January 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

by Marilyn Cade Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

Dear colleagues With apologies for the 'just in time substitution' for tomorrow's Council call agenda item on the Statement of Work for Reserved Names, Chuck Gomes and Marilyn Cade ask that you accept this document as a replacement to the earlier draft which we posted now about 7 days ago. We have received some comments and tried to address them. In addition, we have improved the document and reorganized and streamlined some sections. We make a special effort to note that we believe that the work initiatives can be broken into sub-elements and addressed in even sequential tracks, so that not all work has to be done at the same time. We have discussed in the preparation of this version that we believe that some work will have a higher priority than other. We will work from the document attached above in the discussion on the Statement of Work. In the event that you have trouble with opening documents for any reason, it is pasted below, as well. Thanks to Liz Williams for her assistance. Submitted by Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes Draft Statement of Work - Version 2 for 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 Submitted by: Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes 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. _____

4 3

RE: [council] reserved names work plan
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

I hope my comment did not come across as a criticism of Liz. If so, I apologize. I also very much appreciate her long hours of work and just simply wanted to point out that the draft ToR tasks the WG with making such recommendations so it doesn't seem like the best idea to predetermine their work. Personally, I think her idea is very worthy of further consideration. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:38 AM To: Philip Sheppard Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] reserved names work plan I agree with Chuck. We don't know what the work is or whether we or not we will be engaging in that work. I do appreciate the support we get from Liz - she has been very instrumental in helping us move the ball forward over the past year and a bit (especially in instances where we haven't been so inclined to move), but there is also a natural ordering to events - the first of which includes us deciding whether or not we are going to proceed, and if so, what work we are going to proceed with. Philip Sheppard wrote: > re Chuck wrote: "I think it is premature to be recommending how work should be done". > --------------------------------- > Is it not about time that we as Council started trusting the staff > (whom we asked for so long to have) and respond favourably to useful recommendations? > As someone who works for a secretariat I make work plan > recommendations all the time and my members - some of the top companies in the world - expect no less. > > Surely we want staff to guide us, steer us and help move things forward? > Then the WGs and PDPs decide on the actual policy (and are at liberty > to overturn a staff recommendation). > > I for one like to see paid full time professionals be allowed to do their job. > > Philip > > > >

1 0

RE: [council]
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

Thanks for the input Liz. I have just one comment for now. One of the tasks in the draft SoW for the Reserved Names WG is to make recommendations regarding how future work on reserved names issues should be made so, if we proceed with the WG, I think it is premature to be recommending how work should be done. We should leave it to the WG to make recommendations in that regard. They certainly would have the freedom to come to the same conclusions you have and may, but that should be a result of their work. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:55 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Colleagues I have just read through this material. I have attached the September 2005 Single Letter Second Level status report which was referred to in the document. This refers to the treatment of reserved names in existing registries. Please note section 2 which outlines the policy questions associated with this work and the questions around any policy for an appropriate allocation method for reserved names that could, in the future, be released for use. It is my recommendation that the two streams of work -- reserved names that relate to new TLDs and reserved names that relate to existing registries -- be treated as two separate projects. There are two purposes to considering reserved names in the new TLDs context -- a list which would guide potential applicants about strings which would be reserved and a list to guide successful applicants about what names may be reserved in any new registry. The work on new TLDs is very time critical and can be integrated into the work on new TLDs which has already taken place. As everyone who has been working on the PDP Feb 06 will be aware, policy discussions for contractual conditions for existing registries are an important and sensitive area of work. The treatment of reserved names for existing registries is contained in each of the existing registry contracts. I would recommend that the GNSO Council consider launching a formal PDP on reserved names in existing registries -- rather than a Working Group -- and prioritise that work according to the Council's program which includes the IDN WG, the new TLDs Committee, the WHOIS working group and the PDP Feb 06. I would note, and the GNSO calendar confirms, that we have an extremely tight schedule of work on new TLDs, PDP Feb 06, the IDN WG and the WHOIS committee. We have a limited number of constituency members to populate working groups and I would hope that we could complete at least one of the four active pieces of work on the Council's agenda prior to taking on another formal PDP. 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 On 18 Jan 2007, at 02:18, Marilyn Cade wrote: > Dear colleagues > > With apologies for the 'just in time substitution' for tomorrow's > Council call agenda item on the Statement of Work for Reserved Names, > Chuck Gomes and Marilyn Cade ask that you accept this document as a > replacement to the earlier draft which we posted now about 7 days ago. > > > > We have received some comments and tried to address them. In addition, > we have improved the document and reorganized and streamlined some > sections. We make a special effort to note that we believe that the > work initiatives can be broken into sub-elements and addressed in even > sequential tracks, so that not all work has to be done at the same > time. We have discussed in the preparation of this version that we > believe that some work will have a higher priority than other. > > > > We will work from the document attached above in the discussion on the > Statement of Work. In the event that you have trouble with opening > documents for any reason, it is pasted below, as well. > > > > Thanks to Liz Williams for her assistance. > > > > Submitted by Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes > > Draft Statement of Work - Version 2 > > for > > 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 22-252. > Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to the GNSO > Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN > meetings3. 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 Section2. 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 Section4. 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 procedures6. 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 parts2. 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 > gTLDsc. 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 recommendations5. 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 > Council7. 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 > IDNs2. 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 level3. > 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 orc. Whether there is different treatment > proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the > first leveld. Whether reserved name requirements > need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might > varye. Whether there should be a procedure by > which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before > adding them to registry agreements4. Discuss and > review processes by which names could be put into reserved status > at the top level5. 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 reserved6. > 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 > newgTLDs, 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 > Submitted by: Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes > > > > > Attachment 1: Additional considerations: For a policy issue to > warrant a policy development process it mustMeet 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > <Draft Statement of Work - WG Reserved Names Revised v2.doc>

3 3

General Counsel will be on the GNSO Council call
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel and Sue Jonklaas from the office of the General Counsel will be on the GNSO Council call later on in the day. They will be willing to respond to questions. Please let me know if you need the dial-in number resent. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group
by Rosette, Kristina Jan. 16, 2007

Jan. 16, 2007

All, Attached please find a draft statement of work for the Sunrise Working Group. Please circulate online any questions, comments, and/or suggestions. We will try to answer, incorporate, and/or organize before the Council Meeting next week. Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker, drafters

4 3

Statement of work for working group on reserved names - DRAFT for Council
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 15, 2007

Jan. 15, 2007

4 3

RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 13, 2007

Jan. 13, 2007

Thanks Kristina for submitting this. Now that I have had time to fully review it, I inserted some comments and suggested edits that are highlighted in the attached file. Chuck Gomes ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:33 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group All, Attached please find a draft statement of work for the Sunrise Working Group. Please circulate online any questions, comments, and/or suggestions. We will try to answer, incorporate, and/or organize before the Council Meeting next week. Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker, drafters

2 1

FW: Re: [TRYP] Fw: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 13, 2007

Jan. 13, 2007

Here is some additional input regarding the draft SoW for the sunrise working group, forwarded with Jeff's permission. Chuck Gomes The whole tone of the paper is about "Sunrise" rather than "intellectual property protection." It presumes that the only mechanisms that have been used are derivations of Sunrise. It also presumed that IP Owners should have first dibs at domain names in every TLD and the only thing we are evaluating are processes to make sure that is always the case. For example, .biz had an IP claims process. It was not an alternative to Sunrise in that it was not an alternative mechanism to give IP Owners the names. It was an alternative IP protection mechanism that gave applicants notice of claims by IP Owners to the names. It in no way guaranteed that IP Owners would get the name, only that IP Owners would have notice that if they got the name, they could be subject to challenge. As an IP attorney, I believed then as I do now, that that was the only system that acted in accordance with the intent and spirit of the IP laws of most of the word. IP Laws do not give brand owners rights in gross to their trademarks in every class of goods and services. Those laws do not guarantee that anyone else cannot use those marks. All IP Laws do is put others on notice that if someone third party has IP rights in a mark and your use of the mark is confusingly similar, then you could be found to have infringed the third party's marks. It is up to the IP Owner then to enforce its own IP rights. As a registry, we should not be in a position for a number of reasons to automatically give existing IP owners domain names, especially when there can be other uses of that IP for purposes which are not confusingly similar to the uses that the IP owner makes of the names. We, as registries, are not their enforcers of IP rights. That is and should always be the IP Owner's job and not ours. Again, I am an IP Owners, and one that has implemented other IP Protection schemes other than Sunrise. The fact that Sunrise has been forced on .us, .eu and other domains, should not set the bad precedent for other TLDs. Sorry for the long note, but I believe this WG TOR sets the tone for an assumption that the Sunrise must be implemented in all TLDs. This is not surprising given the source of the TOR. That said, please see my revisions: Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc.

1 0

RE: [council] Statement of work for working group on reserved names - DRAFT for Council
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 12, 2007

Jan. 12, 2007

Thanks for the feedback Ross. Please note my responses below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:09 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Statement of work for working group on reserved names - DRAFT for Council two comments after a quick review - a) Prior to any discussion of (iv) and (v)WG should have discussion and make precedent recommendations regarding whether or not there is any merit in a) adding new names to existing reservations lists, b) taking names off of existing reservations lists and c) whether or not reservations lists, in general, are appropriate policy to continue forward with. CG: These seem like reasonable suggestions to me. b) voting should probably be along constituency lines - i.e. one vote per constituency. I don't think each constituency should be required to appoint three members to this TF just to ensure it gets the full defensive benefit of having three full votes. This can be avoided by simply having one vote per constituency. CG: I agree that constituencies should not be required to appoint three members; in fact, I would go further and say that no constituency is required to appoint any members. With regard to voting, I think it is important to call attention to the specific wording in the draft: "In general, the working group should operate in a consensual approach; voting, if required, will be on the basis of one member one vote." Note that the goal would be to encourage a 'consensual approach'. In my mind that means that voting should be minimized and efforts should be made to reach positions that most if not all of the participants are willing to support. Also note that it says, "voting, if required". Maybe it would not be required at all, but if it is needed in some, hopefully limited circumstances, some guidelines might be needed for that to avoid capture by any particular constituency or group. I personally wouldn't mind an approach where votes are only used to determine how many WG members are willing to support a recommendation simply to determine whether or not there is rough consensus for any particular recommendation. -r On 11-Jan-07, at 5:52 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > <DraftStatementofWorkforWorkingGrouponReservedNames.doc>

1 0

RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 12, 2007

Jan. 12, 2007

Good point Ross. Admitting that I have not yet had time to review the draft SoW, I would add to what you said by suggesting that the ToR should include the following if it does not: 1) specific identification of the problems that sunrise periods were intended to solve; 2) an examination of whether implemented sunrise periods were successful in solving those problems; and 3) exploration of alternative ways of solving the problems other than a sunrise period. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:43 PM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Sunrise Working Group I note that this focuses on process, whereas the GNSO is focused on policies. It might make some sense if this were redraft to focus on examining the appropriateness of sunrise policy vs. that of sunrise processes. The processes are typically implemented after the policies have been implemented via the various parties. The GNSO can only really contemplate changes and make recommendations at a policy level. Rosette, Kristina wrote: > All, > > Attached please find a draft statement of work for the Sunrise Working > Group. > > Please circulate online any questions, comments, and/or suggestions. > We will try to answer, incorporate, and/or organize before the Council > Meeting next week. > > Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker, drafters > >

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 18 January 2007
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 10, 2007

Jan. 10, 2007

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 18 Janurary 2007 11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 6:00 Melbourne next day 22 December Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of Minutes - 6 December 2006 http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03100.html - 21 December 2006 http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03130.html Item 3: Correspondence 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 - 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 Item 5: Update on planning for policy meeting on PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06 in February - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update Item 6: Update on progress in WHOIS task force Item 7: Update on progress in PDP-Feb06 Item 8: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 21 December 2006
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 8, 2007

Jan. 8, 2007

Glen, I have one question. In the sixth paragraph under agenda item 7 (AOB), the minutes read, "Bruce Tonkin proposed taking on board the comments . . ." It is not clear to me what this means. Chuck -----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, January 08, 2007 4:53 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 21 December 2006 [council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 21 December 2006. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................................... 21 December 2006 Proposed agenda and related 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 - absent Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies 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. - absent Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 13 Council Members (18 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Quorum present at 19:05 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Avri Doria requested discussing interim meetings on the new gTLD PDP and PDPFeb06 under Item 7: Any Other Business Item 1: Update any statements of interest Bruce Tonkin reminded new Council members that statements of interest were voluntary and referred to the statement of interest Chuck Gomes provided. Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006 This item was deferred to the next GNSO Council meeting on 18 January 2007 Item 3: Correspondence No correspondence received Item 4: Election of GNSO Council chair Bruce Tonkin commented that it has been the recent practice of the GNSO Council to use the past chair, (Philip Sheppard) to chair the discussion for the election of the GNSO Chair, but in Philip's absence Bruce requested Council if Glen de Saint Géry as the secretariat for the election could conduct that part of the meeting. Council approved. Glen de Saint Géry stated that a formal nomination period was open for two weeks from Monday 27 November to Monday 11 December 2006. Bruce Tonkin, nominated by Mawaki Chango, a NCUC Council representative, seconded Ken Stubbs, a gTLD Registries constituency Council representative, and the only nominee at close of nominations on Monday 11 December 2006 accepted his nomination for GNSO Council chair. As Council agreed at the GNSO Council meeting in Sao Paulo on 6 December 2006, if there were only one nomination, then the voting and confirmation of the election would take place at the scheduled GNSO Council meeting on 21 December 2006. The Secretariat proposed a roll call vote of affirmation to elect Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council Chair for the period 21 December 2006 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2007. The motion carried. 16 votes in favour, one abstention Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Absent: Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Kiyoshi Tsuru (IPC), Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISPCPC), Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango (NCUC) Ross Rader (Registrars constituency) Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period 21 December 2006 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2007. The Secretariat handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Item 5: Proposal to elect a GNSO Council vice-chair Bruce Tonkin called for discussion on whether the Council was interested in formally appointing a deputy chair and added that due to business commitments he would be unavailable for the ICANN Lisbon meetings. In addition, Bruce's term on the GNSO Council finishes at the 2007 Annual General Meeting (currently scheduled around early November 2007). It was noted that if a chair of the Council or a committee/task force was absent for a particular meeting, that the relevant group could appoint a chair for that particular meeting. Marilyn Cade expressed support for a leadership continuity process for the Council that should be considered together with the job description and functions to be fulfilled by both a chair and a vice chair; how management of the GNSO relates to the Council's policy work, and documenting and stabilizing procedures and processes. There should be clarity on the roles when electing someone on an interim basis as chair. Sophia Bekele mentioned the idea of mentoring a new chair with a period of overlap to ensure continuity. Cary Karp commented that there was no crucial reason to institute a position because of an anticipated absence at one meeting. Given the ICANN Board was considering the LSE review it was perhaps judicious to wait for the outcome before making a structural change. Avri Doria supported the idea in all organisations to back up work and commented that the Council workload had been growing steadily. The ICANN bylaws mention a GNSO chair but no mention is made that a vice chair is prohibited. Tom Keller supported the concept in general but added that consideration should be given to when both the chair and the deputy chair were absent and it should not be a foregone conclusion that the vice chair would become the next Council chair. Alistair Dixon also supported the principle but added that the chairs' workload could be shared by other members of council. Bruce Tonkin commented that from a succession planning point of view, documenting procedures was the first step. Bruce Tonkin proposed: - documenting current procedures with a role description of the GNSO chair - drafting the role of deputy chair for Council's consideration - await the ICANN Board considerations in terms of the LSE Review. Item 6: PDP on new gTLDs work - Update draft recommendations to separate policy from implementation guidance. Staff is updating the draft recommendations to separate policy from implementation guidance based on the input received at the Sao Paulo meetings. - 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 as a starting point) - 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. There was general support for the principle of creating two working groups to review the two topics. The proposed structure of the group: - would be open, similar to that of the IDN working group - eligibility requirements for membership would be a member of a GNSO constituency, a member of the Council, a Nominating Committee appointee to Council, an Advisory Committee liaison as a non voting member - possibility of appointing experts to the working group - groups appoint an interim chair and then ask the group what they want to do in the longer term. - there should be a council member as liaison between the council and the working groups. The views of the group could be incorporated into the new gTLD report as guidance. However, this should not be on the critical path for new gTLDs process which should not be dependent on the outcome of the groups. Chuck Gomes proposed 3 principles for the groups: 1. Keep the group to a manageable size. Representation of divergent views rather than constituency or geographical representation. 2. Leadership of the working group is important, not to drive the agenda but to drive the action. 3. New involvement, people with the right knowledge base and skill sets should be encouraged. Minimise the number of councillors in the groups. Bruce Tonkin proposed: Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes draft terms of reference to review the creation of a reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second level for gTLDs. Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker draft terms of reference 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. Council members were invited to submit ideas. Draft terms of reference should be submitted by 11 January, 2007, one week before the Council meeting on 18 January 2007 - membership structure as for the GNSO IDN working group Chuck Gomes urged that the IDN group be spurred on because it was necessary to know if there were additional issues regarding the introduction of new TLDs that need to be added to the recommendation paper in the draft Final Report on the Introduction of New Top Level Generic Names. Item: 7 AOB 7.1 Concept of an Interim meeting Avri Doria proposed holding one interim meeting to cover the policy work on the New gTLD PDPDec05 and the GNSO Policies for contractual conditions, existing gTLDs PDPFeb06 in mid February 2007. The interim face to face meetings have proved to be a productive means of moving the work forward. Tom Keller encouraged more productive use of the physical time during the 3 ICANN meetings. Marilyn Cade supported the idea of the Council committees and task forces having two full working days before the ICANN meetings started, but strongly supported an intercessional meeting. However expressed the hope that over time as the processes evolved, staff support strengthened, the expertise that was planned for in the strategic and operational plan was added and the policy development process was revised and updated, the need for interim meetings would diminish. Alistair Dixon supported an interim meeting, but supported any initiative to make more use of the time available at the ICANN meetings, for example meetings to consider input from the public forums. Chuck Gomes, also in support of an interim meeting, suggested that the constituencies assign one person with adequate communication channels, to represent the constituency. Chuck further emphasised the importance of having different people in different groups so that groups could work productively in parallel 2 or 3 days before ICANN meetings. Bruce Tonkin proposed taking on board the comments and encouraging each committee or working group to have a series of scheduled meetings that fit in with the flow of the ICANN meetings. Bruce Tonkin proposed working with staff to schedule a meeting in mid February with similar funding arrangements as for previous meetings. Economy class air fare for one member of each constituency, plus the chair, hotel accommodation funded for the period of time to work on both PDPDec05 and PDPFeb06, so that the meetings could take place serially. The proposed dates were 15, 16, 17, 18 February 2007 and expressed strong support for Los Angeles as a venue so as to engage the ICANN operational staff. Denise Michel stated that ICANN Could commit to funding the intercessional meeting using the same basic guidelines as for the Amsterdam meeting in August 2006. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 20:15 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 18 January 2007 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from Item 5 Proposal to elect a GNSO Council vice-chair Bruce Tonkin proposed: - documenting procedures with a role description of the GNSO chair - drafting the role of deputy chair for Council's consideration 2. Arising from Item 6: PDP on new gTLDs work 2.1 Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes draft terms of reference to review the creation of a reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second level for gTLDs. 2.2 Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker draft terms of reference 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. 2.3 Council members were invited to submit ideas. 2.4 Draft terms of reference should be submitted by 11 January, 2007, one week before the Council meeting on 18 January 2007 2.5- membership structure as for the GNSO IDN working group Chuck Gomes to urge IDN group to work to meet the Lisbon meeting deadline and additional issues regarding the introduction of new TLDs that need to be added to the recommendation paper in the draft Final Report on the Introduction of New Top Level Generic Names. 3. The Secretariat will survey the Council and task force members to establish a date for the interim meeting and work towards organising the meeting. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 21 December 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 8, 2007

Jan. 8, 2007

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 21 December 2006. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................................... 21 December 2006 Proposed agenda and related 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 - absent Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies 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. - absent Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 13 Council Members (18 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Quorum present at 19:05 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Avri Doria requested discussing interim meetings on the new gTLD PDP and PDPFeb06 under Item 7: Any Other Business Item 1: Update any statements of interest Bruce Tonkin reminded new Council members that statements of interest were voluntary and referred to the statement of interest Chuck Gomes provided. Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006 This item was deferred to the next GNSO Council meeting on 18 January 2007 Item 3: Correspondence No correspondence received Item 4: Election of GNSO Council chair Bruce Tonkin commented that it has been the recent practice of the GNSO Council to use the past chair, (Philip Sheppard) to chair the discussion for the election of the GNSO Chair, but in Philip's absence Bruce requested Council if Glen de Saint Géry as the secretariat for the election could conduct that part of the meeting. Council approved. Glen de Saint Géry stated that a formal nomination period was open for two weeks from Monday 27 November to Monday 11 December 2006. Bruce Tonkin, nominated by Mawaki Chango, a NCUC Council representative, seconded Ken Stubbs, a gTLD Registries constituency Council representative, and the only nominee at close of nominations on Monday 11 December 2006 accepted his nomination for GNSO Council chair. As Council agreed at the GNSO Council meeting in Sao Paulo on 6 December 2006, if there were only one nomination, then the voting and confirmation of the election would take place at the scheduled GNSO Council meeting on 21 December 2006. The Secretariat proposed a roll call vote of affirmation to elect Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council Chair for the period 21 December 2006 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2007. The motion carried. 16 votes in favour, one abstention Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Absent: Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Kiyoshi Tsuru (IPC), Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISPCPC), Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango (NCUC) Ross Rader (Registrars constituency) Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period 21 December 2006 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2007. The Secretariat handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Item 5: Proposal to elect a GNSO Council vice-chair Bruce Tonkin called for discussion on whether the Council was interested in formally appointing a deputy chair and added that due to business commitments he would be unavailable for the ICANN Lisbon meetings. In addition, Bruce's term on the GNSO Council finishes at the 2007 Annual General Meeting (currently scheduled around early November 2007). It was noted that if a chair of the Council or a committee/task force was absent for a particular meeting, that the relevant group could appoint a chair for that particular meeting. Marilyn Cade expressed support for a leadership continuity process for the Council that should be considered together with the job description and functions to be fulfilled by both a chair and a vice chair; how management of the GNSO relates to the Council's policy work, and documenting and stabilizing procedures and processes. There should be clarity on the roles when electing someone on an interim basis as chair. Sophia Bekele mentioned the idea of mentoring a new chair with a period of overlap to ensure continuity. Cary Karp commented that there was no crucial reason to institute a position because of an anticipated absence at one meeting. Given the ICANN Board was considering the LSE review it was perhaps judicious to wait for the outcome before making a structural change. Avri Doria supported the idea in all organisations to back up work and commented that the Council workload had been growing steadily. The ICANN bylaws mention a GNSO chair but no mention is made that a vice chair is prohibited. Tom Keller supported the concept in general but added that consideration should be given to when both the chair and the deputy chair were absent and it should not be a foregone conclusion that the vice chair would become the next Council chair. Alistair Dixon also supported the principle but added that the chairs' workload could be shared by other members of council. Bruce Tonkin commented that from a succession planning point of view, documenting procedures was the first step. Bruce Tonkin proposed: - documenting current procedures with a role description of the GNSO chair - drafting the role of deputy chair for Council's consideration - await the ICANN Board considerations in terms of the LSE Review. Item 6: PDP on new gTLDs work - Update draft recommendations to separate policy from implementation guidance. Staff is updating the draft recommendations to separate policy from implementation guidance based on the input received at the Sao Paulo meetings. - 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 as a starting point) - 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. There was general support for the principle of creating two working groups to review the two topics. The proposed structure of the group: - would be open, similar to that of the IDN working group - eligibility requirements for membership would be a member of a GNSO constituency, a member of the Council, a Nominating Committee appointee to Council, an Advisory Committee liaison as a non voting member - possibility of appointing experts to the working group - groups appoint an interim chair and then ask the group what they want to do in the longer term. - there should be a council member as liaison between the council and the working groups. The views of the group could be incorporated into the new gTLD report as guidance. However, this should not be on the critical path for new gTLDs process which should not be dependent on the outcome of the groups. Chuck Gomes proposed 3 principles for the groups: 1. Keep the group to a manageable size. Representation of divergent views rather than constituency or geographical representation. 2. Leadership of the working group is important, not to drive the agenda but to drive the action. 3. New involvement, people with the right knowledge base and skill sets should be encouraged. Minimise the number of councillors in the groups. Bruce Tonkin proposed: Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes draft terms of reference to review the creation of a reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second level for gTLDs. Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker draft terms of reference 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. Council members were invited to submit ideas. Draft terms of reference should be submitted by 11 January, 2007, one week before the Council meeting on 18 January 2007 - membership structure as for the GNSO IDN working group Chuck Gomes urged that the IDN group be spurred on because it was necessary to know if there were additional issues regarding the introduction of new TLDs that need to be added to the recommendation paper in the draft Final Report on the Introduction of New Top Level Generic Names. Item: 7 AOB 7.1 Concept of an Interim meeting Avri Doria proposed holding one interim meeting to cover the policy work on the New gTLD PDPDec05 and the GNSO Policies for contractual conditions, existing gTLDs PDPFeb06 in mid February 2007. The interim face to face meetings have proved to be a productive means of moving the work forward. Tom Keller encouraged more productive use of the physical time during the 3 ICANN meetings. Marilyn Cade supported the idea of the Council committees and task forces having two full working days before the ICANN meetings started, but strongly supported an intercessional meeting. However expressed the hope that over time as the processes evolved, staff support strengthened, the expertise that was planned for in the strategic and operational plan was added and the policy development process was revised and updated, the need for interim meetings would diminish. Alistair Dixon supported an interim meeting, but supported any initiative to make more use of the time available at the ICANN meetings, for example meetings to consider input from the public forums. Chuck Gomes, also in support of an interim meeting, suggested that the constituencies assign one person with adequate communication channels, to represent the constituency. Chuck further emphasised the importance of having different people in different groups so that groups could work productively in parallel 2 or 3 days before ICANN meetings. Bruce Tonkin proposed taking on board the comments and encouraging each committee or working group to have a series of scheduled meetings that fit in with the flow of the ICANN meetings. Bruce Tonkin proposed working with staff to schedule a meeting in mid February with similar funding arrangements as for previous meetings. Economy class air fare for one member of each constituency, plus the chair, hotel accommodation funded for the period of time to work on both PDPDec05 and PDPFeb06, so that the meetings could take place serially. The proposed dates were 15, 16, 17, 18 February 2007 and expressed strong support for Los Angeles as a venue so as to engage the ICANN operational staff. Denise Michel stated that ICANN Could commit to funding the intercessional meeting using the same basic guidelines as for the Amsterdam meeting in August 2006. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 20:15 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 18 January 2007 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from Item 5 Proposal to elect a GNSO Council vice-chair Bruce Tonkin proposed: - documenting procedures with a role description of the GNSO chair - drafting the role of deputy chair for Council's consideration 2. Arising from Item 6: PDP on new gTLDs work 2.1 Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes draft terms of reference to review the creation of a reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second level for gTLDs. 2.2 Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker draft terms of reference 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. 2.3 Council members were invited to submit ideas. 2.4 Draft terms of reference should be submitted by 11 January, 2007, one week before the Council meeting on 18 January 2007 2.5- membership structure as for the GNSO IDN working group Chuck Gomes to urge IDN group to work to meet the Lisbon meeting deadline and additional issues regarding the introduction of new TLDs that need to be added to the recommendation paper in the draft Final Report on the Introduction of New Top Level Generic Names. 3. The Secretariat will survey the Council and task force members to establish a date for the interim meeting and work towards organising the meeting. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed, Revised ICM (.XXX) Registry Agreement
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 7, 2007

Jan. 7, 2007

-----Original Message----- From: Kurt Pritz Sent: Saturday, 6 January 2007 5:42 PM To: Bruce Tonkin; Chris Disspain Cc: John Jeffrey; Paul Twomey; Paul Levins; Doug Brent Subject: Proposed, Revised ICM (.XXX) Registry Agreement Bruce, Chris: For the information of the members of the Supporting Organisations: Please note the posting of the revised, proposed .XXX registry agreement (www.icann.org) Since the ICANN Board voted not to approve the previously proposed .XXX registry agreement, registry sponsor ICM has proposed changes (described in the posting) to address the issues raised by the GAC in their communique and in public comment. ICM and ICANN staff have discussed those issues and potential changes since the last Board vote and this version of the agreement is a result of those discussions. The posting describes the background regarding the ICM application and provides links to past and current pertinent documents. There are also links to descriptions and annotations to the changes made to the proposed agreement. In particular, the recently posted status document at http://www.icann.org/announcements/ announcement-04jan07.htm describes how this step "fits into" the remainder of the sTLD round. ICANN staff can provide additional detail. Please contact John Jeffrey or me with questions, comments, and requests for clarification. Sincerely, Kurt

1 0

ICANN Announces Plans for Conclusion of sTLD Application Process
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-04jan07.htm ICANN Announces Plans for Conclusion of sTLD Application Process ICANN today posted for information a brief review of the current status of ten sTLD applications with the plan for completing actions on remaining open applications. Briefly, of the ten original applications: four sTLDs are delegated in the root zone, two agreements are signed and will be delegated, two applications have been withdrawn and two applications remain open: .post and .xxx. Next steps for each of the open applications are identified in the announcement. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Jan 17 Agenda
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 3, 2007

Jan. 3, 2007

To avoid further confusion, please note that what I was looking at was the January 2006 agenda. No agenda has been posted for January 2007. My apologies for the confusion. Bruce pointed out that the master calendar is still defaulting to 2006 even though 2007 is highlighted at the top. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:51 AM To: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: Jan 17 Agenda I am curious about the following agenda item for the next Council call: Item 6: Next steps on policy issues related to proposed .com agreement E.g - policy for renewal of gtld agreements - funding model policy (possible new policy) - policy for capping fees that a registry can charge - exclusions in agreements from future consensus polices or changes in consensus polices Why is this item on the agenda? First of all, there is not a "proposed .com agreement" but rather an executed .com agreement and I am not sure why the Council would be focusing on that agreement. Second, the subtopics listed are a duplication of most of the Feb06 PDP terms of reference. Chuck

1 0

RE: [council] Jan 17 Agenda
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 3, 2007

Jan. 3, 2007

Hello Chuck, >>> I am curious about the following agenda item for the next Council call: Well it is good to be curious. You were looking at the agenda for the Council meeting of 17 January 2006. You can even find the minutes of that meeting at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-17jan06.shtml The default "http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/" page is currently pointing at the 2006 year. I will arrange for it to point to the 2007 calendar at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/index-2007.html The next Council meeting is scheduled for Thursday 18 Jan 2007. I have not yet prepared a draft agenda for this meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Jan 17 Agenda
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 3, 2007

Jan. 3, 2007

I am curious about the following agenda item for the next Council call: Item 6: Next steps on policy issues related to proposed .com agreement E.g - policy for renewal of gtld agreements - funding model policy (possible new policy) - policy for capping fees that a registry can charge - exclusions in agreements from future consensus polices or changes in consensus polices Why is this item on the agenda? First of all, there is not a "proposed .com agreement" but rather an executed .com agreement and I am not sure why the Council would be focusing on that agreement. Second, the subtopics listed are a duplication of most of the Feb06 PDP terms of reference. Chuck

1 0

2007 GNSO Council Statements of Interest
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 3, 2007

Jan. 3, 2007

Dear All, Please find the 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 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 elect 2007 International Public Relations Association (IPRA), the global professional association for the PR profession. - I am a Freeman of the City of London. ...................................................................... Marilyn Cade - Commercial and Business Users Constituency I am an elected officer of and councilor to the gNSO Council from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC). After an extensive career in an executive position in AT&T, I have founded and manage a consulting business that is primarily focused on Internet Governance and convergence issues involving Internet infrastructure and applications. The primary services provided are advice, advocacy/representation, and management and coordination of policy development, involving diverse groups and competing interests. My business is focused at the nexus of global policy and technological convergence. The topics I address include, but are not limited to: Internet Governance, VoIP, IP-TV, Data Retention, Internet intermediary liability, SPAM, ICANN, and cyber security in IP networks. Specific activities of the business at this time are the external coordination of an independent external dispute process involving eligibility for registration of domain names, representation and advice to both a mid sized and multinational corporation on most of the topics mentioned above. I also advise a global association that is focused on VoIP and IP networking policies. Other activities include acting as chair of the Global Public Policy Committee at ITAA; I frequently represent the association’s official policy positions. I also convene and coordinate various industry events and meetings on a variety of topics, primarily focused on working with industry to advocate policy positions to various governments and multi lateral organizations, including the OECD, ITU, CITEL, and APEC. I speak frequently as an expert at business and professional conferences that are held both in the US and in other countries. In both of these activities, I am sometimes remunerated for participation. Such remuneration does not in any way make such entities clients, nor imply client obligations. The clients of my business are concerned about the security and stability of the Internet, and are strong advocates of ICANN’s role in managing and coordinating the technical aspects of the Internet. I do not believe that I have conflicts of interest with ICANN. From time to time, I may have clients who have a direct policy interest in a particular policy area that is, or could be active at ICANN. At present, two clients that I advise have an interest in reserved names in gTLDs. I have disclosed that to the gNSO Council, and to the Business Constituency and in public statements in the ICANN’s public forum and to the ICANN senior staff. As the clients of my business and their interests change, I will continue to update my statement of interest ............................................................................ ............................................................................ 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. ......................................................................... .......................................................................... 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. .............................................................................

1 0

RE: [council] For your review: NomCom ICANN job description
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 3, 2007

Jan. 3, 2007

Maria, Here is some personal feedback regarding the NomCom job descriptions for ICANN leadership positions. Item 3 under criteria and time commitments applicable to all positions on page 2 says, "Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section". As done in other places in the document, assuming this is not a direct quote from the Bylaws, I would add the phrase "in the aggregate" so that it reads, "Persons who will in the aggregate produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section". As a general comment, I would suggest that required criteria be distinguished from desired criteria. Regarding Additional Considerations for GNSO Council Eligibility Factors on page 7, I think that "a basic understanding of the DNS" should be added as a required qualification. Without a minimal understanding of the DNS, it is near impossible to function effectively on the GNSO Council without a great deal of special prep time. It is my understanding that the NomCom is now treating this as a required criterion, but it would probably be good to capture it in the document. In the same section, the last paragraph says, "The Bylaws do not state a limit on the number of terms GNSO Council members may serve." Depending on what happens with the GNSO Council motion recommending term limits for Council reps, it might be helpful to add a statement noting that a term limits proposal is currently under consideration. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:23 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] For your review: NomCom ICANN job description Dear Council members, Following last week's very productive meeting between the Nominating Committee and GNSO Councillors in Sao Paulo, I'm following up with you on matching the requirements for NomCom Council roles with Councillors' considered views. Attached is the Nominating Committee's 'job description' for NomCom roles. The Nominating Committee leadership would appreciate it if you could review the document to make sure it provides relevant and appropriate guidance on the time commitment and skills required of NomCom appointees to the GNSO Council. Input on the general ICANN description would also be appreciated. For your convenience, I've re-produced the relevant sections below. Your input will help ICANN describe more accurately the skill-sets needed to be a GNSO Councillor, and will also help NomCom to evaluate candidates effectively. Could you please send me any input you may have by 10th January, latest? Either focused comments or redline changes to the draft would be helpful. I will then compile all the input received, reference Glen's research last year on the role of a GNSO Councillor, and send a comprehensive response to the NomCom leadership. I will also send a copy to the GNSO Council. All the best, Maria 1 Position and Roles, Eligibility Factors, and Time Commitments Position: GNSO Council Number of Seats: 1 Start of Term: Conclusion of Annual Meeting 200x End of Term: Conclusion of Annual Meeting 200x The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is a policy-development body responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. The GNSO consists of various Constituencies representing particular groups of stakeholders and a GNSO Council, responsible for managing the policy development and administrative processes of the GNSO. The GNSO Constituencies choose the majority of the Council members; Nominating Committee chooses three Council members with staggered terms. The GNSO also includes a liaison from the ALAC and the Governmental Advisory Committee. Liaison activities from the ASO and ccNSO are under development. GNSO Council Members receive no compensation for their services as GNSO Council Members. ICANN provides administrative and operational support necessary for the GNSO to carry out its responsibilities through the GNSO Secretariat. Most recently ICANN also provides staff support for policy development. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, such support shall not include an obligation for ICANN to fund travel expenses incurred by GNSO participants for travel to any meeting of the GNSO or for any other purpose. However, ICANN has customarily furnished travel expenses for Nominating Committee appointed Council members to ICANN meetings. This custom is planned to continue, but is subject to the Bylaw statement. [Bylaws Article X, Section 4, see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-4] Nominating Committee will use the Criteria for Selection of ICANN Directors (see above) in choosing Selected Nominees for the GNSO Council. GNSO Council members are expected to support the ICANN mission and the implementation of ICANN's Core Values. Nominating Committee will also take into account the following eligibility factors and additional considerations. GNSO Council Eligibility Factors 1. No person who serves on the Nominating Committee in any capacity is eligible for selection by any means to any position on the Board or any other ICANN body having one or more membership positions that the Nominating Committee is responsible for filling, until the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting that coincides with, or is after, the conclusion of that person's service on the Nominating Committee. [Bylaws, Article VII, Section 8, see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VII-8] 2. No more than one officer, director, or employee of any particular corporation or other organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve on the GNSO Council at any given time. [Bylaws, Article X, Section 3(5), see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.5] Additional Considerations For the GNSO Council position, specific experience related to the scope of the GNSO's work with the Domain Name System would be advantageous. The current composition of the GNSO Council is available here http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml The Bylaws do not state a limit on the number of terms GNSO Council members may serve. Time Commitment The basic responsibilities of a GNSO Council member would spend at least 18 hours per month on Council related activities, with those chairing or participating in committees or task forces spending at up to 50 hours a month. Task force members and councillors are not compensated for either time or teleconference costs. 2 About ICANN The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit, private-sector corporation that serves as a major technical coordination body for the Internet. Created in 1998 by a joint initiative of the Internet's business, technical, academic, and user communities, ICANN has been gradually assuming the responsibility for a set of technical functions previously performed under US government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other groups. ICANN is a California public benefit, non-profit corporation. ICANN's mission is "to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are: a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions. <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#I> ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up consensus-based processes. Criteria and time commitments applicable to all positions NomCom will use the Criteria for Selection of ICANN Directors contained in the ICANN Bylaws for all four sets of positions it will fill. These Criteria are: 1. "Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making; 2. 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; 3. Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section; 4. 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; 5. Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and 6. Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English." Given ICANN's Mission and Core Values, the nominees engage in discussions on the technical functions coordinated by ICANN and their impact on the global Internet operation, such as its stability and integrity, or the effect on the users of the Internet. Appointees interact in a diverse environment, involving ICANN Board, ICANN Supporting Organizations and Constituencies, or Advisory Committees, as well as the broad Internet community, by means of a continuous, transparent and informed dialogue, as it corresponds to the ICANN multi stakeholder concept. Appointees will be part of groups which function better in a collegial and cooperative manner but in which individuals must also be prepared for intense debate in which tolerance and reasoning are necessary to accommodate and synthesize conflicting views. Careful consideration of the issues, depth of study of the precedents and environment, and the ability to deal clearly with conflict, including potentially conflict of interest, are predictors of successful contributions to ICANN. NomCom welcomes and encourages participation from all members of the global Internet community. Although Candidates should be able to both work and communicate well in English, there is no requirement that English be the candidate's first language. The time commitments identified below are a basic requirement and the NomCom anticipates that in most cases people will spend more time rather than less. All appointees should expect to spend an additional significant amount of time when joining ICANN on training and learning about the organization, its mission, history and mode of operation. All NomCom appointees are expected to travel and participate in ICANN meetings.

2 1

REMINDER: ICANN launches Public Comments on WHOIS Task Force Report 24 November 2006 to 15 January 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 2, 2007

Jan. 2, 2007

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] REMINDER: Please submit comments. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24nov06.htm ICANN launches Public Comments on WHOIS Task Force Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/prelim-tf-rpt-22nov06.htm The Public Comment Period is from 24 November 2006 to 15 January 2007. Send comments to: whois-services-comments(a)icann.org View comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-services-comments ICANN is launching a public comments period on the Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois Services. This report forms part of the GNSO policy development process (PDP) on Whois which seeks to build consensus on policy issues in the generic top level domain (gTLD) space. The public comment period will last from 24th November, 2006 to 15 January, 2007. After the public comment period, the Whois Task Force will consider the public comments received and prepare a final task force report for submission to the GNSO Council. The Council is expected to deliberate on the final task force report in early 2007, and work to achieve a super-majority vote on a recommendation to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council will then submit a report to the ICANN Board, and the Board will then carry out its own deliberations and voting. This report sets out the key findings that have emerged during the work of the Whois Task Force on the following terms of reference: (3) Determine what data collected should be available for public access in the context of the purpose of Whois. Determine how to access data that is not available for public access. The current elements that must be displayed by a registrar are: - The name of the Registered Name; - The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name; - The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website); - The original creation date of the registration; - The expiration date of the registration; - The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder; - The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and - The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name. (4) Determine how to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate Whois data, and the process for investigating and correcting inaccurate data. Currently a registrar "shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy." (The full terms of reference are available here: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) Public comments are particularly invited on specific proposals in the report: * The Operational Point of Contact (OPoC) proposal – pages 38 to 42 * The Special Circumstances proposal – pages 43 to 49 * The five proposals in the discussion on access to data – pages 24 to 27. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Meeting dates , 15, 16, 17 February 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 2, 2007

Jan. 2, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] The proposed dates for the intersessional meeting are, Thursday 15, Friday 16, and Saturday 17 February 2007. If you are not able to fit in these dates, please give alternate dates. Thank you. Happy Holidays and New Year! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1