February 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

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

March 21, 2007

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

2 3

Regarding working group membership
by Bruce Tonkin March 2, 2007

March 2, 2007

Hello All, Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate. The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency: "4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of: a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent. Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment. 5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action." I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency. To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way. It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation: (1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation. (2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group. I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

10 26

URG: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
by Sophia B March 1, 2007

March 1, 2007

Dear Bruce, The issue of 'including people' in the IDN-WG was again raised at our WG meeting today, alongside the topic of making a mandatory procedure to submit *statement of interest* to support the standardization of WG procedures across the board. I presume it is within the same principle and spirit that we agreed to get people on board of all WGs as 'observers', i.e recent additions to the RN-WG etc.., also as an interim criteria, until perhaps one identifies a suitable constituency on GNSO or at an ICANN SO level. Towards this end, I am still puzzled that the current issue we are having (procedural block) towards the IDN-WG, *seem to be treated as an isolated incident* to be addressed at the GNSO council level,contrary to the RN-WG which was determined by the Chair. Having said that, amongst the person that was vocal today, in giving this issue of procedural block, an urgent attention was also Marilyn Cade, who in the past has been very supportive when I insisted on the formation of WG consising of experts outside GNSO to support t*he policy dialog of IDNs.* Therefore, in the interest of the decision we will be making at the council level and hopefully resolve at the next council meeting, I thought it would be fair to *share with the whole council* the recent letter of complaint we have received, viz *IDN "excluded" group,* and also isolate that the issue of exclusion is NOT to be necessarily recollected from complaints back in Sau Paulo. Finally, I do not claim to represent any constituency, as I am nomcom appontee. However, I do feel the interest of these groups below, that were forthcoming in writing a letter to you and coping some of us, represent only a fraction of the larger 'IDN interest groups' that have been marginilized in the ICANN participation process; which has led me to treat them like a *virtual IDN constituancy group, but one without a voice.* As such, it would be proper to heed the point that we should not be making the same mistake of *marginalizing the same group in our POLICY making process,* as the outcome of the work of the WG would not be considered a legitimate and fair process, if we continue with isolating and/or delaying the process. *I have always believed justice delayed is justice denied.* I wish to also copy this to the IDN-WG for FYI. ** Thank you Bruce for expediting this process. I therefore ask kindly that this issue be put in the agenda in our next council meeting for the council decision. Sophia GNSO Councilor, NomCom --------------------------------------------- On 24/02/07, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> wrote: > > Hello Sophia, > >>> May I inform the above group from Russia and Iran as well as > others to refer to the above > >> for joining the IDN WG? > Lets just wait for a few days to see if there are any changes requested > by Council members. > Regards, > Bruce > -------------------------------------- *TWO LETTERS Of COMPLAINT TO BRUCE TONKIN (Chair GNSo Council):* *Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com>* wrote: Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:52:16 -0800 (PST) From: Sophia Bekele < sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Regtime of Russia participation in the ICANN IDN GNSO policy group. To: Alexei Sozonov < sozon(a)telus.net>, Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au CC: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org, avri(a)acm.org, ki_chango(a)yahoo.com, nhklein(a)gmx.net, ross(a)tucows.com, Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com>, olof.nordling(a)icann.org, denise.michel(a)icann.org, roberto(a)icann.org, mxr(a)yahoo-inc.com, Alistair.Dixon(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz Bruce, I have a suggestion. It looks like the next bomb may come from IRAN;) These are some of the groups and others that I have been dialoging with and, whose concerns I led in the GNSO council in the past. For the record, *I credit Bruce, as Chair of the GNSO Council for being very supportive* by agreeing to put the IDN issues and the policy development process on the agenda and taking it to the board for us, so our voices can be heard. However, it appears that no one followed-up on the procedures of the gatekeeper of the IDN WG and why, since SaoPaulo. It is my opinion that*ICANN's intention was not to exclude, but there seem to be an organizational inefficiencies and lack of awareness *that excluded the critical groups of IDN to be ignored. I fact I was hoping ICANN would have already created the *enabling environment* for supporting the critical groups that its need to formulate the IDN policy process. It may be too strong to suggest that ICANN is *'dysfunctional", in dealing with foreign relations; *in that *it does not understand international dialog like the United Nations,* due to its western-centric experiences and views in the past; however, *the fact that we forged with the IDN WG without* ensuring an inclusive environment on its own has given a *impression that the gate keeper is also the poacher *. As such, for lack of mirroring the US foreign policy dominated by world view of illegitimacy and unfairness, as the 'IDN constituencies' seem to voice, I strongly recommend Bruce, that *we deal with this urgently at the GNSO Council level *, and if we cannot be able at our level to sort it out and the result is pointing-fingers to the inter department (i.e bureaucracy) , it may be best to raise it as an URGENT issue to the board. So you are aware Bruce, according to the IDN WG priority topics, we have chosen new *gtlds and geopolitical topics as the most critical IDN issues.* There are amost 30 people signed up on the WG, where only 7-8 actively participate, and groups that want to participate are not represented. This of course does not reflect on the WG Chair, who is doing a great job of Chairing, but given the complexities of the subject matter, I struggle and hunger for the lack of a rich dialog with people *that have the genuine EXPERTISE to construct a credible debate on IDNs*. I say these because I talk with the people that do, and they are not represented in our WG. The IDN technology was invented in the East and is being debated by the West and the people that have INVENTED the technologies and are ACTIVE in the market are not with us or are not welcomed!. These people are listening to our dialogs and they want to come on board on our next meeting, where the critical topic has ee pointed out.! *We should have a mechanism to bring them on board!* Towards this end, I am *not sure if the final output of this WG will also be considered a legitimate and fair view of the IDN debate for our Lisbon Agena.* ICANN needs to address these issues urgently in its pyramid world, the rest of the world is getting flat! Mr. Chairman, I look for your continued eadership, support and urgent help! Respectfully, Sophia GNSO Council *Alexei Sozonov < sozon(a)telus.net>* wrote: Dear Bruce, We would like to bring back the issue regarding our participation in the ICANN IDN discussions process. Let me briefly remind our case. 1. We've contacted you first time on November 7, 2006 when I send an application to join the ICANN GNSO Business Constituency. 2. In two days we send our application to join GNSO Business Constituency - and it was accepted. We met all the criterias publicly announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial and Business Constituency. 3. I was interviewed by phone later and was told that everything was fine and work was in progress. 4. Then silence... We've send a letter to Gray, BC secretariat saying that: " we've sent an application to join the ICANN GNSO Business Constituency almost 2 months ago (sao paulo event had passed already) - no response..." 5. Then... we've got response at the end of December - "We regret to inform you that according to the above criteria the Credentials Committee has recommended your application does not go forward." - - BUT this criteria DID NOT match pre-established public criteria announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial and Business Constituency in the website. And we are not qualified for any other constituency! It is just not fair and not legitimate - and this is a reason why we're bringing it back. Looks like somebody doesn't want Russians to participate :) This is, despite the fact that our company, Regtime of Russia ( www.regtime.net <http:///> www.webnames.ru <http:///> ) is the largest independent private domain name reseller of ICANN domains in Russia (.com, .ru and .info etc.) and for many years the fastest growing one in Russia (as I mentioned before, since 2001 , we're selling ICANN domains from MelbournIT among others). We've been selling some 17 different gtlds and cctlds, including Verisign's Cyrillic .com names for many years. We've been attending ICANN meetings since 2000. Our company is a joint venture with the Russian Chamber of Commerce which today is headed by Former Prime Minister of Russia - Primakov. With our expertise we have an advisory power for the President's Administration and the Government . We don't know if Eastern Europe at all (total of perhaps 500Million population) exists on this IDN committee - again, it seems that nobody wants us (Russia - Cyrillic speaking 150 Million population) there! How come?... Is it another example of double standards we have??? Dear Bruce , originally we'd been asked (and still thank her for that) by Sophia Bekele why don't we join ICANN GNSO process. Nobody in fair and legitimate world has anticipated any changes in pre-established and announced public criteria which been done during the process. So, here again we state that we want to participate in ICANN GNSO policy group. We do understand that majority of meetings are done already but we'd like to participate al least in the next one Facing all this difficulties we are not surprised the news we read before about how they solved IDN in China. Best Regards, Alexei Sozonov Regtime.net <http://regtime.net/> Office: +1-604-9839233 Cell: +1-604-7739204 - *Shahram Soboutipour < ceo(a)karmania.ir>* wrote: From: "Shahram Soboutipour" < ceo(a)karmania.ir> To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au > CC: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "'Alistair Dixon'" < Alistair.Dixon(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz>, < ross(a)tucows.com>, "'Olof Nordling'" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, "'Denise Michel'" < denise.michel(a)icann.org>, "'Roberto Gaetano'" < roberto(a)icann.org>, "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr(a)yahoo-inc.com>, < avri(a)acm.org>, <ki_chango(a)yahoo.com>, < nhklein(a)gmx.net>, "'Sophia Bekele'" <sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com>, "' GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'" < gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: why Karmania Media was regected from being involved in ICANN commitee? Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:54:57 +0330 Dear Mr. Bruce Tonkin I would like to take this opportunity to remind you on my request in involving ICANN committees and the process happened until I got the unacceptable result of REJECTION: 1. on Nov 7th 2006 I sent my request to you, and you answered me in 1 day asking me to first become a member of a GNSO constituency and you also suggested me to request for BC membership. 2. I filled out the BC membership application form on Nov 9th and sent it to the BC secretariat (Mr. Gary Hill), and also sent you a letter informing you that I have started the process. 3. On the same day the BC secretariat asked me some questions to find out whether I have the criteria or not and I sent them the answers. 4. on Nov 11th I had a phone call at a time I think was midnight in US, asking me several questions about me and those whom I have relation with !! in IDN field etc. which some of them were realy strange since I couldn't find any relation between his questions and the BC criteria on involving with the constituency. He said that there is no problem and the process will take apprx 1-2 weeks. Unfortunately I don't remember his name. I sent a mail to the BC secretariat asking about this strange phone call, but the BC secretariat had NO NEWS about any phone calls!! 5. I had another mail sent to the BC secretariat on Nov 17th asking about the process but no news until I got a mail on Nov 25 th asking me some new questions regarding the type of my business etc which I did answer again. 6. Then every thing was shut-down and I had no news from the BC secretariat although I sent several emails asking about the process. So after a period of 20 DAYS!! I was really upset on the type of the actions done on my request, so I sent a mail asking them to describe me about the delay. 7. After 4 days (Dec 20th 2006) I got a mail describing the reasons I was rejected on this application. It is really a super question for me that if a for-profit agency working on internet technology does not match the BC criteria and also is not a registry or registrar, then how can it join ICANN? And where can my position be? My company is a pioneer in domain name registration area and has a 6 year experience in the field. We do have a market share of more than 90% of south-east of Iran. Thanks to our deep research on the Persian IDNs technology, now Karmania Media has 2 members (of 6) in the Iranian WG of Persian domains under authorization of the Iranian High Council of IT which is the main decision making center of IT in the government. The total number of Persian speaking people is more than 150 million in the world and among this, Iran has the main power (in science, technology and even money) to affect the language between other related countries (Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Armenia etc...). We have an internet population of 21 Million Persian speaking people and the main society who writes Right-to-Left, so how can I be participated on the decisions made in ICANN regarding my language? I think no decision can be good without participation of its beneficiaries, and I think this is the logic of ICANN. So why some men are acting against ICANN policies? Finnaly I take this opportunity in showing my interest in being involved the decisions made by ICANN on IDNs, since I think this can be my logical right as a Persian language speaking man who has worked on the business/technology of Persian IDNs for several years. Regards, *Shahram Soboutipour* *President and CEO* *Karmania Media* Tel: +98 341 2117844,5 Mobile* ***: +98 913 1416626 Fax: +98 341 2117851

2 1

Note time changes for GNSO Council teleconference 15 March 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 26, 2007

Feb. 26, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday 15 March 2007 at 19:00 UTC. Please note the change in times, due to Daylight Saving Time (DST) that starts on Sunday 11 March 2007, 02 h 00 local standard time and ends on Sunday 4 November 2007, 02 h 00 local daylight time for PST and EST. Thus 19:00 UTC on Thursday 15 March will be 12:00 Midday PDT - LA/San Francisco 15:00 EDT New York 19:00 UTC, will be 16:00 Buenos Aires, (No known DST-adjustments for year 2007) 20:00 CET - Brussels, (DST starts on Sunday 25 March 2007, 02 h 00 local standard time) 02:00 Phnom Penh Friday (No known DST-adjustments for year 2007) 03:00 Hong Kong Friday (No known DST-adjustments for year 2007) 6:00 Melbourne, Friday 16 March (Daylight Saving Time DST ends on Sunday 25 mars 2007, 03 h 00 local daylight time DST starts on Sunday 28 octobre 2007, 02 h 00 local standard time) 08:00 Auckland, Friday 16 March (DST ends on Sunday 18 March 2007, 03 h 00 local daylight time) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

CANCELLED: GNSO Council teleconference 1 March 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 26, 2007

Feb. 26, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note that the Council meeting on 1 March 2007 has been cancelled. http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar The next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday 15 March at 11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 6:00 Melbourne Friday 16 March 06:00 Melbourne Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: [council] Summary of LSE constituency input]
by Denise Michel Feb. 23, 2007

Feb. 23, 2007

Following-up on Bruce's request -- would you please send your constituency's edits to the attached chart to the GNSO Secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Friday, 2 March. Please let Glen know if you need more time. Again, this chart will be used to inform the Board Governance Committee and will help form a basis for selecting a few recommendations relating to major structural issues for public discussion in Lisbon. We are scheduling a public forum on Monday in Lisbon to discuss GNSO Improvements. Thanks. Denise Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org denise.michel(a)icann.org -------- Original Message -------- Hello All, I asked the staff to summarise the views of each of the constituencies on the LSE report. Each recommendation is ranked in terms of level of support for the recommendation, and priority for implementing the recommendation. The rankings are high, medium, low. This draft table has been prepared based on the inputs to the public forum. The recommendations have also been broken into the following categories: - participation - rules - structure - tools-support - working procedures Please review and advise ICANN staff of any corrections. The purpose of this document will be to help inform the Board Governance Committee and also form a basis for selecting a few recommendations (such as recommendation 19) for public discussion in Lisbon. The aim is to focus discuss on major structural issues in Lisbon, rather than debate whether the website could be better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

reserve comment
by Robin Gross Feb. 23, 2007

Feb. 23, 2007

I am also still having difficulty following this discussion on the telephone with the audio cutting in and out. I need to reserve the right to comment on the discussion until after I've been able to listen to the recording of the call. Thanks, Robin

1 0

Draft questions for the GAC re. the GAC Principles
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 22, 2007

Feb. 22, 2007

As a side task as part of the RN-WG, the draft GAC Principles for the Introduction of New gTLDs, Marilyn Cade, Mike Palage and I volunteered to develop some draft questions that could be submitted to the GAC as soon as possible before the meetings in Lisbon. Mike was not able to participate because of schedule demands, so the attached list of questions was prepared by Marilyn and I; Mike will comment going forward. Marilyn and I would like to submit these draft questions to the GNSO Council and the Dec05 PDP committee for consideration. We would also like to request that the questions be considered in the New gTLD meetings being held today and tomorrow if possible. Thanks, Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

1 0

Summary of LSE constituency input
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 22, 2007

Feb. 22, 2007

Hello All, I asked the staff to summarise the views of each of the constituencies on the LSE report. Each recommendation is ranked in terms of level of support for the recommendation, and priority for implementing the recommendation. The rankings are high, medium, low. This draft table has been prepared based on the inputs to the public forum. The recommendations have also been broken into the following categories: - participation - rules - structure - tools-support - working procedures Please review and advise ICANN staff of any corrections. The purpose of this document will be to help inform the Board Governance Committee and also form a basis for selecting a few recommendations (such as recommendation 19) for public discussion in Lisbon. The aim is to focus discuss on major structural issues in Lisbon, rather than debate whether the website could be better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy discussion
by Mawaki Chango Feb. 22, 2007

Feb. 22, 2007

Dear colleagues, Bruce, At the Amsterdam meeting, end of August 2006, while we were discussing the selection criteria of the new gTLD policy, our colleague Ken Stubb threw the idea of paying particular attention to the situation of developing countries. It followed a short exchange (notably with Marilyn Cade) and it sounded like a rough consensus that there was something to say or do about this question one way or the other. I tried to keep the ball rolling but the comittee didn't seem to have much time to pay further attention to this, so I posted a few proposals on the council list, calling for further consideration. After Amsterdam, apart from a few questions asked by Chuck Gomez to which I responded, there hasn't been, to my knowledge, further discussion of this issue. However, I note that all traces have disappeared altogether from the draft final report. If there was a discussion and a decision taken by the Council during a call that I missed, please be so kind to indicate to me the date of such call and/or direct me to the records and minutes of that meeting. Assuming such discussion by the Council has never taken place, I wish to submit to your attention the attached draft (hardly two pages, in plain text below) that I have prepared in order to enable us carry out that necessary discussion. Bruce, this is the last opportunity that I have to request you, as the Chair, to accommodate this discussion in the agenda of the upcoming meeting in Marina del Rey. Whatever the reality is, I think we can all face it through honnest and articulated arguments; it would be hard not to agree that shunning cannot be established as a way of forming policy. I am traveling tomorrow Thursday and will arrive at Marina del Rey only at the end of the day. I will attend the meeting from Friday, and I look forward to seeing you all again. Best regards, Mawaki ***** A. Background and Motivation The time has come for ICANN to take an aggressive turn toward a truly global governance of the Internet, ensuring further openness, diversity, and competition through its processes as well as by their outcomes. There clearly is a benefit as well as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the industry looks at, and often relies on, at one level or the other. Just as it accepts the privilege (and benefit) to play such role, ICANN needs to accept to bear the related responsibility (or cost) toward the whole community, and this may have different flavors depending on the specific conditions of the different participant groups or regions, in connection with ICANN's business. For example, we need to realize that there is a huge cost to bear for a developing Non-English speaking country (and there are many such examples,) with regard to the conditions in which ICANN has conducted its business over the past decade. ICANN may well translate its public documents in several languages, it does not, however, process applications, negotiate or sign contracts other than in English and the related legal environment. ICANN takes decisions that impact the possibility of entry in the Internet industry and market. Though the Internet industry and market are global, not every potential player has had the same access to the information about market opportunities because of those linguistic and cultural shortcomings. Economists and Policy Analysts would identify this as a market failure by means of information asymmetry. Indeed, the fact that ICANN's tools and processes for policy-making are in a specific language results in a loss for countries that are not in any position, at start, to be familiar with those tools and processes, neither to their cultural environment. For many, this means, among other things, 8 years or so lagging behind and even locked out of the industry. Those with poor or very limited institutional and economic development, in addition, are even worse off. As a result, it is once again those having less who still get less, falling farther behind, while paying the same market price as every one if not more because of their poor organization (cost of access, international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) Obviously, setting application criteria that are tailored (or based on) the performance of the most developed economies in the world equates to excluding the majority of the areas and people. Finally, in the global Internet community, there are vibrant groups of users technically capable of running a registry and willing to serve their grassroots communities on a voluntary basis. Experience has shown that a non-profit model of registry can work just as fine as the commercial model. For better or worse, the Internet is a global facility, but it shouldn't only be so from the demand and the user side, but also and genuinely from the operation and supply side as well. If we chose not to address the issues raised above, we will be sending a message of exclusion to the face of people who are concerned and eager to participate actively and responsibly on both ends and contribute to the promising expansion of this uniquely global network. B. Proposals for action Thus, I would like to call on the GNSO Council to consider and address the following issues in its PDP, and more generally, ICANN to initiate a phased process starting with the implementation of the current new gTLD policy being developed, in order to progressively achieve the following objectives in the near term: 1. Establish a capacity-building and support mechanism aiming at facilitating effective communication on important and technical Internet governance functions in a way which no longer requires all participants in the conversation to be able to read and write English. 2. Put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from developing economies, and make the financial and the operational threshold for market entry easier for those from less developed economies. 3. The ICANN gTLD application process should be able to receive and process applications in major languages other than English, and the documents needed to apply should be available in the six working languages of the United Nations. Drafted by Mawaki Chango GNSO Council Member February 21, 2007

1 0

NCUC Proposal for changes to New gTLD Draft Report
by Robin Gross Feb. 22, 2007

Feb. 22, 2007

Colleagues, NCUC submits the following proposal for changes to the New gTLD Draft Report: http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/022207.html We look forward to discussing this proposal at the LA meeting this weekend. I won't be in LA in person, unfortunately, but I can participate on Friday via telephone for the discussion on the draft report and NCUC's proposal. Thank you, Robin

1 0

[Fwd: RE: Nomination acceptation]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 21, 2007

Feb. 21, 2007

FYI Sujet: RE: Nomination acceptation Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:50:26 +1100 De: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Hello Glen, I accept the nomination. I will provide a candidate statement soon. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG > [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 10:27 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Subject: Nomination acceptation > > Dear Bruce, > > You have been duly nominated by Cary Karp, a Council member > representing > the gTLDRegistry constituency > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-nominations/msg00000.html > > and you have been duly seconded by Tony Holmes a Council member > representing the Internet Service Providers constituency > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-nominations/msg00001.html > > with a statement from Cary how you fulfill the selection criteria > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-nominations/msg00002.html > > and again seconded by Sophia Bekele a Nominating Committee > appointee to > the GNSO Council > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-nominations/msg00003.html > > Would you please be so kind as to let me know whether you accept your > nomination and please provide a candidate statement for > transmittal to > the Council. > > Thank you very much. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revised Statement of work for working group on protecting the legal rights of others
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 20, 2007

Feb. 20, 2007

Hello All, I haven't seen a revised statement of work, and in the interests of keeping this moving, I attach a fresh draft that I hoe reflects the consensus reached on the last Council call. Currently the group is due to complete its work by the Council meeting in April 2007. I feel this should probably be extended to May 2007 given delays in getting this started. Also we may wish to review how we can appoint members to a working group that would be valuable contributors but may not be eligible to join an existing GNSO constituency. See below for plain text version. I will separately send a marked up version. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Working Group on Mechanisms to protect legal rights of others Background There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an application process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry operators. The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that Registered Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name, nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, infringes the legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is intended for resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party over the registration and use of an Internet domain name. In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required to implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to prevent inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to registrants and third parties affected by registration, and effectiveness. As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some discussion about what additional protections beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. Purpose: The purpose of the working group is to: (1) Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation should identify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The working group should establish definitions of terms used in this document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of the working group. These definitions would only be in the context of the document, and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal contexts. (2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practices approach to providing any additional protections beyond the current registration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated into the material for the application process for new gTLD applicants. The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process (PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area. Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs) B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms are designed to solve and new issues that may have developed C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Submission process and costs of submission 4. Review of applications 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection mechanisms 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Review of applications 4. Allocation E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between preventing the dispute and resolving the dispute 1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues identified in I.B. 2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive 3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate 4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues identified in I.B. F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness 1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any evaluation in light of issues identified in I.B. 2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period 3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B. 4. Evaluate qualitative effectivessin light of issues identified in I.B. G. Impact on registries and registrars 1. Resource allocation a) Development of rights protection mechanism b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism 2. Other considerations H. Impact on other affect parties II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties. A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances 1. Submission 2. Review 3. Challenge C. Level of Satisfaction 1. Prior Rights Owners 2. Registrars 3. Registries 4. Other Categories III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms A. Feasibility Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns of IP owner and holders of other rights B. Implementation Considerations IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms A. Alternatives B. Evaluation Suggested Working Group Membership The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that would provide useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative. * Owners of globally famous brands from different regions. * INTA Internet Committee member * Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist * Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative * Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms * Registries with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms * Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent * Commercial financial institution representative (because of concerns over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and identity theft) * IPC designee * NCUC designee * ISP designee * BC designee * WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing rights protection mechanisms) 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 at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007). 2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting. Timeline: The working group should conclude its work in time to provide a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007

2 1

Revised Statement of work for working group on protecting the legal rights of others - with attachment
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 20, 2007

Feb. 20, 2007

Hello All, I haven't seen a revised statement of work, and in the interests of keeping this moving, I attach a fresh draft that I hope reflects the consensus reached on the last Council call. Currently the group is due to complete its work by the Council meeting in April 2007. I feel this should probably be extended to May 2007 given delays in getting this started. Also we may wish to review how we can appoint members to a working group that would be valuable contributors but may not be eligible to join an existing GNSO constituency. See attached for the marked up version. I have separately sent a plain text version. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

GNSO DRAFT Task Force Report on Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing Registries (PDPFeb06)
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 20, 2007

Feb. 20, 2007

[To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Please find the GNSO DRAFT Task Force Report on Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing Registries (PDPFeb06) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Feb06-TFR-18Feb07.htm on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/ and http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for nominations for ICANN Board seat 13 now open
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 19, 2007

Feb. 19, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council for candidates to stand for for ICANN Board Seat 13 has formally opened today, Monday 19 February 2007 at 00:00 UTC and will run until Monday 12 March 2007 at 17:00 UTC Please refer to http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/gnso-nom-template-20070226.shtml CALL FOR NOMINATIONS - GNSO Council Election for ICANN Board seat 13 February - May 2007 Nomination Template 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

4 4

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

Feb. 19, 2007

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

2 1

evised Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference on 1 February 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 18, 2007

Feb. 18, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 1 February 2007. In Item 3 the Council resolution has been modified to read: The Council approved the formation of the Working Group on Mechanisms to Protect Rights of Others, with a Statement of Work that will be revised to incorporate changes as indicated: a. Document and evaluate practices that are currently in existence or have previously been used in the introduction of new gTLDs for protecting rights. b. Identify the problems that the procedures are intended to solve c. Establish definitions of terms used in the working group to ensure all members have a common understanding d. Make recommendations to the Council regarding ways to protect the rights of others when new gTLDs are introduced e. Add text from the Reserved Names working group (RN-WG) Statement of Work suggested by Chuck Gomes to bring this working group in line with regard to the formation, voting and membership: Please let me know if you would like any other changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ............................................................................ 1 February 2007 Proposed agenda and relevant documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent apologies Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee- absent - apologies 13 Council Members (19 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor, Asia-Pacific, General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Quorum present at 20:10 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 January 2007 Tom Keller moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 January 2007 An abstention was noted from a Council members who was not yet on the Council on 18 January 2007, Mike Rodenbaugh and Tony Holmes who was absent Motion approved. Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 18 January 2007 Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 18 January 2007 were adopted. Item 3: Proposed Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others" - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to consider possible policies and practices that minimize abusive registration activities and other activities that affect the legal rights of others. - Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to draft terms of reference for Consideration Kristina Rosette presented the draft outline for work of the Working Group on Mechanisms to protect rights of others, including preventive Intellectual Property Protection Mechanisms http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03173.html Proposed Purpose: New TLD registries will be responsible for policies and practices that minimize abusive registration activities that affect the legal rights of others. That includes measures to discourage the registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights and minimize abusive registrations. At present, a number of TLD registries, and notably sTLD registries, are required to implement safeguards against allowing unqualified registration and to ensure compliance with ICANN policies designed to protect rights of others. The working group should aim to identify the problems that a preventive rights protection mechanism is intended to solve. This includes infringement of trademarks and bad faith registrations. The working group should examine whether existing mechanisms, such as sunrise periods, have been successful in preventing and addressing abusive registration practices. The working group should also explore alternative ways of solving the identified problems as part of the implementation plan for new TLDs. As part of this work, the working group will analyze existing mechanisms, identify commonalities among such processes, discuss who would be eligible to rely on the preventive protection mechanism for new TLDs, assess the feasibility of drawing from existing mechanisms, and identify and evaluate alternatives to existing processes. Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs) B. Identify both problems that existing preventive mechanisms are designed to solve and new problems that may have developed C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Submission process and costs of submission 4. Review of applications 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection mechanisms 1. Eligibility 2. Rights bases or requirements 3. Review of applications 4. Allocation E. Analyze Quantitative Success – relation between preventing the dispute and resolving the dispute 1. Define quantitative success in light of the problems identified in I.B. 2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive 3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate 4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the problems identified in I.B. F. Analyze Qualitative Success 1. Define qualitative success in light of problems identified in I.B. 2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period 3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a cost-effective manner in light of problems identified in I.B. 4. Evaluate qualitative success in light of problems identified in I.B. G. Impact on registries and registrars 1. Resource allocation a) Development of rights protection mechanism b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism 2. Other considerations H. Impact on other affect parties II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties. A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances 1. Submission 2. Review 3. Challenge C. Level of Satisfaction 1. Prior Rights Owners 2. Registrars 3. Registries 4. Other Categories III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms A. Feasibility Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns of IP owner and holders of other rights B. Implementation Considerations IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms A. Alternatives B. Evaluation Suggested Working Group Membership The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that would provide useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative. • Owners of globally famous brands from different regions. • INTA Internet Committee member • Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist • Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative • Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms • Registries with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms • Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent • Commercial financial institution representative (because of concerns over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and identity theft) • IPC designee • NCUC designee • ISP designee • BC designee • WIPO representative (given WIPO’s expertise in evaluating existing rights protection mechanisms) Timeline: The working group should conclude its work in time to provide a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007 Material [will be provided by ICANN staff]: Chuck Gomes, on behalf of some registries expressed the concern that some of the wording assumed there was a policy in place and how would the policy be implemented, while in fact there was no policy. Tom Keller emphasised that there should be a balance in the views of the working group. There should be a distinction made between task force members and possible sources of information such as EURid, WIPO etc. Kristina Rosette expressed the concern that it was unrealistic to fully examine the issue of whether there should be a policy in the 2 month time frame. Bruce Tonkin clarified that there were 2 separate issues, a policy which required work to be undertaken in a policy development process and a working group looking at whether existing practices should be improved which would become gguidelines which the staff may wish to implement in the RFP and new registry operators may choose to implement those revised practices based on the advice of the working group. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed that: The Council approved the formation of the Working Group on Mechanisms to Protect Rights of Others, with a Statement of Work that will be revised to incorporate changes as indicated: a. Document and evaluate practices that are currently in existence or have previously been used in the introduction of new gTLDs for protecting rights. b. Identify the problems that the procedures are intended to solve c. Establish definitions of terms used in the working group to ensure all members have a common understanding d. Make recommendations to the Council regarding ways to protect the rights of others when new gTLDs are introduced e. Add text from the Reserved Names working group (RN-WG) Statement of Work suggested by Chuck Gomes to bring this working group in line with regard to the formation, voting and membership: 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. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007). 3. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of acclamation. Decision 2: The Council approved the formation of the Working Group on Mechanisms to Protect Rights of Others, with a Statement of Work that will be revised to incorporate changes as indicated: a. Document and evaluate practices that are currently in existence or have previously been used in the introduction of new gTLDs for protecting rights. b. Identify the problems that the procedures are intended to solve c. Establish definitions of terms used in the working group to ensure all members have a common understanding d. Make recommendations to the Council regarding ways to protect the rights of others when new gTLDs are introduced e. Add text from the Reserved Names working group (RN-WG) Statement of Work suggested by Chuck Gomes to bring this working group in line with regard to the formation, voting and membership: 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. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007). 3. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting. Item 4: Process for electing a replacement for ICANN Board seat #13 Alejandro Pisanty's term on the ICANN Board concludes 6 months after the ICANN annual meeting in 2006 (ie 8 June 2007). As recorded in the minutes of 19 Feb 04 (http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml) Alejandro is not eligible for re-election as he has reached the term limit provisions in the ICANN bylaws ("no Director may serve more than three consecutive terms"). The GNSO must inform the Secretary of ICANN of its selection for Board Seat #13 before 8 May 2007. Note also at any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. Rita Rodin was recently selected by the GNSO to fill ICANN Board Seat #14, and is from North America. (From ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI , Article VI, section 8, clauses 1(e) and 3, and Section 2, clause 3) The GNSO Secretariat will propose a timeline/process for consideration. The Secretariat proposed the following timelines and summarised the election procedure: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03184.html Call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council: 3 weeks for Nominations: Opens on Monday 19 February 2007 closes on Monday 12 March 2007 Two weeks to verify and interview candidates Monday 12 March 2007 to Sunday 25 March 2007 Start voting - first round Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007 Start voting - second round Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April Start voting - third round Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April The results will be announced on 24 April, or before if the voting is successfully completed. Proposed dates for GNSO Council meeting to confirm results: Thursday 26 April OR Thursday 3 May in time for the GNSO to give due notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual Meeting 2006, which would be 8 May 2007. In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI 3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. The other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Rita Rodin from North America. Templates will be available for Nomination and Seconding of candidates All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member. Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria. http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm In addition, the candidate should fulfill the additional qualifications in section 4, and international representation in section 5 of the ICANN bylaws should be respected. Only GNSO Council members may nominate, second and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates. All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. As provided in the ICANN bylaws, each GNSO Council member representing either the registrars constituency or the gTLD registries constituency will be entitled to cast two votes in each round, and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote. GNSO Council members who are candidates, will be replaced temporarily on the Council by a member chosen by the constituency affected and that person will have the right to vote. The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance and convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list. The voting will be "convention style" voting which consists of sequential rounds of voting until a single candidate receives a majority of the votes on the GNSO Council. For this reason several rounds of voting have been foreseen. (see: Appendix A Convention Style Voting) There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more. Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot which will be sent will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address. At the scheduled times, the Secretariat will announce the results of each round of balloting mentioning the confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted for Council members to check. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a Council meeting. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Alistair Dixon proposed that the Council endorses the election procedure and the timelines for the ICANN Board seat # 13 as presented to the Council. The motion was passed by an unanimous vote of acclamation Decision 4: Council endorses the proposed election procedure and timelines for the ICANN Board seat # 13. Call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council: 3 weeks for Nominations: Opens on Monday 19 February 2007 closes on Monday 12 March 2007 Two weeks to verify and interview candidates Monday 12 March 2007 to Sunday 25 March 2007 Start voting - first round Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007 Start voting - second round Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April Start voting - third round Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April Announce results 24 April, or before if the voting is successfully completed. Proposed dates for GNSO Council meeting to confirm results: Thursday 26 April OR Thursday 3 May in time for the GNSO to give due notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual Meeting 2006, which would be 8 May 2007. In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI 3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. [Note the other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Rita Rodin] Templates will be available for Nomination and Seconding of candidates All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member. Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm Section 3. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DIRECTORS ICANN Directors shall be: Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making; Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN; Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section; Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet; Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English. Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies. 2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process. 3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8. Section 5. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, the selection of Directors by the Nominating Committee and each Supporting Organization shall comply with all applicable diversity provisions of these Bylaws or of any Memorandum of Understanding referred to in these Bylaws concerning the Supporting Organization. One intent of these diversity provisions is to ensure that at all times each Geographic Region shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. The specific countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the Board, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time (but at least every three years) to determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the Internet. Only GNSO Council members may nominate and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates Accepting Nominations: The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The GNSO Secretariat shall convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list. B. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be "convention style" voting. This consists of sequential rounds of voting until a single candidate receives a majority of the votes on the GNSO Council. (see: Appendix A Convention Style Voting http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm) (There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.) C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE ROUNDS OF CONVENTION STYLE VOTING Start voting - first round Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007 Start voting - second round Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April Start voting - third round Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. GNSO Council members who are candidates, will be replaced temporarily on the Council by a member chosen by the constituency affected and that person will have the right to vote. E. COUNTING OF VOTES: As provided in the ICANN bylaws, http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm, Article X, section 5.2. each GNSO Council member representing either the registrars constituency or the gTLD registries constituency will be entitled to cast two votes in each round, and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote. There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more. F. VOTING Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. 1. Ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address. 2. Ballots should be filled out and returned to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. They should not be copied to any e-mail list. 3. At the scheduled times, the Secretariat will announce the results of each round of balloting by sending a message to the <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mailing list. These announcements will include: a. The number of votes received by each candidate; b. The names of the GNSO Council members from whom ballots were received; and c. The confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted. Item 3(c) will allow each GNSO Council member to double-check that his or her ballot was properly understood, but will not allow others to determine how the member voted. 4. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. G. DISCLOSURE OF THE VOTING The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a Council meeting. Once that occurs, the GNSO Secretariat will prepare and post a full record of all voting, including how each member voted in each round. H. DISCUSSION MAILING LIST DURING ELECTIONS 1. In accordance with a decision as noted in: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-captioning.html http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-minutes.html Public archiving of the GNSO Council list will not be stopped. A separate archive and mailing list will be created for the purpose of managing elections going forward. This list will (a) exclude those Council members who are candidates; but include (b) any liaisons from the ALAC or GAC to the GNSO Council; and (c) the GNSO Secretariat. The list recipients and archiving will be concluded at the end of the process. This list name is elections-gnso@xxxxxxxxx and archives will be posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/elections-gnso/ following the conclusion of the election. 2. Messages posted to the list should be treated as confidential until the end of the elections. The GNSO Secretariat may, however, disclose them to the General Counsel's office to the extent appropriate to obtain advice about how to handle procedural problems that arise during the voting process. The Council list should continue to be used for normal policy development work. Please note that the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel will not be recipients of the special election mailing list during this period, so they should be copied on any particular message that you wish to bring to their attention. Item 5 AOB Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Cary Carp, proposed a vote of thanks to Marilyn Cade, from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency whose term expired, for her outstanding service on the Council. The motion passed with an unanimous vote of acclamation. Decision 5: Council thanked Marilyn Cade, from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency whose term expired, for her outstanding service on the Council. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 22:00 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 1 March 2007 at 19:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from Item 3. 1 a. Form working group on Mechanisms to protect rights of others, including preventive Intellectual Property Protection Mechanisms. 2 b. Refine the Statement of work with Chuck Gomes, Kristina Rosette, Ute Decker and the General Counsel's office to release a new draft. 2 Arising from Item 4. The call for nominations will open on 19 February 2007. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO review - the easy wins
by Philip Sheppard Feb. 18, 2007

Feb. 18, 2007

Fellow Council Members, You may recall I discussed with some of you in Brazil as well as with staff the idea of seeing if there were some of the 24 recommendations in the LSE GNSO review that were ones that would meet with universal agreement on Council. Having reviewed the list again I would now like to make such a proposal. The attached list of 9 of the 24 recommendations are ones that I am guessing we would all categorise as either: - blindingly obvious to do (eg web site improvement) - seem like a good idea (eg annual policy plan) - what we have been asking for for years (eg funded travel). Indeed many of the items are already in ICANN plans (see list). A kick-start with Council endorsement will be helpful. (The list is NOT the full set of recommendations supported by the BC. That list is longer but we believe that the other recommendations need to be either: - discussed more, - considered together, - considered with the Board governance committee, before we can reach a view as Council). However, small steps are always good to show progress so would you be kind enough to indicate if indeed you DO support this short list of the 9 easy wins ? If there are any items you do not support, just say so with a brief explanation, and I will take them off the list: by definition they would not be easy wins! That should leave us with a set of 9 or less of which we can say Council supports immediate implementation. That will mean in most cases staff do work and return to Council with a worked out proposal. I hope you agree this is a good idea to demonstrate Council's enthusiasm for self-improvement. Philip

4 6

Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group (PRO-WG): Updated information
by Liz Williams Feb. 17, 2007

Feb. 17, 2007

Colleagues I wanted to provide you with some updated information on the proposed Tuesday 20 Feb 07h30 (LA time) for the PRO-WG. I also needed to amend an error I made in pointing you to an old version of the proposed statement of work -- my apologies for that. We have received notification that there will be at least seven volunteers (some who are not GNSO constituency members) participating on the call. Please forward this message to your constituency members asking for volunteers. Here is the information you will need to actively participate. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03198.html -- see the approved statement of work from the GNSO Council call's minutes of 1 February 2007 and the confirmation from the GNSO Council Chair that included the proposed amendments from Chuck Gomes (http:// gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03201.html) For ease of reference, I have attached Chuck's suggested edits. I will be convening the first meeting of the group on Tuesday 20 Feb at 7:30 LA, 10:30 am EST, 15:30 UTC, 16:30 CET. At the first meeting we will: 1. appoint a chair of the group 2. review the existing Statement of Work and agree its final form 3. agree the first tranche of activities to be completed between now and the ICANN Lisbon meeting The rules of the Working Group will be similar to those of the IDN-WG (found at http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18nov06.htm) Can I urge you please to consult with your constituencies and propose participants for the group? It is MOST likely that there will be an aggressive schedule of activities to support the work as this work is being conducted in the context of the new TLDs Committee activities and is time critical. This will mean small working groups or individual efforts and, at a minimum, a weekly conference call. Please respond to the GNSO secretariat to indicate that you or your constituency representative wants to be included in a new public mailing list. Kind regards and, of course, any questions, please call or email. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

3 2

Reminder Call for Nominations for ICANN Board seat 13 opens 19 February 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 17, 2007

Feb. 17, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note that the call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council for candidates to stand for for ICANN Board Seat 13 formally opens on Monday 19 February 2007 at 00:00 UTC and will run until Monday 12 March 2007 at 17:00 UTC Please refer to http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/gnso-nom-template-20070226.shtml CALL FOR NOMINATIONS GNSO Council Election for ICANN Board seat 13 February - May 2007 Nomination Template At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. [Note Rita Rodin from North America, elected by the GNSO, currently holds ICANN Board seat 14] All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member before the close of nominations on Monday 12 March at 17:00 UTC. Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm Only GNSO Council members may nominate, second and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates. The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The GNSO Secretariat shall convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list. PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, and you have not sent email to ICANN recently, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to gnso-nominations(a)icann.org. For your Nomination or Second to be valid you MUST respond to the email requesting confirmation, or use the confirming URL that will be provided in the confirming email. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO new TLDs Committee Draft Final Report, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 17, 2007

Feb. 17, 2007

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: gtld-council(a)gnso.icann.org] Please find the GNSO new TLDs Committee Draft Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR13-FEB07.htm published on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ and http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ EXTRACTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary sets out, in a high-level form, the principles, policies and implementation guidelines that the GNSO Council’s Committee on the introduction of new top level domains has developed through the policy development process. INTRODUCTION This is an updated draft Final Report from the GNSO Council’s Committee on the introduction of new top level domains. This version incorporates commentary from the GNSO’s public forum on new top level domains held at the ICANN Sao Paulo meeting[3]. The GNSO Council Chair’s presentation to the Forum can be found at http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/tonkin-gtld-sp-04dec06.pdf The meeting included a further phase in the ongoing consultations with ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy principles for new top level domains[4]. The GAC’s new TLDs representative made a presentation on the GAC’s progress on developing public policy principles for new TLDs (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gac-gnso-newtlds-07dec06.pdf) and a draft of the public policy principles document as discussed (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00307.html) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Protecting Rights of Others Working Group: Meeting Call
by Liz Williams Feb. 15, 2007

Feb. 15, 2007

Colleagues There has been something of a lag on getting the PRO-WG group off the ground. To address that in an efficient manner, I will be convening the first meeting of the group on Tuesday 20 Feb at 7:30 LA, 10:30 am EST, 15:30 UTC, 16:30 CET. Please review the latest draft of the Statement of Work found at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03194.html At the first meeting we will: 1. appoint a chair of the group 2. review the existing Statement of Work and agree its final form 3. agree the first tranche of activities to be completed between now and the ICANN Lisbon meeting The rules of the Working Group will be similar to those of the IDN-WG (found at http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18nov06.htm) Can I urge you please to consult with your constituencies and propose participants for the group? It is MOST likely that there will be an aggressive schedule of activities to support the work as this work is being conducted in the context of the new TLDs Committee activities and is time critical. This will mean small working groups or individual efforts and, at a minimum, a weekly conference call. Please respond to the GNSO secretariat to indicate that you or your constituency representative wants to be included in a new public mailing list. Kind regards and, of course, any questions, please call or email. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

3 4

WG to Protect Rights
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 14, 2007

Feb. 14, 2007

I have not seen any follow-up regarding the Working Group to Protect Rights. My understanding from our special meeting was that we approved the WG with the understanding that the draft SoW would be modified to address concerns communicated in the meeting. What is the status of that? Unfortunately, I think we failed to appoint an interim chair and to request names of volunteers. In that regard, I would like to get the ball rolling by communicating that the following have volunteered from the RyC: Jeff Neuman, David Maher and Edmon Chung. It seems to me that we need to urgently get this WG started; otherwise, there may be unnecessary delays in the Dec05 PDP work. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

3 2

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

Feb. 9, 2007

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

2 1