January 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

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