November 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Steps Taken for Multilingual Internet
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-13nov07.htm Steps Taken for Multilingual Internet ITU, UNESCO and ICANN collaborate at Internet Governance Forum 13 November 2007 RIO DE JANEIRO: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the International Telecommunication Union, and UNESCO will collaborate on global efforts to forge universal standards towards building a multilingual cyberspace. The three agencies organized a workshop on this subject today during the second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) taking place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 12 to 15 November 2007. The Internet is a key factor in developing a more inclusive and development-oriented information society, which stresses plurality and diversity instead of global uniformity. Multilingualism is a key concept to ensure cultural diversity and participation for all linguistic groups in cyberspace. There is growing concern that hundreds of local languages may be sidestepped, albeit unintentionally in the radical expansion of Internet communication and information. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) recognized the importance attached to linguistic diversity and local content, with UNESCO given the responsibility to coordinate implementation of the Summit Action Line. "The discussions at this multilingualism workshop - combined with our current evaluation of Internationalized Domain Names - are going to help ICANN keep moving toward full implementation of Internationalized Domain Names," said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "ICANN is in the midst of the largest ever evaluation of IDNs at the top level." Thanks to ICANN's evaluation of Internationalized Domain Names, Internet users around the globe can now access wiki pages with the domain name "example.test" in the 11 test languages - Arabic, Persian, Chinese (simplified and traditional), Russian, Hindi, Greek, Korean, Yiddish, Japanese and Tamil. The wikis will allow Internet users to establish their own sub pages with their own names in their own language; one suggestion is: example.test/yourname. Domain Names, which are currently mainly limited to characters from the Latin or Roman scripts, are seen as an important element in enabling the multilingualization of the Internet, reflecting the diverse and growing language needs of all users. "ITU is fully committed to assist its membership in promoting the diversity of language scripts for domain names," said Dr Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of ITU. "This workshop represents an important opportunity to strengthen the need for cooperation with relevant organizations, such as UNESCO, WIPO and ICANN among others to ensure Internet use and advancement across language barriers." The Plenipotentiary Conference of ITU, which took place in Antalya, Turkey in November 2006, recognized the need to make Internet content available in non-Latin based scripts. Internet users are more comfortable reading or browsing through texts in their own language and a multilingual Internet is essential to make it more widely accessible. The WSIS outcomes also focused on the commitment to work towards multilingualization of the Internet as part of a multilateral, transparent and democratic process involving governments and all stakeholders. UNESCO, joined by both ITU and ICANN, seeks to convene all major stakeholders around the world towards an agreement on universal standards regarding language issues in cyberspace. Such issues are far broader than the single issue of IDNs as they extend to standards for fonts and character sets, text encoding, language implementations within major computer operating systems, content development tools, automatic translation software, and search engines across languages. Ultimately, equitable access to information can be only achieved if we resolve language barriers at the same time we build communications infrastructures and capacity building programs. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference proposed draft agenda 20 November 2007 at 21:00UTC
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

Dear Council Members, Please find the proposed GNSO Council Agenda for the teleconference on 20 November 2007. Please note the changed time of the meeting. The meeting times will change for every meeting from now till the Delhi meetings in February so that the pain of unfriendly times is distributed. Coordinated Universal Time UTC 21:00 - see below for local times (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, 08:00 Melbourne, next day) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members. Agenda approval Item 0: Roll call of Council members Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of the draft GNSO Council minutes of 11 October 2007 - (agenda, Items 0 -2 15 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04014.html Item 3: Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) vote (15) Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) developed by staff: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf Motion that failed in LA Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;" and Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is willing to lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure, Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested informed and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider and propose as appropriate revisions to the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth in the Staff Report, and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the Council with its recommendations not later than 15 February 2008. Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP vote (15) Meeting transcript from L.A.: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcripts-gnso-council-transfers27oct07.pdf Issues Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/issues-report-transfer-denial-clarif… In the second URL above, especially note Section 2.2.e, staff recommendation for a PDP and Section 5, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE POLICY OUTCOMES Item 5: IDN ccTLD WG Discussion (15) Draft GNSO comments revised in L.A: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-gac-issues-paper-idn-ccs-draft-gnso-comm… Item 6: GNSO response to BGC WG on GNSO Improvements (30) Draft Report of the BGC on GNSO Improvements http://icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-15oct07.… Item 7: Establishment of a general GNSO discussion list, similar to the ones for NANOG and IETF. (15) Item 8: Letter on behalf of Hagen Hultzsch re job description for open GNSO Council position in 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04100.html Item 9: Pending Work Item Review (10) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pendirevisng-action-list.pdf (Link to Pending Work Item Review is permanently displayed on page: http://gnso.icann.org/ below 'Master Calendar') Item 10: AOB (13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC, 21:00 London, 22:00 Brussels, 08:00 Melbourne, next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 21:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8-0DST 13:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 19:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 21:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 22:00 Amman, Jordan UTC+2+0DST 23:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 04:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 05:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 05:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+1DST 08:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN CEO Speaks at Opening of Internet Governance Forum
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-12nov07.htm ICANN CEO Speaks at Opening of Internet Governance Forum Dr Paul Twomey says entire Internet community benefits from co-operation, co-ordination 12 November 2007 RIO DE JANEIRO : Dr Paul Twomey, President and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, took part in today's opening session of the 2007 Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: "The Internet Governance Forum brings together a diverse group of individuals in the aim of sharing knowledge and experience over and about this one global interoperable Internet," Dr Twomey said. Dr Twomey said the Internet community should be proud of its global accomplishments of over one billion individuals online, trillions of dollars of business annually over a network of millions of computers communicating with one another across the globe, and the ability for individuals to communicate and interact with others unprecedented in human history. "But with this extraordinary change also comes challenges. And that is what this Forum is about — bringing together people to talk, review, discuss and hopefully solve some of the issues that are before us," Dr Twomey added. "The agenda of this meeting captures them. Most important of course is access. Our discussions at the IGF will mean nothing to someone not able to get onto the network in the first place. "ICANN like other Internet organizations is very committed to its multistakeholder and open way of doing business where any one from governments, the technical community, business and civil society can participate. We are very pleased that the IGF is also following this model," Dr Twomey added. "ICANN has a participator community of up to 20,000 people involved in our decision making process. I would like to issue a personal invitation to all the people here today to join that community and help its development and evolution." Dr Twomey said he also looks forward to the discussion on the other IGF agenda themes of diversity, openness, security, and for this year's IGF, critical Internet resources. "The Internet is the medium, the issues themselves represent many areas at many layers. We look forward to the discussions over the next days and the exchange of views where further cooperation, coordination, and collaboration can contribute to the Internet's increasing use for the billions of users not yet online," Dr Twomey said. Read on -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Implementation of Registrar Data Escrow Program
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 11 Nov '07

11 Nov '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Implementation of Registrar Data Escrow Program http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-09nov07.htm ICANN has concluded negotiations and entered into an agreement with Iron Mountain Intellectual Property Management, Inc. to provide escrow services under ICANN's Registrar Data Escrow (RDE) program. ICANN selected Iron Mountain through a competitive Request for Proposals process concluded earlier this year. Under the data escrow provision of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), all ICANN-accredited registrars must regularly deposit a backup copy of their gTLD registration data with ICANN through ICANN's arrangement with Iron Mountain or they may elect to use a Third Party Provider of RDE services that has been approved by ICANN. The data held in escrow may be released to ICANN upon termination of a registrar's accreditation agreement or expiration of the accreditation agreement without renewal to facilitate transfer of registrations from the failed registrar to another registrar. ICANN plans to have all accredited registrars enrolled in the RDE program within the next six months. "The vast majority of ICANN-accredited registrars offer high levels of service and integrity," said Dr. Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "But as we have seen, there is the risk that a poorly performing registrar can hurt registrants significantly. ICANN's Registrar Data Escrow program provides an important additional layer of protection for registrants." ICANN and Iron Mountain will begin enrolling registrars in the RDE program immediately. Registrars who elect to use Iron Mountain's escrow service will be required to enter into a standardized agreement with ICANN and Iron Mountain [PDF, 49K]. Escrow agents who wish to apply for approval as a Third Party Provider (TPP) should review ICANN's TPP Approval Criteria [PDF, 21K] and TPP Approval Process Diagram [PDF, 121K], and submit a completed TPP Application [PDF, 21K, MS Word, 61K] to ICANN. All registrars and escrow agents must comply with ICANN's RDE Specifications [PDF, 33K]. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN extending comment period on single-letter and single-digit domain names until 15 December 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 09 Nov '07

09 Nov '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16oct07.htm ICANN Establishes Forum on Allocation Methods for Single-Letter and Single-Digit Domain Names 16 October 2007 (Comment period extended 7 November 2007). As recommended by the GNSO Council, ICANN is commencing a forum on potential allocation methods for single-letter and single-digit domain names at the second level in gTLD registries. Examples include a.com, i.info, 4.mobi, 8.org. Since revenue will result from this allocation, comments regarding the potential uses for this revenue are also requested. ICANN intends to synthesize responses to the forum and present proposed methods for allocation of single-letter and single-digit domain names at the second level for community consideration. To be considered by ICANN, ideas on potential allocation methods should be submitted to allocationmethods(a)icann.org. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/. **ICANN is extending the comment period until 23:59 UTC 15 December 2007 on the forum for potential allocation methods for single-letter and single-digit domain names at the second level in gTLD registries. There has been interest in providing additional time so that members of the Internet community that have not previously commented on ICANN topics may do so. 17 comments have been provided to date. The GNSO Council asked ICANN to initiate a forum on this issue after considering a report of the Council's Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG), which recommended that “single letters and digits be released at the second level in future gTLDs, and that those currently reserved in existing gTLDs should be released. This release should be contingent upon the use of appropriate allocation frameworks. More work may be needed. In future gTLDs we recommend that single letters and single digits be available at the second (and third level if applicable).” The GNSO is one of ICANN's primary stakeholder-populated policy making bodies. The recommendations of the RN-WG can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.pdf [PDF, 713K]. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Letter on behalf of Hagen Hultzsch re job description for open GNSO Council position in 2008
by Avri Doria 08 Nov '07

08 Nov '07

Hi, Another thing we need to put on our agenda for the next meeting. Perhaps we can discuss this on the list over he next week. I can then synthesise the comments into a draft we then discuss on the 20th. thanks a. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> > Date: onsdag 7 nov 2007 22.23.58 GMT-02:00 > To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)acm.org> > Cc: "'Hultzsch'" <Hultzsch(a)telekom.de> > Subject: RE: Letter on behalf of Hagen Hultzsch re job description > for open GNSO Council position in 2008 > > Dear Avri, > > > > On behalf of Hagen Hultzsch, I am sending you a draft “job > description” for the GNSO Council position to be selected by the > 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee. The Nom Com intends to use job > descriptions for the open positions (ALAC, Board, ccNSO Council, > GNSO Council) during the selection process for 2008. It is my > understanding that Hagen has already advised you that this draft > document would be sent following the LA meeting. > > > > Please let Hagen or myself know if you have any questions. In order > to assist the Nom Com, could you provide feedback or confirmation > in two weeks (by 21 November 2007)? > > > > Thanks for you assistance. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Patrick > > > > GNSO Council > > Position: GNSO Council > > Number of Seats: 1 > Start of Term: Conclusion of Annual Meeting 2008 > End of Term: Conclusion of Annual Meeting 2010 > > 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 > defined 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 > > 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, seehttp://www.icann.org/ > general/bylaws.htm#VII-8] > 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), seehttp://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, although it is possible that term limites may be > considered in future. > > Time Commitment > > The basic responsibilities of a GNSO Council member would spend at > least 20 hours per month on Council related activities, with those > chairing or participating in committees or task forces spending at > up to 60 hours a month. Task force members and councilors are not > compensated for either time or teleconference costs. > > Additional GNSO criteria: > > > > During the Nom Com meeting with GNSO Council at the ICANN meeting > in Lisbon, the Council provided the following outline of qualities > the NomCom should consider in GNSO candidates: > > > > Criteria: > > * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder group to reach consensus > > * basic of knowledge of DNS systems and industry structure - > registries, registrars > > * individual expertise that is not otherwise available on the Council > > > > Possible expertise of interest to the GNSO: > > - setting up of dispute and objection processes > > - enforcement > > - application software development - e.g multi-lingual support > > - online consensus building technologies - wiki's etc > > - competition law and economists capable of market analysis > > - statistics and survey analysis > > - project management and document control processes > > > > (March 29, Lisbon > > <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03352.html>) > > > > The Nom Com had some discussion about what "basic of knowledge of > DNS" meant and it was something along the lines of "do you know > what happens in the DNS when you send an email, or access a > webpage". This is not a precise technical description, but an > understanding of concepts of resolution. > > > > Patrick L. Jones > > Registry Liaison Manager & > > Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > Tel: +1 310 301 3861 > > Fax: +1 310 823 8649 > > patrick.jones(a)icann.org > > > >

3 4

New NCUC representative on the Council
by Mawaki Chango 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Councilors and Staff, It is my pleasure to announce that Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, a law professor from Rio, Brazil, has been elected as NCUC representative to replace me on the Council. I realize this is hardly an introduction, but with your loaded agenda ahead, I'm sure you will quickly have the opportunity to acquaint with him, first through his statement of interest as I presume, or certainly during your meetings. I am hereby handing over to Carlos - Uma vez mais, seja bem-vindo nessa galera, amigo, e boa sorte! All the best, Mawaki

1 0

Councilor statements on Whois for Board Report
by liz.gasster 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

All, We would very much like to include all councilor and constituency statements in the WHOIS Board Report, which is being finalized today. To-date I have received statements from the NCUC, IPC, Registries, Registrars and from A. Doria. All will be included. I still need BC and ISPs as well as any statements individual councilors would like included. Please forward to me ASAP today. Thanks, Liz 310-985-5710

1 0

Statement of vote on WHOIS
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

For the record I was flying at the moment of the vote and unable to vote. Given this was a motion notified well in advance it strengthens the need to introduce proxy voting. Philip

1 0

Statement of vote on WHOIS by Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua
by Ute Decker 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Please find below the statement on the vote on WHOIS at the Council meeting in LA for Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette and Cyril Chua. Statement of Intellectual Property Constituency representatives (for Board Report re Whois votes 31 October 2007) Section 12 of the GNSO Policy Development Process (Annex A to ICANN By-Laws) provides, "A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the Council's recommendation." Since the vote to defeat Motion #1 regarding Whois, and to approve Motion #2, both qualify as Supermajority Votes under the PDP ("a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members present"), it does not appear that any further material is needed for the Board Report on these Motions. Furthermore, the recommendation appearing in Motion #3 was never the subject of a Policy Development Process, and thus a Board Report does not appear to be required. However, because there was no Supermajority Vote position on Motion #3, the IPC representatives to the Council provide the following information on the issues identified in Section 11 of the PDP. We have provided this information with regard to all three motions, in case the staff takes the view that it is appropriate to make a Board Report on Motion #3, and to include within it the outcomes on issues decided by Supermajority Votes, but without conceding that either view is correct. Motion #1: IPC opposed this motion. The reasons for this opposition, as well as our views on the impact of the proposal on our constituency (item 11(b) of the PDP), are set out in the Constituency Statement submitted on October 4, 2007 (see pages 26-28 of the Staff Overview document, http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-staff-overview-of-whois11oct07.pdf): "In its January 2007 statement, the IPC identified several critical questions about the OPOC proposal, in particular the roles and responsibilities of the new Operational Point of Contact. It also stated at that time: "Since the two proposals before the Task Force [OPOC and Special Circumstances] each call for the elimination of public access to some data that is now publicly available through the Whois service, the question of how to provide an alternative mechanism through which those with a specific legitimate need can obtain this data is crucial. As the representative of a group of stakeholders who clearly have such a legitimate need, the IPC believes that neither of these proposals (nor indeed any proposal that shares the characteristic of removing any Whois data from public access) should be adopted unless or until an efficient, reliable and speedy alternative mechanism for such access is ready to be implemented." "The Working Group formed by the GNSO Council after the Lisbon ICANN meeting was charged with addressing questions which paralleled some of the concerns raised by the IPC. IPC representatives participated actively in the Working Group. In our view, some progress was made in defining the roles and responsibilities of the OPOC. Much less progress was made on the crucial question of developing the alternative access mechanism that is needed. In neither area was general agreement achieved on answers to the questions posed by the GNSO Council. "If Motion #1 were adopted, IPC members would be adversely affected. Interposing an "operational point of contact" between the Whois requester and the registrant will generally make the process of contacting the registrant slower, more difficult, more opaque and less reliable than it is today. The benefits for all parties of quick contact and prompt resolution of a wide range of disputes (including but not limited to those involving questions of infringement of intellectual property rights) will be largely forfeited; more cases will have to be resolved through more formal channels such as UDRP or litigation; and expense and delay will increase for all concerned. A particular concern is that no alternative mechanism exists (or is even proposed) for obtaining more complete contact information on registrants in case of a legitimate need which may be extremely pressing." Motion #2: IPC representatives supported this motion. The reasons for this support, and the anticipated impact on the constituency, were spelled out in the October 4 constituency statement referenced above. Although a number of wording changes were made to Motion #2 before it was voted upon, mainly as the result of amendments proposed by Ross Rader, Chuck Gomes and Robin Gross, and accepted by Kristina Rosette as the author of Motion #2, we do not believe that its basic thrust was changed, and thus the following statements in the Constituency Statement remain relevant: "If Motion #2 were adopted, the impact on IPC members would probably be positive. In the long run, development of a stronger factual basis for any policy changes regarding Whois is likely to result in better decision-making. At a minimum, the practical impacts of different policy alternatives would be better understood. "IPC supports Motion #2. We agree that there is not 'an adequate basis for any implementation of the OPOC proposal,' and that future policymaking in this area would benefit greatly from 'a comprehensive, objective study ... of key factual issues regarding the Whois system, which has never been undertaken.' The completion of such a study would provide a solid basis for the next steps in Whois policy development." Motion #3: IPC representatives opposed this motion, primarily for the reasons stated, and because of the impact anticipated, in the October 4 constituency statement: "If Motion #3 were adopted, the impact on IPC members would be decidedly negative. Their ability to contact registrants (for the many legitimate reasons spelled out in many previous submissions) would become completely unpredictable, and could vary wildly depending on the registry or registrar involved. It can be envisioned that registries or registrars would exercise their unrestricted control over registrant contact information by demanding extortionate prices for this data and imposing other onerous terms and conditions. There is also a risk that expensive and protracted litigation would ensue among registrants, registrars, registries, and requesters (including IPC members) over the various inconsistent policies that would be put into place. The likelihood of direct intervention by one or more governments into the process would increase significantly, in the absence of consistent self-regulatory practices. In their role as domain name registrants, IPC members would also face greater uncertainty about how their personal data would be handled by registrars or registries. IPC opposes Motion #3. We disagree with the statement that the current Whois policies "cannot be reasonably implemented or enforced," and note that ICANN has repeatedly committed to do just that. We oppose the "sunsetting" of the Whois contractual provisions that have been in place, with minimal modifications, throughout nearly all of ICANN's history. We believe that the current system can and should be improved, including through policy changes that are based on a strong factual record about the uses and abuses of Whois data. To simply discard the current system, and let each ICANN registrar or registry follow its own wishes about access to, trafficking in, or accuracy of registrant contact data, would risk serious damage to the stability and security of the domain name system, and would not be in the best interests of any current participant in that system, including but not limited to the constituency IPC represents." Ute Decker | Director - Interoperability & Standards - Microsoft EMEA | +447967262245| 100 Victoria St, London SW1E 5JL, UK

1 0