into reserved status at the top level 5. Discuss and propose processes by which names can be unreserved at the top level and made available for allocation, including discussion of whether there are unique treatments in allocation for names that are reserved 6. Discuss whether and how categories of names can be unreserved and allocated at the second level from the existing categories, including second level reservations in single character[1] and two character labels, and reservations for geographic and geopolitical names, to include examination of any existing technical concerns 7. Reconfirm whether there should be a process by which new names or categories are added to the reserved status in the second level (e.g., should we assume that all new strings allocated for operation as registries are reserved at the second level when they are awarded?) Background Materials and Relevant Initiatives to take into account: Background: 1) Existing Registry Agreements Reserved Names (Annex 6 and other examples) http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm 2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved names http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc./rfc2141.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt 3) Status report on single letter names - to be provided Relevant Initiatives: (1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ (2) PDP 06 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/ (3) IDN Working Group http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm Attachment 1: Additional considerations: For a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must Meet the following criteria: (A) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) Will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) Implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Bruce Tonkin commented that the use of a working group could lead to a faster policy development process, in that it was a short term approach to identify agreement on certain issues, which could help the Council decide whether or not a PDP process was likely to be successful. The statement of work could be looked upon as an initial issues report. In the context of new gTLDs it is what happens at both the top level and the second level of new gTLDs. In the evolution of gTLDs there were originally very few reserved words at the second level of .com/.net/.org, but since then the list for new gTLD operators has grown, and it would be appropriate for the community to discuss the topic, rather than leave it to the discretion of the staff as in previous gTLD selections Bruce Tonkin proposed that the language of the timelines could be modified after the current meeting, the concept being that the working group would complete its work one week prior to the ICANN meetings in Lisbon, that is, by 16 March 2007, but the Council may request some follow up work within 30 days thereafter. Alistair Dixon, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed approving the statement of work for the Working Group on Reserved Names. The motion passed by vote of acclamation. Ross Rader voted against the motion with the following explanation on record: "For the record, I am not opposed to having a conversation about this topic in order to discover areas of common interest in the community. However, I am not sufficiently convinced that this issue warrants a high enough priority to pursue it at this time." Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the Draft Statement of Work - Version 2 for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to review the sunrise processes used by recent gTLDs and ccTLDs (e.g .eu) and determine whether a standardised process that is scalable for many new gTLDs is feasible -- Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to draft terms of reference for consideration http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03135.html Bruce Tonkin commented that the current new gTLD report had no recommendation that a sunrise period was needed, but during committee discussions questions arose about what mechanisms there would be to protect trade mark holders during the start-up stages of new TLDs. Kristina Rosette introduced the draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group Proposed Purpose: Analyze processes used to allow owners of trademark and analogous intellectual property rights to register, before the Landrush or general public registration period, domain names corresponding to such rights ("Sunrise processes"), identify commonalities among such Sunrise processes, assess the feasibility of developing and implementing a Sunrise process that is scalable for new gTLDs, and identify and evaluate alternative processes. Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan I. Analyze Existing Sunrise Processes A. Identify Relevant TLDs B. Describe Sunrise Processes 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Submission process and costs of submission 4. Review of applications 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism C. Issues Arising out of or Related to Sunrise Process 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Review of applications 4. Allocation D. Analyze Quantitative Success 1. Number of Sunrise registrations, number of Sunrise registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive 2. Number of Sunrise challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate E. Analyze Qualitative Success 1. Nature of use of names registered during sunrise 2. Whether Sunrise process protects IP rights in a cost-effective manner F. Impact on registries and registrars 1. Resource allocation a) Development of Sunrise process b) Implementation of Sunrise process 2. Revenue generation 3. Other considerations II. Identify Commonalities Among Sunrise Processes A. Eligibility Commonalities B. Procedural Commonalities 1. Submission 2. Review 3. Challenge C. User Satisfaction III. Developing and Implementing Scalable Sunrise Process A. Feasibility 1. Likely to be certain conclusions derived from I and II above -- sunrise registration user satisfaction; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; IP owner concerns B. Content C. Implementation Considerations IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms A. Alternatives B. Evaluation Suggested Working Group Membership* 1. U.S. owner of globally famous brand 2. Non-U.S. owner of globally famous brand 3. INTA Internet Committee member or Sunrise dispute panelist 4. Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative 5. Registrar that participated in Sunrise process 6. Registrar that participated in alternate mechanism 7. Registry with Sunrise process 8. Registry with alternative mechanism 9. Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent 10. Commercial financial institution representative 11. IPC designee 12. NCUC designee 13. ISP designee 14. BC designee * Suggested Working Group Membership is “floor”, not “ceiling” Avri Doria asked, given that in the establishment of new gTLDs there was a known set of rights, that extended into IDNs which presumption pertained to all new gTLDs that needed to be protected, was it the working group's intention to explore the notion of rights and whether there were counter rights to that that would affect the mechanisms that would be acceptable. Kristina Rosette responded not in the broad sense that intellectual property rights would be protected, because all of the new gTLD applications had had a mechanism for protecting prior rights and the Intellectual Property Constituency had not pushed for a sunrise period. But the working group would examine who would be eligible for the sunrise period. Chuck Gomes commented that it was important for the Statement of work to identify problems and in that light, evaluate and analyse their qualitative and quantitative success as well as any alternatives that might be proposed in the future. Bruce Tonkin summarised, the group should consider the role of the sunrise process and the problems that the sunrise process sought to solve. The term 'sunrise' should be elaborated, for example WIPO referred to preventive Intellectual Property protection mechanisms. Rita Rodin commented that in the applications for new gTLDs there was a requirement that applicants provide a mechanisms to provide protection for Intellectual Property rights. John Jeffrey confirmed the statement was correct Any new TLDs will have to deal with protecting Intellectual Property rights and there were mechanism in place to protect such rights. Chuck Gomes commented that there had been in the previous rounds, but it did not necessarily mean that the requirement was going forward. John Jeffrey considered it a good discussion because such issues should be pointed out to the community as issues that have been included and could continue to be included in future rounds. It would be natural to include those provisions and to require that all appropriate laws were followed. There are likely to be intellectual property laws relating to these areas that might require some specific views or concerns relating to these registrations. Bruce Tonkin asked John Jeffrey to restate the wording of the request in the RFP. John Jeffrey proposed sending the specific provisions to the council as well as references requiring compliance with the laws of the contractual agreement. Bruce Tonkin wanted to confirm one of the mechanisms in place in ICANN. Taking the .com example, the mechanism that provided some protection or mechanisms to assist in protection was that the registration agreement for a dot com name, required the registrant to agree to comply to the outcome of a UDRP. It was thus a contractual obligation of the registrant to submit to that process. John Jeffrey commented that also in the newer agreements, such mechanisms existed that required compliance relating to the intellectual property laws. Bruce Tonkin cautioned against the side effects of some of the previous processes. The general language John Jeffrey used was preferable, looking at mechanisms for protecting Intellectual Property rights, rather than presupposing a start-up phase where some had priority rights over others. Ute Decker clarified that the working group attempted to find solutions to alleviate the problem that faced Intellectual Property holders with the launch of new gTLDs. Two separate solutions could be envisaged: - the UDRP which could address problems that have fallen through the net, - a broad brush solution at the beginning of the process was necessary that would obviate a large number of applications having to resort to UDRPs at a later stage. Avri Doria commented that the rights of all should be considered, not only those of Intellectual property holders, but those excluded because they had no such rights. Jon Bing commented that there were other types of protected strings, not only proper names but the examples of dot com domains which corresponded to names of public agencies in non-English language jurisdictions, such as the 'Ministry of Justice' in Norwegian was used as a domain name which could be misleading. The relation between preventing the dispute and resolving a dispute should be considered. Mawaki Chango insisted on the point raised by Avri Doria as to what was exactly the problem intended to be addressed by the sunrise process. In other words, it was important not to carry on with the apparent assumption that it was just about protecting trademarks and intellectual property, if it was not so as Jon Bing pointed out. Mawaki would thus encourage the team working on this issue to try to provide as a complete view as possible of the purpose of the sunrise period and mechanism. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the GNSO Council meet on February 1 2007, to consider a revised draft of the statement of work. Constituencies may start identifying members of the working group in parallel with the revision of the draft statement of work. Bruce Tonkin commented that the outcome of the working group was not on the critical path for the work of the new gTLDs. The working group should focus on concluding its work and providing a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007. Item 5: Update on planning for policy meeting on PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06 in February - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update Bruce Tonkin confirmed that the new gTLD (PDP-Dec05) work would take place on the first two days of the face to face meetings, Thursday 22 and Friday 23 and the PDP-Feb06 work on Saturday 24 and Sunday 25 February. The secretariat reported that some constituencies were considering sending different representatives for the two working sessions and splitting the funding. There would be room for observers, but constituencies were encouraged to identify the observers as soon as possible. ICANN technical staff will assist with the Remote participation. Item 6: Update on progress in WHOIS task force Jordyn Buchanan provided the followingupdate on the WHOIS task force: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03156.html "- We've briefly discussed two new proposals (one from Avri/Wendy/Robin to eliminate Whois or remove all non-technical contact information; and one from Marilyn with ideas to remove port 43 access, limit bulk Whois, and further study the topic). - We've had some further discussions about access to data that might be removed from public view by the TF. We've begun limiting the options from the five presented in the preliminary report. - Public comment period just closed and we've also received several constituency statements. We'll be discussing these next week. - We remain on track for completing our work on February 12 (I hope). Marilyn Cade, who submitted the 'pragmatic steps' proposal, added that it ' suggested moving all access to WHOIS to web based, with security measures; eliminating Port 43; using stronger contracts, enforced by ICANN for bulk access, and having ICANN undertake, and fund a study to inform policy making, not just now, but on a continual and occasional basis'. Item 7: Update on progress in PDP-Feb06 Avri Doria reported that the work on terms of reference 1 4 & 6 were essentially completed. An updated draft report would be forthcoming in February. The schedule has been organised to keep the end date for completion but include the two day face to face meeting in February. Work has started on term of reference 5 and the work should be ready to discuss at the face to face meeting in February. The task force was examining the data collected by registries in order to categorize it. The categories were still under discussion and part of the problem was that the task force did not have a firm grasp of what data was collected. For the next meeting on Tuesday 23 February the task force is considering what data was collected. There is outreach to the registries, the registry liaison and the legal staff, and outside sources with real expert knowledge on what data is collected by registries and how it is dealt with. Avri Doria requested that a registry liaison or legal staff person, attend the PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 February 2007 to inform the task force on registry data and how it is used. Terms of Reference 5 relate to Uses of registry data, and without full knowledge of the issue it would be difficult to consider whether or not a policy was needed. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/tor-pdp-28feb06.html John Jeffrey committed to working with the policy team on having a staff person available at the next PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 January to review the various terms on traffic and registry data. Bruce Tonkin gave a high level overview: The Registry contract is detailed about the data that must be collected and stored for both registries and registrars. Additional data could be collected via logging the activity of registrants that connect to registrars (.e g from which IP address and how often they log into a domain name control panel) or logging incoming DNS queries at nameservers (either at the registry or at nameservers operated by registrars, ISPs, etc) so as to abstain information including IP address, the number of queries from that IP address, and the content of the query (e.g which domain name or resource record was the subject of the DNS query). This would be the Information that could be collected but it is not required. Cary Karp commented that there misperceptions about whose IP address was known to a registry when a resolution request was submitted. There was some belief that the IP address of the end user was probated to the registry and the registry was capable of knowing individually who was asking for the resolution of names which was not true. Bruce Tonkin commented that in many cases the IP address seen by the registry is of a DNS server within an ISP’s network, that in turn is responding to a query from an individual’s computer. There was a need to understand how DNS resolution works. Kurt Pritz proposed that the staff could coordinate an informational discussion among the registries to provide information on how the data is used and what data is available. Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated with the registry. Item 8: Any other business 8.1. Chair for the working group on reserved names Given the statement of work has been approved by the Council a chair is needed to start the work as a deadline has been approved. Chuck Gomes proposed that constituency representatives called for participants from the constituency and that names be provided within a week. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed Chuck Gomes as the interim chair of the working group on reserved names. The motion passed by a vote of acclamation Decision 3: Chuck Gomes selected as the interim chair of the working group on reserved names. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 21:00 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 1 February 2007 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from Item 3: Select a GNSO representative to the ccNSO and GAC joint working group to work on ccTLD IDNs 2. Arising from Item 5: 2.1 Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to revise the draft terms of reference for the sunrise processes. 2.2 John Jeffrey to send the specific provisions in the RFP to the council as well as references requiring compliance with the laws of the contractual agreement. 2.3.Constituencies to start identifying members of the working group in parallel with the revision of the draft statement of work on the sunrise periods. 3. Arising from Item 7 3.1 John Jeffrey to work with the policy team to assign a staff person for the next PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 January to review the various terms on traffic and registry data. 3.2 Kurt Pritz proposed that the staff could coordinate an informational discussion among the registries to provide information on how the data is used and what data is available. 4. Arising from Item 8 Chuck Gomes to call for participants for the reserved names working group within the week. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Kick Off Meeting for Reserved Names Working Group
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 23, 2007

Jan. 23, 2007

A kick off meeting for the just-formed Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG) is scheduled for this coming Thursday, 25 Jan, at 19:00 UTC [11:00 am Los Angeles, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 3:00 am Hong Kong, 6:00 am (next day) Melbourne, 8:00am Wellington next day 19 January 2007]. Call details will follow. There have been 5 volunteers so far (1 from IPC, 3 from Registrars, and 1 from RyC), not including myself. All volunteers so far have indicated that they are available for the kickoff meeting. But for those who may still volunteer and cannot, please note that calls will be transcribed and/or recorded to assist those who miss a call. Also, an email list will be set up for the group. If at all possible, provide contact information regarding additional volunteers not later than COB Wednesday, 24 Jan. Thanks, Chuck Gomes

1 0

Fwd: WG on Reserved Names: Correspondence from Patrick Jones
by Liz Williams Jan. 21, 2007

Jan. 21, 2007

Colleagues Please find below correspondence from Patrick Jones, ICANN's Registry Liaison, which will be of assistance to volunteers for the Reserved Names Working Group. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob Begin forwarded message: > From: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> > Date: Sat 20 Jan 2007 06:52:53 GMT+01:00 > To: "'Liz Williams'" <liz.williams(a)icann.org> > Subject: WG on Reserved Names > > Liz, > > > > I have read through the various documents for the new GNSO Working > Group on Reserved Names. I understand that this is a component of > the PDP Dec05 and PDP Feb06 work. > > > > With regard to reserved names for existing registries, the funnel > process provides a mechanism for current registries to propose > release of names from the reserved list. Global Name Registry > submitted a proposal for the limited release of two-character > names, which was approved by the ICANN Board on Tuesday 16 January > (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16jan07.htm) Two > character names will be shared at the registry level, and GNR will > only make third level registrations and two-character email > addresses available in .name. > > > > Prior to the Board’s approval, the proposal was carefully reviewed > by the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (http:// > www.icann.org/registries/rsep/RSTEP-GNR-proposal-review-team- > report.pdf) and internal experts. This is the first time that > extensive research has been conducted on the technical issues > surrounding the use of two-character names. Please note that GNR’s > registry agreement also provided a mechanism to propose release of > two-character names from the reserved list. Other registries have > followed the same process to release reserved names. > > > > As a result, we may see more registries approach ICANN for the > release of two-character names. We may also see registries use the > funnel process to propose release of additional names from the > reserved list. > > > > The documents related to the GNR proposal may be useful to the > efforts of the Working Group, see http://www.icann.org/registries/ > rsep/submitted_app.html (Proposal # 2006004). > > > > Regards, > > > > Patrick > > > > Patrick L. Jones > > Registry Liaison Manager > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > Tel: +1 310 301 3861 > > Fax: +1 310 823 8649 > > patrick.jones(a)icann.org > > > >

1 0

Fwd: [registrars] Request for Reserved Names WG Volunteers: note from John Klensin
by Liz Williams Jan. 21, 2007

Jan. 21, 2007

Colleagues Please find below a note from John Klensin which sets out further historical and more current reserved names discussion. This is particularly relevant for the volunteers for the Reserved Names Working Group. 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 Begin forwarded message: > From: John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> > Date: Sat 20 Jan 2007 14:17:14 GMT+01:00 > To: Liz Williams <liz.williams(a)icann.org>, "Vinton G. Cerf" > <vint(a)google.com>, Alejandro Pisanty <apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx>, > steve(a)shinkuro.com > Subject: FWD: Re: [registrars] Request for Reserved Names WG > Volunteers > > Hi. > > Just FYI. Please feel free to distribute further as you think > appropriate. Since ICANN technical staff has still, as far as I > know, not changed the "we just discard mail" feature, I don't > even know if this reached the registrar list. > > john > > From: John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> > Date: Sat 20 Jan 2007 14:11:11 GMT+01:00 > To: brunner(a)nic-naa.net > Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Registrars > Constituency <registrars(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Gomes, Chuck" > <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Request for Reserved Names WG Volunteers > > > > > --On Friday, 19 January, 2007 20:57 -0500 brunner(a)nic-naa.net > wrote: > >> John, >> >> Your note on the subject of single octet labels was forwarded >> to the ICANN RC mailing list, where I saw it. > >> When Donald, Bill and I wrote 2929 we also considered the in >> the context of IANA Considerations for DNS Resource Records, >> the RR NAME included. > > That is certainly consistent with my recollection of discussions > at the time. > >> At the time, there were no ICANN considerations, and no IDN, >> so the whole mistake of Unicode hadn't yet happened. >> >> I no longer have the correspondence that circulated between >> Donald and I in particular, but we had some discussion related >> to the issue, circa 1999/2000, which is observable in the lack >> of overspecification for the values of octets used to >> construct lables (Section 3.3), and the care we took to >> document the RR CLASS (Section 3.2). >> >> If memory serves, Donald wanted to nail down the US-ASCII >> values for each octet, and prevent any octet sequence other >> than the iso3166 and c/n/o sequences from ever being available >> for allocation. > >> I think I made the case for future extension that might use >> values other than .-0-9A-Za-z, and that lables might be made >> from sequences not in the two-octet (iso3166) or three-octet >> (c/n/o et al) string spaces. > > As you may recall from discussions about RFC2181 a few years > earlier, my personal position has been is that the "recommended" > text about contents and structure of labels in 1035 should be > read as a requirement for RR types specified in 1034/1035 and as > more fuzzy only for new Classes and possibly new RR types within > Class=IN that specify different rules. That probably puts me, > again personally, closer to Donald than to you, but, as you > know, I've always been very conservative on this issue, and... > > Going back much further, 1123 relaxed the rule against leading > digits which was originally instituted to prevent confusion with > host numbers (later IP addresses), there was some discussion > about whether to explicitly continue to ban all-digit labels. > Those of us who don't like look-ahead when it can be avoided > would have preferred to retain the prohibition; others felt that > looking ahead for four putative labels to see if any non-digit > characters appeared was reasonable and that the prohibition was > not needed. I can't recall whether there was actually consensus > around the latter or whether we just gave up and omitted an > explicit rule, but 1123 did end up with an aside about numeric > TLDs. > > When 1591 was finally written to make fairly long-term practice > explicit and more easily available, we discussed TLD naming and > whether to include specific rules there. At that time, Jon > considered the odds of adding new TLDs, other than those in the > 3166 set, to be very low and, if I recall, didn't want to > clutter up the text with contingencies, but there was general > understanding that > > (1) there would be no single-letter TLD names > > (2) there would be no TLD names with numeric components > (unless ISO introduced them into the 3166 space) and > certainly no TLDs starting in digits. > > (3) all (additional) two-letter TLD names would be > derived from the primary 3166 list, with no further > nonsense about "certainly going to be approved", > reservations, etc. > > (4) any additional gTLDs would have three-character names > > (5) four-character gTLD names were to be exclusively > "ARPA". I suppose that, in principle, something else > connected to a distinct network, might have been created > with a four-character name, but we certainly didn't > spend time talking about it. By "another network", I'm > not referring to topology or connectivity or protocols > (as you will recall, ".uucp" and, for that matter, > ".csnet" and ".bitnet", were in active use at the time, > but as notation within those networks, not in the DNS > root), but something really different... I guess I'm > having visions of ".MARS" for an infrastructure domain > for a network on that planet. > > (6) there were to have been _no_ TLD names with five or > more letters. > > These kinds of firm naming rules aid users and application > software in detecting nonsense, producing good presentation > forms and error messages, and preventing repeated queries for > the impossible. Whether those benefits are sufficiently > important to overcome the desire to commercialize one > seemingly-attractive string or another is a balance that ICANN > needs to figure out how to resolve, preferably after considering > the needs of the widest range of materially concerned parties > possible rather than only short or medium-term commercialization > interests. > > Of course ICANN blew the last two rules off in 2000, with no > discussion at all. Suggestions that ICANN warn applicants that > there was applications software that incorporated those rules > and hence might make their domains inaccessible were rejected by > staff. > >> Which begs the question of what John's intent was, or whether >> I then, or ever, have had the smallest part of a clue. >> >> Of course, at that point in time, we weren't trying to see >> characters through the blinders of font fanatics, so phishing >> was limited to il1 and o0O bits of nonsense which policy, at >> either the registry, or the registrar or the zone file >> publishers, could have (and at times did) interposed upon. > > Exactly. As has been pointed out many times, the > "confusability" problem introduced by IDNs is, at one level, no > different from the ones we have had, in principle, with ASCII > since the dawn of the hostname table. However, addition of > hundreds or thousands of new "opportunities" with IDNs arguably > changes the problem from one about which those involved needed > to exercise moderate caution to one that no user is able to > fully understand and protect against, making an extremely strong > case for some precautions in the registration/zone-entry process > lest we essentially put referential integrity at the mercy of > the phishers and other Bad Guys. > > And, has also been noted multiple times (albeit without much > effective success), IDNs --especially any ideas or plans about > IDNs at the top level-- also require that we go back and > reinterpret and adjust all sorts of rules and conventions that > assumed ASCII, LDH, labels. The two most obvious examples > involve the questions of what goes into domain registration > ("whois") records and how they are indexed and whether such > "reserved name" rules as the restriction against > single-character names apply to the presentation form or to what > is stored in the DNS. The latter question is what makes the > single-character prohibition particular important at this time: > if the motivation for that prohibition really had been an idea > about future expansion, then IDNs would be irrelevant since the > form stored in the DNS is always more than four characters long. > On the other hand, since the prohibition was imposed because of > human factors and retrieval considerations, it should probably > apply to the presentation ("native character", "Unicode") form > of IDNs. > > best regards, > john > > >

1 0

Fwd: Single-letter second level domains
by Liz Williams Jan. 19, 2007

Jan. 19, 2007

Colleagues Please find below a note from John Klensin which I received this morning. He has asked me to forward it to the list. I will be speaking with John and Steve later today if their schedules permit. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob Begin forwarded message: > From: John C Klensin <klensin(a)jck.com> > Date: Thu 18 Jan 2007 19:26:34 GMT+01:00 > To: liz.williams(a)icann.org > Cc: steve(a)shinkuro.com > Subject: Single-letter second level domains > > Liz, > > Your recent note to the GNSO Council about single-letter domains > (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03148.html) > and the attached report was just called to my attention. I'm > copying Steve Crocker on this note since the topic is very much > a stability issue and not a provision for expansion or > infrastructure one. > > The premise of the report, that the main reason for reserving > single-letter names was to permit future expansion, is not > correct. That explanation is, instead, the consequence of a > long-term, and oft-repeated, misunderstanding. I've tried > explaining this several time to a number of people and groups > within ICANN including various senior staff, both of the > previous IANA managers, and several of the members of the > community who have been pushing for single-character > registrations. > > The notion that single-character names should be reserved for > expansion of the DNS derives from an almost offhand comment Jon > Postel made many years ago. The essence of the comment was > that, given all of the confusion and problems that had been > created by trying to associate TLDs with specific semantics, we > would have been better off with TLDs named "b ... y" (reserving > "a" and "z" for future expansion and because people might think > they had special value). When someone asked for a domain name > at the second level, they would then be randomly assigned to one > of those single-character TLDs. A somewhat fanciful set of > notes circulated for a while that elaborated on this idea. That > document never made it into formal publication although part of > it inspired an alternative option for ENUM that also was never > published. It should be stressed that these ideas were more of > the character of whimsical musings than serious proposals. They > were never considered as serious proposals even by their > originators. > > In any event, that particular idea about DNS expansion would > never have produced "Example.a.com". It might have produced > "example.com.b" (as mentioned above, "a" and "z" were, in that > idea, permanently reserved) or, more likely, "example.d" or > "example.cc.b". > > There was apparently an entirely separate and unrelated > suggestion about reserving one-character labels at some level of > the DNS for infrastructure use, much as subdomains of .ARPA are > used today. While I remember hearing about that idea, I think > it was just a suggestion made during a meeting or conversation. > As far as I know, the suggestion was never written down or > explained, much less turned into a proposal that anyone > considered or approved. > > The reason for the prohibition on single-character registrations > was strictly a matter of identifier integrity and DNS stability. > Specifically, it was intended to reduce the odds of false > positive errors if a one-character typing error was made. The > prohibition on the use of underscore ("_") in domain names, > given that hyphen ("-") was going to be permitted, was largely > driven by very similar considerations. I believe that, had we > realized that we would end up with millions of names in some > TLDs and almost complete saturation of the two-character and > three-character spaces in those TLDs, registration of > two-character SLDs probably would have been prohibited as well. > > That reason has not changed. If one permits (and encourages, > which, in today's market, is much the same thing), single-letter > registrations, it is safe to assume that all 26 labels will > swiftly be populated (single-digit labels raise some additional > issues because they are very easily used in certain types of > tricky-syntax phishing attacks). Anyone trying to use one of > these labels and making a single-character mistake will almost > certainly reach an unintended host. In a world in which, for > most users, simply opening a web page associated with an unknown > site can be sufficient for virus infection, it is simply unwise, > and IMO, not in the best interests of the Internet, for ICANN to > consider relaxing the current rule. But the reason has nothing > to do with DNS expansion, infrastructure, or any other narrowly > technical reason. > > Just as we try to learn and extrapolate from our experience with > ASCII domain name labels to IDNs, we should also take advantage > of our experience with IDNs to inform our decisions about > possible changes to rules about ASCII labels. When the example > of the "paypal" domain (with Cyrillic "a"s) was widely > publicized, one of the primary reactions in the user and > observer communities was outrage that the various actors in the > domain name environment (and the certificate-issuing > environment) had permitted a registration whose obvious purpose > was to make it easy for users to make a potentially nasty and > identity-compromising mistake. I don't believe we need that > lesson again about single-character SLDs. > > Please forward this message as appropriate -- I don't believe > that I can post to the Council list. > > regards, > john >

1 0

Request for Reserved Names WG Volunteers
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 19, 2007

Jan. 19, 2007

As you are all probably aware, the statement of work was approved for the Reserved Names Working Group today with a very aggressive time schedule. To be able to achieve the required tasks, we are going to have to get started right away so it is imperative that we identify members of the group in very short order. Therefore, as the interim chair, I would like to ask each of you as Counselors to start your recruiting immediately. Here is some key information from the SoW relating to membership. The Working Group is open for membership to: * Councilors * GNSO Constituency members * Advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) as non-voting liaisons. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments. Please provide the following data for any volunteers who are willing to serve on this WG not later than close of business next Wednesday: * Name * Email address * Telephone number(s) - if possible. I am tentatively planning to schedule the first call for Thursday, 25 January at 19:00 UTC. (11:00 am Los Angeles, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 London, 3:00 am Hong Kong, 6:00 am (next day) Melbourne, 8:00 am Wellington next day 19 January 2007) I understand that some members may not be able to participate in the first call on such short notice but we can at least identify materials that need to be reviewed, talk about timing of regularly scheduled calls and possibly elect a permanent chair. I am working with staff regarding the following logistical items: 1. Will it be possible to have the meetings transcribed or recorded? I expect we will need to have a fairly aggressive work schedule so it is likely that group members may have to miss some meetings. Transcriptions or recordings of the meetings would allow those who miss meetings a way of catching up. 2. Teleconference arrangements 3. Email discussion list. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Also, if any potential volunteers have questions, please encourage them to contact me if they like. My email address is cgomes(a)verisign.com. My office telephone number is +1 916 681-0389. And my mobile number is +1 703 362-8753. For time zone reference, I am located in California so I am on Pacific Standard Time. Chuck Gomes

1 0

Reschedule of Council meeting 22 Feb to 1 March 2007
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2007

Jan. 19, 2007

Hello All, Just a note to confirm that in light of the policy meeting schedule for 22-25 Feb 2006, I have re-scheduled the Council meeting originally scheduled for 22 Feb to the following week on 1 March 2007. The GNSO Council meeting on 22 Feb 2007 is CANCELLED. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 1 February 2007
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 19, 2007

Jan. 19, 2007

Note I have replaced the terminology of "sunrise processes" with the more neutral terminology borrowed from the most recent new gTLD round "Protecting the rights of others". At the request of ICANN staff, I have also added an agenda item 4 to agree the process for selecting ICANN Board Seat #13. Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 1 February 2007 11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 6:00 Melbourne next day 2 February 2007 Item 0: Roll call of Council members on the call Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of Minutes - 18 January 2007 Item 3: Proposed Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to consider possible policies and practices that minimize abusive registration activities and other activities that affect the legal rights of others. - Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to draft terms of reference for Consideration Item 4: Process for electing a replacement for ICANN Board seat #13 Alejandro Pisanty's term on the ICANN Board concludes 6 months after the ICANN annual meeting in 2006 (ie 8 June 2007). As recorded in the minutes of 19 Feb 04 (http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml) Alejandro is not eligible for re-election as he has reached the term limit provisions in the ICANN bylaws ("no Director may serve more than three consecutive terms"). The GNSO must inform the Secretary of ICANN of its selection for Board Seat #13 before 8 May 2007. Note also at any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. Rita Rodin was recently selected by the GNSO to fill ICANN Board Seat #14, and is from North America. (From ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI , Article VI, section 8, clauses 1(e) and 3, and Section 2, clause 3) The GNSO Secretariat will propose a timeline/process for consideration. Item 5: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Protecting the rights of others
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

Hello All, For information, here is some text from the 2003/2004 new gTLD round: From: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-application-parta-15dec0 3.htm " Protecting the rights of others New sTLD registries will be responsible for creating policies and practices that minimize abusive registration activities and other activities that affect the legal rights of others. sTLD registries are required to implement safeguards against allowing unqualified registrations, and to ensure compliance with other ICANN policies designed to protect the rights of others." There is also another section that states: " ..... avoidance of abusive registration practices Operators of sTLDs must implement safeguards to ensure that non-compliant applicants cannot register domain names. Applicants must demonstrate that their proposals address and include precise measures that: - Discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights; .. - Reserve specific names to prevent inappropriate name registrations; - Minimize abusive registrations; - Comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; - and Provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. " Also "Assurance of adequate dispute-resolution mechanisms All gTLD registries must adhere to the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Particular dispute resolution mechanisms are implemented to support situations such as priority of acceptance of applicants in competition for the same name during start-up periods." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Marina del Rey GNSO policy work meetings
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gtld-council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear All, At the GNSO Council meeting that has just taken place 18/19 January, the broad agenda for the GNSO policy work meetings was confirmed. Thursday 22 and Friday 23 February will be devoted to work on the new gTLD PDP Dec 06 and Saturday 24 and Sunday 25 will be devoted to work on the PDPFeb06 - GNSO Policies for contractual conditions, existing gTLDs. Observers are welcome, but would the constituencies please let me know as soon as possible how many observers they would like to attend so as to provide adequate working room space and hotel accommodation. Details of the agendas will be following for the PDPDec05 and PDPFeb06 will be following. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: GNSO Council teleconf. WHOIS Task force update,18 January 2007,]]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

Hi Glen: I've got a conflicting meeting, so I'm unlikely to be able to attend. Here's a brief update on the TF activities since Sao Paulo: - We've briefly discussed two new proposals (one from Avri/Wendy/Robin to eliminate Whois or remove all non-technical contact information; and one from Marilyn with ideas to remove port 43 access, limit bulk Whois, and further study the topic). - We've had some further discussions about access to data that might be removed from public view by the TF. We've begun limiting the options from the five presented in the preliminary report. - Public comment period just closed and we've also received several constituency statements. We'll be discussing these next week. - We remain on track for completing our work on February 12 (I hope). Jordyn -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1