April 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
by Ute Decker April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Hi Maria, Can you please add both me and Steve Metalitz to the working group. Thxs. Ute Ute Decker voice: +44 (0)20 7878 7954 Email: ute.decker(a)ifpi.org <mailto:ute.decker@ifpi.org> -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: 30 March 2007 14:52 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group 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

1 0

Managing working groups
by Bruce Tonkin April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Hello All, I recommend that all read the following document, particularly those involved in chairing working groups: It is RFC2418 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures - dated Sept 1998. From: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt It has sections dealing with disruptive behaviour as well as determining when rough consensus is reached. E.g "As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the behavior by communication directly with the offending individual rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing list. (If the mailing list software permits this type of operation.) Even if this is done, the individual must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list. Other methods of mailing list control may be considered but must be approved by the AD(s) and the IESG." "3.3. Session management Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached. It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of consensus on a mailing list. There are two different cases where a working group may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list discussion. But in both cases the volume of messages on a topic is not, by itself, a good indicator of consensus since one or two individuals may be generating much of the traffic. In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face- to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into account. If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then the consensus should be seen as being verified. Note that enough time should be given to the verification process for the mailing list readers to understand and consider any objections that may be raised on the list. The normal two week last-call period should be sufficient for this. The other case is where the discussion has been held entirely over the mailing list. The determination of the level of consensus may be harder to do in this case since most people subscribed to mailing lists do not actively participate in discussions on the list. It is left to the discretion of the working group chair how to evaluate the level of consensus. The most common method used is for the working group chair to state what he or she believes to be the consensus view and. at the same time, requests comments from the list about the stated conclusion. The challenge to managing working group sessions is to balance the need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the need to make forward progress. The working group, as a whole, has the final responsibility for striking this balance. The Chair has the responsibility for overseeing the process but may delegate direct process management to a formally-designated Facilitator. It is occasionally appropriate to revisit a topic, to re-evaluate alternatives or to improve the group's understanding of a relevant decision. However, unnecessary repeated discussions on issues can be avoided if the Chair makes sure that the main arguments in the discussion (and the outcome) are summarized and archived after a discussion has come to conclusion. It is also good practice to note important decisions/consensus reached by email in the minutes of the next 'live' session, and to summarize briefly the decision-making history in the final documents the WG produces. To facilitate making forward progress, a Working Group Chair may wish to decide to reject or defer the input from a member, based upon the following criteria: Old The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved and is redundant with information previously available; Minor The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing decision; Timing The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet opened for discussion; or Scope The input is outside of the scope of the working group charter."

1 0

Summary of opposition to the WHOIS task force recommendation
by Bruce Tonkin April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Hello All, Here is a summary of the opposition to the WHOIS task force recommendation as discussed in Lisbon and presented at various forums: - Unclear on the scope responsibilities of the operational contact - No job description for operational contact - no timeframes by when the operational contact must respond - What happens if OPOC fails to meet responsibilities - Circumstances where admin and tech and full registrant information held by the registrar would be provided, and no standard way to access - Need more accurate admin and tech and full registrant information Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

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

Reminder of recent Council decisions regarding WHOIS
by Bruce Tonkin April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Hello All, Just a reminder of previous decisions of the Council: >From 12 April 2006: "The GNSO Council recommends that the WHOIS task force use the following definition: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) (see: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html )" >From 28 July 2006: ""The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: (1) Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that supports the current definition may also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council. (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. (4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report. Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion. " On 28 March 2007: "The GNSO Council resolves: 1) To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note we have received and discussed their report, and thank the task force for their work 2) To create a working group of affected stakeholders: - including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community participants, - whose work is to be completed within 120 days - that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved to address these issues, namely: a. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not fulfilled. b. how legitimate interests will access registration data no longer published via Whois, c. whether a distinction should be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name. " Regards, Bruce

1 0

FW: [council] RN-WG SoW
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

I move to change the SoW objective re ICANN/IANA names from "Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names" to 'explore basis for current reservation, and whether to continue it.' Staff said months ago, during the initial WG session, that they were looking into any basis for this reservation. I strongly suspect there is no other basis than potential user confusion, aka brand protection. There has been plenty of time to come up with other reasons, and now 30 days more. The WG and Council should consider whether to continue it in newTLD contracts. Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:39 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW Mike, Please see my responses below. 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." _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:45 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW Thanks Chuck, I have three comments on this. First, I think re 1 and 2 character names, that we also should consult GAC regarding 2 character ASCII TLDs as I have suggested in prior email and I believe is supported by Bruce and others. [Gomes, Chuck] As far as I am aware, there is nothing that prevents us from contacting the GAC on this but it is not clear what our objective would be. Their input is of course welcome, but it is virtually impossible to get any feedback before our 30-day extension would end. Second, re "other reserved names at the second level" (aka 'premium names' and the like), if this is outside the scope of the RN-WG then that is fine, but we need to add it to the newTLD TF to consider what to require of applicants in this regard. I doubt that anyone wants to allow new TLD registries to reserve whatever names they choose for however long they like on whatever basis, which is the current reality at .travel. There needs to be transparency in the application and pre-launch phases to address this issue. [Gomes, Chuck] I'll leave it to you to deal with this as you feel you need to. Third, I object to re-launching this WG with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now' re ICANN/IANA related names. I believe Staff was looking into any reasoning behind these historical reservations, other than the obvious reason to avoid user confusion were 'someone else' to register something like iab.web (for example the Interactive Advertising Bureau...). We should see whether Staff or anyone else comes up with any other reasoning. Assuming not, then it would make no sense to continue these reservations on the basis of user confusion. [Gomes, Chuck] Please note that we are not "re-launcing this WG with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now' re ICANN/IANA related names'. The WG SoW contains several much more significant tasks than the one related to ICANN/IANA related names. The reason the SoW was worded as it is regarding ICANN/IANA names is because of direction received in Lisbon and because it seemed highly unlikely that the issues in question could be resolved in 30-days. Indeed that would be entirely self serving and appalling to many in the community who have to fight and pay for their defensive registrations with each new TLD launch, or otherwise fight cybersquatters who register domain names that correspond to brands. ICANN should experience that as well, in hopes that better policy may be made for us all, rather than protecting itself via the Reserved Names list when such protection is not available to those with a far greater need for it. So I recommend we change this objective to 'explore basis for current reservation, and decide whether to continue it.' [Gomes, Chuck] If the Council so directs, we can certainly try to resolve it but I personally think it is unrealistic and that other categories are more time sensitive with regard to the introduction of new gTLDs. 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, April 05, 2007 5:43 AM To: GNSO Council; Bruce Tonkin Subject: [council] RN-WG SoW Importance: High Attached is a fairly detailed SoW for a 30-day extension of the RN-WG. The current plan would be to restart the group on Wednesday, 11 April and end it on Thursday, 10 May. This should allow enough time for inclusion of the final recommendations into the final New gTLD Report. As we discussed on Thursday afternoon in Lisbon, we need to take action on this via email before our next teleconference meeting on 12 April, and I need to communicate the meeting schedule to the working group the end of this week. Therefore, I would like to propose the following motion: "Per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007." 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 3

RN-WG SoW
by Gomes, Chuck April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

Attached is a fairly detailed SoW for a 30-day extension of the RN-WG. The current plan would be to restart the group on Wednesday, 11 April and end it on Thursday, 10 May. This should allow enough time for inclusion of the final recommendations into the final New gTLD Report. As we discussed on Thursday afternoon in Lisbon, we need to take action on this via email before our next teleconference meeting on 12 April, and I need to communicate the meeting schedule to the working group the end of this week. Therefore, I would like to propose the following motion: "Per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007." 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."

5 7

Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg April 9, 2007

April 9, 2007

As mentioned briefly at the GNSO Council meeting in Lisbon, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is in the process of submitting a request for an Issues Report from ICANN staff on the subject of Domain Tasting - specifically the exploitation of the 5-day (or 120 hour) Add Grace Period during which a domain can be deleted (among other things) for a full credit of registration charges. In order to maximize the chances for a properly framed Issues report and ultimately a successful PDP (if deemed necessary), it has been recommended that the ALAC seek support from interested GNSO constituencies including their views of why the domain tasting policy should be changed, the positive or negative effects of such a change, and how such a change falls under the scope of the GNSO PDP (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA) and Consensus Policies as defined in Registry agreements. Our intent is to have a draft request for an Issues Report ready by April 23, and the request finalized by April 30. I therefore request your input with due haste. Alan Greenberg ALAC Liaison to the GNSO

1 0

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

RE: [council] Regarding confusion amongst two letter codes
by Gomes, Chuck April 6, 2007

April 6, 2007

It would help if I read the first slide. Let me rephrase my question: did the ccNSO approve the positions in the presentation or set a deadline for doing so? 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." > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:44 AM > To: 'Liz Williams' > Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] Regarding confusion amongst two letter codes > > Thanks much Liz. Is the first presentation an official > position of the ccNSO or of the ccNSO GAC/IDN working group? > > 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." > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org] > > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:02 AM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council > > Subject: Re: [council] Regarding confusion amongst two letter codes > > > > Hello everyone > > > > You may find this information helpful from the ccNSO meeting in > > Lisbon. > > > > http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/presentation-ccnso-idn-28 > > mar07.pdf > > > > Here is the presentation by Elisabeth Portenueve -- http:// > > > www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/presentation-ccnso-gac-idns-26mar07.pdf > > > > Here is the other presentation by Debbie Garside -- http:// > > www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/presentation-garside-26mar07.pdf > > > > Happy Easter. > > > > Liz > > > > > > ..................................................... > > > > Liz Williams > > Senior Policy Counselor > > ICANN - Brussels > > +32 2 234 7874 tel > > +32 2 234 7848 fax > > +32 497 07 4243 mob > > > > > > > > > > On 05 Apr 2007, at 21:21, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > > > Elisabeth Portenueve is now working for the ISO Maintenance > > Agency and > > > might be a useful resource in this regard. > > > > > > 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." > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike > Rodenbaugh > > >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:07 PM > > >> To: GNSO Council > > >> Subject: RE: [council] Regarding confusion amongst two > letter codes > > >> > > >> Thanks Bruce, so can we ask both the GAC and the ISO Maintenance > > >> Agency? > > >> > > >> > > >> Also would love to see that research if you have or can > recall any > > >> other identifying info so I can find? > > >> > > >> Mike Rodenbaugh > > >> Sr. Legal Director > > >> Yahoo! Inc. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > > >> On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > > >> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 6:43 PM > > >> To: GNSO Council > > >> Subject: [council] Regarding confusion amongst two letter codes > > >> > > >> Hello Mike, > > >> > > >>> > > >>> 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? > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> Actually this could be a good question to ask about the > ISO list in > > >> general. Ie did the ISO consider the potential for > confusion when > > >> selecting the two letter codes? > > >> > > >> Actually I have read some research to indicate that humans > > are better > > >> able to distinguish differences in short strings rather > than long > > >> strings. > > >> > > >> E.g humans can spot the difference between "to" and "tom" > > >> relatively easily, but not necessarily between "licence" and > > >> "license" . > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Bruce Tonkin > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >

1 0