March 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
by Maria Farrell April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Dear Council members, Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work and working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by resolution of the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March. Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for discussion and adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April. Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the Working Group, and feel free to to put any interested constituency members or outside experts in touch with me for further information. All the best, Maria

9 13

FW: [council] Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new gTLD principles
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 6, 2007

April 6, 2007

Thx Bruce. Would Council support a further question about 2.4? ... Furthermore, we note close similarity among many longstanding ccTLDs (such as .ai/.al, .am/.an, .bi/.bj, .ch/.cn, .gg/.gq, .ni/.nl, .to/.tp and others). Is the GAC aware of any confusion amongst users of these ccTLDs? Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any attachments. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:22 AM To: GNSO Council Cc: gtld-council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new gTLD principles To: Chair, Government Advisory Committee to ICANN From: Chair, Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) of ICANN Cc: GAC Liaison to the GNSO Dear Janis, Thank you very much for transmitting the 28 March 2007 GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs. The GNSO Committee on new gTLDs discussed the principles in some detail on 29 March as part of our ongoing Committee work, and the New gTLDs Committee would like to take advantage of the GAC advice of section 3.2 that states: "ICANN should consult the GAC, as appropriate, regarding any questions pertaining to the interpretation of these principles." The New gTLDs Committee had some further questions about the interpretation of some of the principles. Here are some examples of where we are seeking clarification: Section 2.2 - "ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. " It would help to have some examples of some of these terms - e.g example of "people descriptions", along with examples of relevant governments or public authorities associated with each term. Section 2.4 -- in particular, "to avoid confusion with country code Top Level Domains no two letter gTLDs should be introduced." It would help to have more clarity on what was meant by "letter". Does this refer to two ASCII letters such as ".aa", or does it also incorporate IDN names such as ".xn--mxaa" in the DNS (which could be displayed as ".αα" via software running on a user's computer)? 2.12 ICANN should continue to ensure that registrants and registrars in new gTLDs have access to an independent appeals process in relation to registry decisions related to pricing changes, renewal procedures, service levels, or the unilateral and significant change of contract conditions. The words above say "should continue". Presently we are not aware of an existing independent appeals process for "registry decisions" for gTLDs. It would help to have some clarity on the intent of this clause. The New gTLD Committee believes that it would be helpful to have a teleconference between the New gTLD Committee and members of the GAC involved in drafting the principles to allow the Committee to gain more clarity. Please let me know if the GAC would support holding such a teleconference, or whether the GAC would suggest other mechanisms for seeking further interpretation of the principles. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 7

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Wednesday 28 March 2007, Lisbon, Portugal
by Bruce Tonkin April 5, 2007

April 5, 2007

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Wednesday 28 March 2007, Lisbon, Portugal Item 0: Roll call of Council members present physically or available via teleconference Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of Minutes - 15 March 2007 Item 3: actions arising from input in the GNSO public forum Item 4: WHOIS PDP - summarise outcome of meeting with the GAC - next steps - consider forming an implementation working group to resolve implementation details of concern to some constituencies around OPoC Item 5: Reserved names Working Group - identify what to include in new gTLDs report, and what further work to initiate Item 6: IDN working group - identify what material to include in new gTLDs report, and what will require further work Item 7: new gTLDs PDP - identify timeline for completion of work Item 8: any other business

3 6

Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
by Ross Rader March 31, 2007

March 31, 2007

There are no voting positions on this working group as far as I can tell from the draft charter. On 31-Mar-07, at 3:35 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > they're once again relegated to the status of non-voting > observers. Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen

1 0

FW: [council] Draft Motion for Extension of RN-WG
by Mike Rodenbaugh March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

Thx Chuck. I have an issue with considering 'registry-specific names' and 'other reserved names' as 'out of scope'. I think that, at least, the WG should attempt to reach consensus on general principles such as: "to the extent the registry will reserve names for itself or for later disposition after initial launch, the registry must commit in its application to a general description of the types of names that will be reserved, and a general description of how and when such domains will be released. During the post-contract, pre-launch phase, the registry shall commit to a specific plan for disposition of such names within five years." Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any attachments. _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:32 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Draft Motion for Extension of RN-WG Here's some possible language that could be incorporated into a motion to extend the RN-WG. 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."

2 1

Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new gTLD principles
by Bruce Tonkin March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

To: Chair, Government Advisory Committee to ICANN From: Chair, Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) of ICANN Cc: GAC Liaison to the GNSO Dear Janis, Thank you very much for transmitting the 28 March 2007 GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs. The GNSO Committee on new gTLDs discussed the principles in some detail on 29 March as part of our ongoing Committee work, and the New gTLDs Committee would like to take advantage of the GAC advice of section 3.2 that states: "ICANN should consult the GAC, as appropriate, regarding any questions pertaining to the interpretation of these principles." The New gTLDs Committee had some further questions about the interpretation of some of the principles. Here are some examples of where we are seeking clarification: Section 2.2 - "ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. " It would help to have some examples of some of these terms - e.g example of "people descriptions", along with examples of relevant governments or public authorities associated with each term. Section 2.4 -- in particular, "to avoid confusion with country code Top Level Domains no two letter gTLDs should be introduced." It would help to have more clarity on what was meant by "letter". Does this refer to two ASCII letters such as ".aa", or does it also incorporate IDN names such as ".xn--mxaa" in the DNS (which could be displayed as ".αα" via software running on a user's computer)? 2.12 ICANN should continue to ensure that registrants and registrars in new gTLDs have access to an independent appeals process in relation to registry decisions related to pricing changes, renewal procedures, service levels, or the unilateral and significant change of contract conditions. The words above say "should continue". Presently we are not aware of an existing independent appeals process for "registry decisions" for gTLDs. It would help to have some clarity on the intent of this clause. The New gTLD Committee believes that it would be helpful to have a teleconference between the New gTLD Committee and members of the GAC involved in drafting the principles to allow the Committee to gain more clarity. Please let me know if the GAC would support holding such a teleconference, or whether the GAC would suggest other mechanisms for seeking further interpretation of the principles. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft Motion for Extension of RN-WG
by Gomes, Chuck March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Here's some possible language that could be incorporated into a motion to extend the RN-WG. 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

Some criteria for the nominating committee to consider candidates for the GNSO Council
by Bruce Tonkin March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Hello All, Below is some criteria developed during the joint GNSO Council and Nominating Committee lunch. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Criteria * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder group to reach consensus * basic of knowledge of DNS systems and industry structure - registries, registrars * individual expertise that is not otherwise available on the Council Possible expertise of interest to the GNSO: - setting up of dispute and objection processes - enforcement - application software development - e.g multi-lingual support - online consensus building technologies - wiki's etc - competition law and economists capable of market analysis - statistics and survey analysis - project management and document control processes

1 0

Past candidates appointed by the nominating committee
by Bruce Tonkin March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Hello All, Here is a list of people appointed to the various groups in ICANN by the Nominating Committee. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Poowerpoint presented at lunch today by Adam Peake of the nominating committee
by Bruce Tonkin March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Hello All, Please see attached some basic information on the nominating committee process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0