March 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Statement of Interest from Bruce Tonkin
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

Dear All, With the GNSO elections for Board seat #13 coming up please find Bruce Tonkin's statement of interest http://gnso.icann.org/elections/tonkin-statement-26mar07.htm on page: http://gnso.icann.org/elections/ 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:Translations of Documents Under Review in Lisbon Available
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

Dear All: For your information translations of the key parts of a number of major documents before the meetings in Lisbon are available in French, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese as described below. The current URL for these is: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents. This URL is publicly accessible. GNSO /POLICY RELATED: 1. A Description of the GNSO, the PDP Process, and diagrams of the process 2. PDP 06: Terms of Reference 3. Draft Final Report of the GNSO Whois Task Force 4. Draft Final Report of the GNSO New TLDs Committee 5. LSE Review of the GNSO INFORMATION OF GENERAL INTEREST: 1. How to Get Help When You Have A Problem With Your Registrar RULES OF PROCEDURE: The following documents are accessible from: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure 1. Rules of Procedure for Meetings (drawn from the UN ECOSOC Rules with the ability to invoke UNGA Rules). I hope that the various ICANN communities find these as useful as the At-Large community in helping to foster a wider debate about the policy issues under review at the present. Note that the front page of each document clearly states that the english text is the only authentic text in all cases, and that wherever a difference or perceived difference exists between the translated text and the original english version, the english version prevails. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Lisbon GNSO Council and committee meeting MP3 recordings and transcriptions
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: pdp-pcceg-feb06[at]gnso.icann.org; gnso-rn-wg[at]icann.org] [To: gnso-pro-wg[at]icann.org] Please find the GNSO Council and committees MP3 recordings and transcriptions for Saturday 24 March in Lisbon at: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar 24 March New gTLD, Reserved Names working group, Dispute Procedures discussion Lisbon meetings 9 :00 – 12 :00 UTC http://gnso-audio.icann.org/gtld-20070324-1.mp3 http://gnso-audio.icann.org/gTLD20070324-2.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-new-gtlds-24mar07.html 24 March PDP Feb06 task Force Transcript http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-pdpfeb06-24mar07.html Mp3 http://gnso-audio.icann.org/gTLD20070324-2.mp3 These are also posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/ As the remaining transcriptions and recordings become available they will be published. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

CORRECTION GNSO /BOARD dinner in Agua Marina Sunday 25 March 2007]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 25 Mar '07

25 Mar '07

Dear Council Members, The GNSO Council/ ICANN Board dinner tonight, Sunday 25 March, at 19:15 will be in AGUA MARINA. Thank you, Kind reagrds, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO /BOARD dinner Sunday 25 March 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 25 Mar '07

25 Mar '07

Dear Council Members, The topic of discussion for the GNSO/ICANN Board dinner will be GNSO Improvements. Dinner will be tonight, Sunday 25 March, at 19:15 will be in Jade 1 & 2 on level 1. There will be a suggested seating plan with name cards. Please appoint a rapporteur for each table and make a bullet point summary of the discussion so that these can be collected, combined and provided as input to the Board Governance Committee. Included below are links to the Monday ICANN public Forum on GNSO Improvements. http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-public2-26mar07.htm The forum announcement includes specific topics for which the BGC is seeking input. * Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19. Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society; LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to establish a pool of available external expertise. o Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process, and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger constituencies — is this the right answer? o Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP? o What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? * Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17. Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.' o Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council? o There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural elements in GNSO "rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions for how the PDP should be revised? o What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? * Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21. Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16 members suggested). o How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board. o Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development? o What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? Links * Independent review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) prepared by the London School of Economics (LSE) http://www.icann.org/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf * Archive of public comments on the independent GNSO review http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements/ * ICANN Board Governance Committee http://www.icann.org/committees/board-governance/ * Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-public2-26mar07.htm -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IPC Statement - Critical OPoC Implementation Questions and Issues
by Rosette, Kristina 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Further to the request made during the 15 March GNSO Council meeting and on behalf of the IPC, please find set forth below a statement identifying critical OPoC implementation questions and issues. Kristina Rosette -*- The OPoC proposal leaves unanswered at least six critical questions: (a) On what issues is the OPoC expected to act? "Operational issues relating to a domain name" is only minimally defined, and probably does not include many issues for which the public relies on Whois access today. For example, today Whois provides a means to quickly identify and contact a party responsible for content on a web site to which the domain name resolves - content that may be part of the perpetration of an online fraud, or that may violate intellectual property rights. Unless this is treated as an "operational issue related to a domain name," the presence of contact information on the OPoC is useless to the party seeking to curtail the fraud or to resolve the intellectual property infringement, and contacting the OPoC on these issues would be a fruitless gesture. (b) What is the OPoC supposed to do? Its "purpose" includes "pass[ing] on data." Is this purpose fulfilled if the OPoC simply notifies the registrant of a query and does nothing more? If so, contacting the OPoC would not only be fruitless but often counter-productive, since it could alert an infringer or other wrongdoer of the existence of an investigation and prompt him to take evasive action. Nothing in the OPoC proposal indicates that the OPoC is authorized to provide the querying party with the real contact information for the registrant. (c) How quickly must the OPoC act? Even if a matter falls within the range of issues for which the OPoC has responsibility, and even if the OPoC responds by providing the requester with the contact data of the registrant (assuming that the OPoC is even authorized to do this), this process will inevitably be far slower and less efficient than the status quo, in which contact data is available via Whois almost instantaneously. If the OPoC does not put the requester into direct contact with the registrant, but instead remains in the role of a go-between through whom all communication must be channeled, delay is virtually guaranteed. Accordingly, many of the efficiencies achieved by quick contact with the registrant and prompt resolution of the matter will be lost. (d) What if the OPoC fails to act or to act promptly? The OPoC may do absolutely nothing (indeed, there is nothing to prevent a registrant from designating an OPoC who does not even know the registrant or how to contact him/her/it). The proposal provides the requester with no recourse in this case. The OPoC would owe no contractual duty to ICANN, either, so ICANN would appear powerless as well to do anything about an OPoC that fails to act. The likely result would be more requests to the registrar/registry (whether through litigation or other channels) for actionable contact information to be divulged, thus increasing costs both for requesters and for registrars/registries. (e) Under what circumstances would true contact information for the registrant be provided to those with a legitimate need for it? This huge gap in the OPoC proposal has been identified, not only by active users of the current Whois system --- from law enforcement agencies and intellectual property owners to financial institutions and major charities seeking to combat online fraud --- but also by domain name registries and some registrars, as a major unanswered question. In short, interposing an "operational point of contact" between the Whois requester and the registrant will generally make the process of contacting the registrant slower, more difficult, and less reliable than it is today. The benefits for all parties of quick contact and prompt resolution will be largely forfeited; more cases will have to be resolved through more formal channels, including litigation; and expense, delay and uncertainty are likely to increase for all concerned. (f) How will requesting parties make jurisdictional determinations and satisfy due process requirements? Some proponents of OPoC have contended that parties seeking more detailed registrant information are free to do so via the applicable judicial system. In truth, however, the absence of complete address information will make it exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - for a party seeking to obtain such information to identify in the first instance the court that would have the jurisdiction over the registrant that is required to proceed. This will be true in every state or province that contains more than one judicial district. Even if the party seeking such information is able to identify the correct court, the OPoC proposal - as written - would prevent the registrant from being formally served with notice of the proceeding consistent with due process requirements. The registrant name, state/province, and country information will not provide sufficient detail to permit service on the registrant and the OPoC has no current obligation to forward such service. Even if it did, it is far from clear that service via the OPoC would satisfy due process requirements.

1 0

Lisbon: Additional meetings
by Liz Williams 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Colleagues Sorry for the duplicate mailing for some people. We will be starting at 8:30am Sunday morning for the new TLDs work. We will begin with the geographic and geopolitical reserved names work and then continue through the program which includes IDN and dispute resolution. We will be running a parallel new TLDs session between 16H00 and 18H00 for the new TLDs group (it will be in the same room as today) to complete the new TLDs work. I will advise WHERE the PRO-WG will meet -- we will find a smaller room and we will work out the logistics and meeting recording. DON'T forget to put your watches forward tonight as daylight savings time starts tonight. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council - agenda
by Ute Decker 23 Mar '07

23 Mar '07

Hi Bruce, With apologies that I may have missed some steps that lead to the agenda for our next meeting - I notice on the Council meeting agenda a subpoint on WHOIS that makes me worry: "next steps - consider forming an implementation working group to resolve implementation details of concern to some constituencies around OPoC" I do not think we are a stage where we can assume sufficient support for OPoC to think about implementation. "Implementation details around OPoC" are to my mind not the issue. Can you or anybody else explain? If my impression is correct and we do not have sufficient support for OPoC (certainly not supported by the IPC) then I hope we can rephrase this point on the posted agenda. Best wishes - and see you soon in Lisbon Ute -----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: 21 March 2007 23:35 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO Events Schedule - Lisbon Dear All, Please find an updated draft schedule for the GNSO related meetings in Lisbon. This schedule will also be reflected on the main ICANN schedule on page http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO related meeting schedule posted on web site
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 22 Mar '07

22 Mar '07

Dear All, Please find the GNSO related meeting schedule posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-lisbon-mar07.htm One small addition, the Nominating Committee/GNSO Council lunch will be in Ametista room on Thursday at 13:00 just after the ICANN public forum. Safe travels. Kind regards. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Outcomes Report from the GNSO IDN WG
by Olof Nordling 22 Mar '07

22 Mar '07

Dear all, Attached is the final version of the Outcomes Report from the GNSO IDN WG for your consideration and as input for discussions in the upcoming meetings in Lisbon. It will be posted on the GNSO website shortly. On behalf of the WG chair Ram Mohan and the WG members, I trust you will find it interesting reading. We all look forward to the upcoming discussions on these matters in Lisbon shortly. Very best regards Olof

1 0