May 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Possible roles for GNSO vice chair/s
by Bruce Tonkin July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hello All, Having been in the role as chair for a while, I can see at least a couple of vice-chair roles that would help spread the workload: (1) vice-chair for meetings - work with staff to schedule the various GNSO related meetings at each major ICANN meeting, as well as help plan any inter-sessional meetings (2) vice-chair for operating planning - work with staff to develop the budget for GNSO related expenses to feed into ICANN's annual operational plan/budget - e.g travel costs, as well as work with staff to plan for both staff and GNSO volunteer resources for various projects (task forces, working groups etc) - identify projects that provide efficiency improvements (e.g website updates, new use of collaboration tools, document management systems etc) - maintain a rolling 12 month operational/work plan - ensure we don't over commit projects to the available resources Note that in either case the vice chair would work with staff to essentially prepare documents for review by the Council as a whole, and publish the relevant material in sufficient time to allow Council feedback and discussion at a Council meeting. Note that at various times these roles have existed - but never really formalised. Marilyn Cade often assisted in meeting planning, and we did have a planning committee chaired by Grant Forsyth at one time. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

7 10

GNSO Chair election results
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 31, 2007

May 31, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The GNSO Chair results are: 15 FOR Avri Doria 9 FOR Philip Sheppard 0 ABSTAIN (The winner requires a majority of 14 or more.) There are 27 votes in total accounting for 21 Council members. http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml 19 Council members voted - accounting for 24 votes. 2 Council members did not return their ballots accounting for 3 votes, one council member holding a single vote and one holding a double vote. Please check below and confirm that your vote was correctly counted. The results of the GNSO Chair election will be confirmed at the Council meeting on 7 June 2007. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Counted Ballots: B1cc961780D:20070516102204:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B1cc961780D:20070516102204:[] FOR Avri Doria B1cc961780D:20070516102204:[] ABSTAIN B83a6f7eb2D:20070516102702:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B83a6f7eb2D:20070516102702:[X] FOR Avri Doria B83a6f7eb2D:20070516102702:[] ABSTAIN B14b3cc74fD:20070516125012:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B14b3cc74fD:20070516125012:[] FOR Avri Doria B14b3cc74fD:20070516125012:[] ABSTAIN Bc00566ec1D:20070516144009:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc00566ec1D:20070516144009:[] FOR Avri Doria Bc00566ec1D:20070516144009:[] ABSTAIN B7bf68ac88D:20070516150918:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B7bf68ac88D:20070516150918:[] FOR Avri Doria B7bf68ac88D:20070516150918:[] ABSTAIN Bdbeff9d10D:20070516151454:[XX] FOR Philip Sheppard Bdbeff9d10D:20070516151454:[] FOR Avri Doria Bdbeff9d10D:20070516151454:[] ABSTAIN Ba0fbc9c96D:20070518065941:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Ba0fbc9c96D:20070518065941:[X] FOR Avri Doria Ba0fbc9c96D:20070518065941:[] ABSTAIN B88b92dc21D:20070518183742:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B88b92dc21D:20070518183742:[X] FOR Avri Doria B88b92dc21D:20070518183742:[] ABSTAIN Bc02a03a59D:20070522020429:[x] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc02a03a59D:20070522020429:[] FOR Avri Doria Bc02a03a59D:20070522020429:[] ABSTAIN B5eb1f34aeD:20070522021852:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B5eb1f34aeD:20070522021852:[X] FOR Avri Doria B5eb1f34aeD:20070522021852:[] ABSTAIN B2bb81b783D:20070522064628:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B2bb81b783D:20070522064628:[] FOR Avri Doria B2bb81b783D:20070522064628:[] ABSTAIN Bf3f0ff003D:20070522181137:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bf3f0ff003D:20070522181137:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bf3f0ff003D:20070522181137:[] ABSTAIN Bc9ccfcbadD:20070523045156:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc9ccfcbadD:20070523045156:[] FOR Avri Doria Bc9ccfcbadD:20070523045156:[] ABSTAIN B1eccf6b4dD:20070523133025:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B1eccf6b4dD:20070523133025:[X] FOR Avri Doria B1eccf6b4dD:20070523133025:[] ABSTAIN Bdb0a481ceD:20070523145838:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bdb0a481ceD:20070523145838:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bdb0a481ceD:20070523145838:[] ABSTAIN Bc35565763D:20070523181424:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc35565763D:20070523181424:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bc35565763D:20070523181424:[] ABSTAIN B6523ad5b3D:20070529081823:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B6523ad5b3D:20070529081823:[] FOR Avri Doria B6523ad5b3D:20070529081823:[] ABSTAIN B67747ad5cD:20070529140622:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B67747ad5cD:20070529140622:[X] FOR Avri Doria B67747ad5cD:20070529140622:[] ABSTAIN Bfe3a54407D:20070530065256:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bfe3a54407D:20070530065256:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bfe3a54407D:20070530065256:[] ABSTAIN -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

5 6

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by Gomes, Chuck May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Mawaki, I personally think the suggestions of deceit and political ambition are inappropriate and suggest that you argue your points objectively without making such assertions. 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 Mawaki Chango > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:29 PM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - > Thursday 7 June 2007 > > >>> [Bruce] it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises > risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to > update the recommendations based on experience of the first round. > > Do you have anything specific in mind? what and where are the > provisions to ensure such flexibility? I think it is > important to know concretely how this can be handled, should > the need arise. > > I don't see any contradiction between the fact that a lot of > work has been put into a PDP, and the possibility for the > *Council* to determine in the end the level of support for > each recommendation so that, as Bruce has put it, at least > the recommendations that are capable of supermajority be > secured and built on later on. > > The argument that the recommendations cannot be considered > individually because they are inter-dependent is a fallacious > one because i) most of the recommendations have been > discussed separately during the process, and ii) if > recommendations are so inter-related that it wouldn't make > sense to adopt/implement one without the other, then clearly > those who support one will support the other. > > Similarly, the idea of the committee having thoroughly > discussed the issues raised by NCUC (for example) without any > proponents of those ideas/issues being there to explain and > respond is deceitful. > > > Note > > Not all the recommendations please everyone. > > It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because > > individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to > persuade. > > If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our > > original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc. > > This is so bright! just that in such perspective, the PDP > process is nothing but a merely political process governed by > corporatism. (You may note, Liz, that this is not the best > mindset and environment for dialogue between constituencies > as you've been encouraging for.) If that's the case, then it > should be no surprise that courts become (are?) the only > place where some sense of higher norms and overall legitimacy > is re-stablished in the ICANN's decisions. > > That shouldn't worry me, but I'm worried that this is the > perspective of an aspirant chairman for the council. > > Mawaki > > > --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> wrote: > > > > > Bruce, > > allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle the gTLD > > report. > > > > 1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of > Council. This > > process was explicitly to ensure incremental buy-in to > recommendations > > by Council. It escapes all logic that Council would then > vote on each > > recommendation. That process would seem suited to a task > force report. > > Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not. > > > > 2. We also opened the group to observers and received > excellent input. > > That was also a process designed to explicitly ensure incremental > > buy-in to recommendations by the wider community. > > > > 3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of > the report so > > that we were all able to track emerging recommendations > that achieved > > broad support. > > What was the point of all > > that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came > from nowhere > > ? > > > > 4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. > > Many are inter-dependent. We > > will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the > recommendations can > > operate in isolation. > > > > Conclusion > > We must vote on the report as a whole. > > > > Note > > Not all the recommendations please everyone. > > It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because > > individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to > persuade. > > If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our > > original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc. > > > > Further work > > There are a lot of issues that need further work or at > least feedback > > to Council on their implementation. Indeed this applies to most > > recommendations ! > > It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where > > Council expects formal feedback from staff. > > That makes it clear for us, clear for staff. > > > > Link to the sub groups > > We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion > and support > > for these reports where appropriate. > > > > > > Philip > > > > > > > > > > > >

4 5

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by Bruce Tonkin May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Hello All, Below is a draft agenda for the Council meeting next week. Note that this is a GNSO Council meeting to consider the current draft of the new gTLDs report. Those constituency representatives and observers that have attended new gTLD committee meetings are welcome to attend the teleconference as observers. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00 LA, 8:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne, 00:00 Auckland Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007 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 - minutes for 24 May 2007 Item 3: Ratify the result of the election for the GNSO Council chair Item 4: Review new gTLD recommendations The purpose of this discussion is to review any changes/updates to the draft recommendations since Lisbon. Item 5: Review options for voting on the recommendations (note a vote will not be conducted at this meeting, but the aim is to discuss the how such a vote would be managed): Options include: (a) Each Council member votes on recommendations as a whole (b) Each Council member votes on each individual recommendation (c) We separate recommendations that are "complete", versus those that need further work Item 6: Any other business

4 4

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Council members, Thank you Chuck for your helpful suggestion. Allow me to explain a little further the problem as we see it. Suppose we do choose to vote recommendation by recommendation. Rec 1 is - do you support new TLDs. Well the answer to that recommendation in isolation is no. The BC supports new TLDs subject to such things as financial and technical standards, safeguards to avoid criminal abuse, and safeguards for consumer protection. That was the entire essence of our work. I thought that we al support these goals. The recommendations were not written in isolation but listed for clarity for the benefit of those who will implement. If this work is unfinished, we should continue as the committee to work. If this work is finished, we should vote as Council on the report presented. Philip

2 1

Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
by Bruce Tonkin May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Hello All, With respect to the Council meeting on 7 June, I would like to get a sense of how the Council wants to handle the current new gTLD recommendations. As others have pointed out, some of the recommendations require further work with respect to developing dispute resolution processes. There are also no doubt some recommendations with stronger support than others. The intent is that the recommendations as currently drafted by staff are capable of supermajority support based on the discussions during the new gTLD committee meetings. My current concern is that if we don't move the work we have done to some kind of vote - which may accept all or some of the recommendations by super-majority vote - we are in danger of losing the consensus that has been built up through many meetings. I also feel we are at the point of diminishing returns. No significant new issues were raised in Lisbon that had not already been discussed in the new gTLD committee. I feel that there is a community expectation that the GNSO Council either conclude its work, or at least identify which bits are concluded to allow the Board to consider the recommendations and to allow staff to begin to do further work. We don't want the GNSO to be seen as the barrier to new TLDs (either IDN or non-IDN based). If we can't make some sort of statement about the level of consensus of the recommendations, it becomes hard to justify ICANN staff spending additional time working on the implementation details. I expect that as staff begin working on the implementation details of dispute processes and other implementation details, that they may seek further clarification of the recommendation, or even recommend the removal of a recommendation if not external dispute process can be developed. I would also expect that we will get more input on the dispute processes once detailed drafts are published - this will ensure that issues such as freedom of speech are properly addressed in the dispute processes. No doubt as new people become involved in ICANN and the GNSO - there will be desire to reset the clock, and start the policy development again. I feel however that we will never get a perfect answer, and that it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based on experience of the first round. It would be useful to hear the views of Council members on this topic via the Council mailing list prior to the Council meeting next week. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by Philip Sheppard May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Further to discussion on how we handle the gTLD report. 1. I would still like to hear a counter-argument to the principles I outlined earlier regarding the objective of Council working as a committee of the whole. 2. For the record the BC does not support any recommendations characterised informally by Chuck as "Broad agreement" without the safety net of those recommendations characterised informally as "Work Ongoing". We have all worked diligently on this and see the report as an integrated whole. If it is to be separated, we will likely be forced to vote against systematically. If it is to be separated we will likely be forced to vote against a committee of the whole approach for any future PDP based on its meaningless approach. To date we hear from just one constituency calling for this separate approach. Lets hear from others before we decide as Council how we will vote on our own work. Philip BC rapporteur

2 1

Issues Report on Domain Tasting
by Maria Farrell May 29, 2007

May 29, 2007

Dear Council members, Attached is the Issues Report on Domain Name Tasting requested by the At-Large Advisory Committee on 9 May (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html) Best regards, Maria Farrell

3 2

GNSO Council draft minutes 24 May 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 29, 2007

May 29, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 24 May 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ........................................................................ 24 May 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. 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 - absent - apologies Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC. Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 15 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor -Asia Pacific, Office of the General Counsel. Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Craig Schwartz -Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Quorum present at 12:10 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: 28 March 2007 12 April 2007 Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of both sets of GNSO Council minutes, 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007 Motion approved. Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007 Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007 were adopted. Item 3: Update on election process for GNSO Council chair - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update Glen de Saint Géry reported that the formal nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council chair for the period 7 June 2007 until 31 January 2008 was open for two weeks from Friday 27 April to Friday 11 May 2007. Two candidates were nominated and seconded, Philip Sheppard and Avri Doria. The voting began on Wednesday 16 May, and closes on Wednesday 30 May at 15:00 UTC. The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period and the results will be confirmed at the GNSO Council meeting on 7 June 2007. Item 4: Proposed motion to create a Vice-Chair role: Bruce Tonkin commented that the ICANN bylaws mentioned a formal position of Vice Chair for the ICANN Board and the ccNSO Council but the roles were not defined. The effect of the proposed motion was to the rules and procedures of the Council without pre-empting any Board changes to the bylaws following the GNSO review. It was agreed that the vice-chair would be appointed via a vote of Council members using the same procedure as used to elect a chair. Bruce Tonkin, seconded Avri Doria, whose friendly amendment was accepted, proposed the motion: The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of acclamation. Decision 2: The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed. Action Item: The Secretariat was requested to open a process to select a vice chair as soon as the current GNSO chair election was resolved after 7 June 2007. Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. The registry constituency put forward a position paper http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03500.html with the conclusion: "The Registry constituency urges the GNSO not to accept the Intellectual Property constituency recommendation. There is no sound basis for requesting an Issues Report on this subject. The proposed Dispute Resolution Process is far from ICANN’s mission of technical coordination of the domain name system and the protection of security and stability of the Internet. It would be a radical departure from the current globally accepted understanding of ICANN’s role." Bruce Tonkin commented that it was a request from the external world to ICANN to examine the issue in more detail, and if ICANN were not able to do anything then it would be for individual countries to deal with the issue and create laws in the countries. The secretariat was requested to point to a previous Council decision on this topic. (See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml) In the light of the new gTLD work, it could be advantageous to examine a mechanism for a new dispute processes. Caution should be taken in that the dispute resolution process should not provide a blanket protection for all International Intergovernmental Organizations to register which ever names they wished. Constituency resources and staff support were two factors that had to be considered. It was clarified that creating an issues report was separate from Council deciding whether there were sufficient issues for a policy development process to be commenced and whether Council and the constituencies would be able to resource it. Assurance was given that there would be adequate staff resources should Council decide to follow through with a policy development process. Council was reminded of the provisions in the the ICANN bylaws regarding: "1. Raising an Issue An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following: b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed the following motion: Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required. Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. The motion passed by nominated vote: in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Alistair Dixon, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth - 1 vote each Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader - 2 votes each Total 10 votes in favour - (8 Council members voted in favour) against the motion Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes - 2 votes each Avri Doria, Sophia Bekele, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, - 1 vote each Total 8 votes against - (6 Council members voted against the motion) Tom Keller - one abstention (counting for 2 votes ) No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru, Tony Harris, Mawaki Chango, Cary Karp, Jon Bing. In total, 15 Council members voted, accounting for 20 votes Decision 3: Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required. Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. Item 6: ALAC request for an issues report on domain tasting - note request under clause 1(c) of the GNSO Policy Development Process - proposal to schedule consideration of the issues report at the San Juan meeting of the GNSO Council, and get input from the constituencies during the meeting (under clause 3(b) of the PDP) Council acknowledged receipt of the request from ALAC for an issues report and it was proposed that the completed Issues Report would be posted on the website so that there could be additional feedback from community and the constituencies. It was generally agreed to table the report until the Council meeting in San Juan, and possibly have Staff present it at the GNSO public forum. Item 7: Consideration of the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 ( See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07…) Item 7: Consideration of the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 ( See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07…) It was generally agreed that staff would comment on the implementation issues arising from the major recommendations in the Final Report PDPFeb06 and these would be further discussed with the community during the meetings in San Juan. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended: 13:10 UTC Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 7 June 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election process for GNSO Council vice chair when the current GNSO Chair elections were resolved. 2. Arising from item 5, a. The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. b. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. 3 Arising from item 7, Staff comments on the major recommendations in the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 28, 2007

May 28, 2007

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

7 23

RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
by Gomes, Chuck May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

Note a correction in my arithmetic: 8 of 15 members present is still greater than 50%. 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: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:59 PM > To: 'Mawaki Chango'; GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 > recording 24 May 2007 > > Note that Annex A of the Bylaws, Section 1.a says, "Council > Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote > of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the > Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate > the PDP is made." I personally think the wording here is a > little misleading when taken in context with later wording in > 3.b that says, "Issue Raised by Other than by the Board. If a > policy issue is presented to the Council for consideration > via an Issue Report, then the Council shall meet within > fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of such Report to > vote on whether to initiate the PDP. . ." It seems to me > that better wording for 1.a would be "Council Initiation. The > GNSO Council may REQUEST AN ISSUES REPORT by a vote of at > least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council > present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." > > Regardless of the wording of 1.a, note that 25% of "the > members of the Council present at any meeting" is an even > easier threshhold. Using your count of members present, > eight members supporting the motion out of 14 members present > represents over 50% of members present. > > 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:36 PM > > To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Council GNSO > > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 > > May 2007 > > > > Apparently, you mean 25% of the whole council, not of those voting. > > Subject to confirmation, there were still more than 25% on the call > > who did not vote YES (6 No and 1 Abstention.) > > > > My point is, even if the percentage count is against the > size of the > > whole council, you may still have 25% or more voting for > one position, > > and similarly 25% or more voting in the other direction. > How does one > > deal with that if the only requirement is to reach 25% for > a decision > > to be made? Is there any consideration about the > significance of count > > difference? For example if 8 voted YES and 9 voted NO: both > are beyond > > 25% and the difference is one vote - would NO simply be the outcome? > > > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > > > > Note Mawaki that even if your count is correct, the motion > > would still > > > pass because only 25% is needed, which I believe would be 7 > > (25% of 27 > > > = 6.75). > > > > > > 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 Mawaki > > > Chango > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:05 PM > > > > To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' > > > > Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 > > recording 24 > > > > May 2007 > > > > > > > > Council, > > > > > > > > My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today > > > > > > > teleconf as I had expected. > > > > > > > > I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see > > > below), > > > > my count of the votes does not match the one you announced > > > on > > > > the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES > > > > (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, > > > and Greg), > > > > 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and > > > 1 > > > > Abstention (Thomas). > > > > > > > > So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after > > > > double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of > > > > > > > an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting > > IGO names and > > > > abbreviations > > > > > > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation > > put forward > > > > by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with > > > > WIPO-2 to > > > > protect International Intergovernmental Organizations > (IGO) names > > > > and abbreviations as domain names. > > > > > > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO > > > > > > > names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC > > principles for New > > > > gTLDs. > > > > > > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance > > > > > > > agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and > > > > abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris > > Convention > > > > (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). > > > > > > > > The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an > > issues report on > > > > the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes > > > > relating to IGO names and abbreviations as > > > > > > > domain names. > > > > > > > > The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise > with WIPO to > > > > utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. > > > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" > > > > <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org > > > > > [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; > > > council[at]gnso.icann.org] > > > > > > > > > > Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council > > > > teleconference, held > > > > > on 24 May 2007 at: > > > > > > > > > > http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 > > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may > > > > > > > > > > Happy listening! > > > > > > > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > > > > > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN > > > > > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org > > > > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

FYI: Update on Issues Report on Domain Name Tasting
by Maria Farrell May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

Dear Council members, Please be advised that there will be a short delay in circulating the Issues Report on Domain Name Tasting requested by the At-Large Advisory Committee on 9 May and due today (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html) Please accept my apologies that this report's delivery will exceed the 15 days allowed for in the ICANN bylaws. Staff is working diligently to compile relevant information for this report. I expect to circulate the Issues Report to the Council within a period of days. Best regards, Maria Farrell

1 0

Revised draft GNSO Council minutes 12 April 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 23, 2007

May 23, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 12 April 2007. The following changes have been made: Sue Jonklaas title corrected Regional Business Advisor -Asia Pacific, Office of the General Counsel. Item 5 the urls relating to the terms of reference agreed upon by the GNSO Council on April 12 2006 now resolve. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/ http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml Reference the three decisions made by the GNSO Council with respect to the work of the WHOIS task force (e.g the decision regarding the definition of purpose) and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences: Item 3: Revision of Transfers Policy - consider staff recommendations The last paragraph has been changed to read: A set of recommendations has been drafted, which requires a final review by the committee. These will be reviewed and forwarded to the GNSO Council prior to the June meeting in Puerto Rico. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen .................................................................................... 12 April 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies 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 Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor -Asia Pacific, Office of the General Counsel. Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 12:15 UTC. MP3 recording Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard 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 28 March 2007 The approval of the minutes was deferred to the next Council meeting Item 3: Revision of Transfers Policy - consider staff recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03369.html Ross Rader, chair of theTransfers Policy Review Committee, set up in mid 2005, reported that the committee's goal was to review the effectiveness of the existing Transfer Policy from an operational perspective and determine whether or not any amendments to the existing policy should be recommended for further examination in a policy development process by the GNSO and/or whether or not any additional work would be required on the implementation side at an ICANN Staff level. ICANN Staff prepared 3 summary documents 1) is the draft advisory, unchanged from last message in January. <Draft-Transfer-Advisory-24jan07.doc> 2) is some notes on possible tighter wording/clarifications to the existing policy. This consists of 4 points taken out of the previous "policy issues" list--all of these had to do with the reasons for denial section. <DenialClarifications-28mar07.doc> 3) is a revised list of policy issues with the above-mentioned items taken out. <Draft-TransfersPolicyList-28mar07> A set of recommendations has been drafted, which requires a final review by the commitee. These will be reviewed and forwarded to the GNSO Council prior to the June meeting in Puerto Rico. Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard for Item 4 concerning the ICANN Board election results. Item 4: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03416.html Results of Election Board seat # 13 : Dr. Bruce Tonkin is elected to the ICANN Board in seat # 13. Total votes 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin 3 abstentions 3 votes not cast The details of the vote: 3 people did not vote by ballot. 1. Bruce Tonkin was not replaced by the Registrar constituency. (2 votes) 2. One Council member did not return a ballot and could not be contacted. (1 vote) 3. One Council member did not return a ballot and under special circumstances, voted by email and phone before the close of the vote on 9 April at 17:00 UTC. (1 vote) The total number of votes that Council could cast was 27 and a majority 14 or more. Philip Sheppard proposed that The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. The motion passes by voice vote. Bruce Tonkin abstained. Decision 1: The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. Philip Sheppard, on behalf of the Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin and handed the chair back to him. Bruce Tonkin thanked the Council for their support and stated that he was prepared to continue chairing the Council until the council elected a new chair and/or he took his place on the ICANN Board in the beginning of June 2007, but that an election process for a new chair should be started based on previous procedures. The GNSO secretariat was requested to launch the process. Item 5: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an interim chair http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html Bruce Tonkin referred to postings to the Council list relating to recent Council decisions regarding Whois , a summary of opposition to the WHOIS task force recommendation, the WHOIS task force recommendations, and IETF working group guidelines for managing working groups. Maria Farrell summarised the changes to the charter proposed by various Council members on the mailing list: 1. Changes that related to the objective of the working group that should explicitly consider the implementation issues raised by Operational Point of Contact (OPOC). 2. Changes to the background section and information, ensuring an explicit reference to the definition of purpose agreed upon by Council on April 12 2006 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/ http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml 3. The task force policy recommendations should be specified. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-1… 4. Changes referring to the work: a. to use the text of the resolution agreed by the council, rather than the current text. b. only examine the definition of the OPAC in the light of the original resolution then consider whether access should be for a legitimate interest as stated in the original proposal or with regard to legitimate activities, as referenced in the GAC principles c. whether there should be distinctions between people accessing the data and how these should be made. 5. In the assignment of work, which third party and under which condition should have access to unpublished data. 6. Remove the GAC principles from the document. Bruce Tonkin summarised the discussion in Council and indicated where agreement appeared to have been reached: In the background section specifically include a reference to the council decision on the WHOIS purpose http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml and Council's intention to revisit the definition in the light of the final report. Reference the three decisions made by the GNSO Council with respect to the work of the WHOIS task force (e.g the decision regarding the definition of purpose) and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html Refer to that GAC principles http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html GAC Communiqué is available at: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf and identify that they specifically provided a list of legitimate activities. Move the material currently under 4B into the Background section. In section 3, the policy recommendations being referred to should be specified in a footnote. In section 4B, the motion passed in Lisbon stated 'how legitimate interest will access' while the current document used the term ' how third parties may access for legitimate activity'. Thus 4B could be re-worded to: 'determine how and which legitimate third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query based access. Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria, proposed that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above. [The revised charter as approved is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group…] It was agreed to send a communication to the GAC inviting those interested members in participating as individuals whose expertise would be valued rather than the official view of the particular department or government Item 5 b: appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group Bruce Tonkin commented that Council needed to select a WHOIS working group chair bearing in mind the short mandate of the working group. The person should be currently available, have chairing experience and be acquainted with the WHOIS background and history to get the work started. Bruce Tonkin proposed Philip Sheppard as the interim chair. The discussion emphasised the need for a skilled chair person to remain neutral for the 120 day period while the group was in place. Listening to the discussions, and the various points of view and identifying areas of rough consensus. Bruce Tonkin referred to the RFC2418 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures - dated Sept 1998 as possible guidelines for such a group. Rita Rodin expressed hope that the working group would produce policy and resolve some of the WHOIS issues. Rita emphasised the facilitator role of the chair, aided by a co-chair, in eliciting ideas and moving towards a compromise. Views were stated in favour of having a co-chair because two different neutral perspectives could lead to broader rough consensus being obtained. It was suggested that a facilitator or neutral party, such as an ex-board member or an external paid facilitator, could be a valuable support and sounding board for the chair in pointing out where neutrality could be compromised. It was suggested that Jon Bing, not on the call, Nominating Committee appointee to the Council, relatively new to the Council in a neutral role, could fulfil the role and be consulted by the chair. Philip Sheppard expressed concern with formalizing a co-chair relationship. In accepting the challenge of chair he was prepared to approach the WHOIS issues in a neutral perspective to best resolve a long standing issue. Philip went on to state that if council had concerns about the level of neutrality and ability to exert in this then he would stand down and let somebody else take on the role. Professional staff or someone in the Council/community would be welcomed to fulfil the role of sounding board. Mawaki Chango suggested that the motion should not preclude the possibility of electing co-chairs and urged Philip not to put as a condition that he would step down if there would be a co-chair. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed that: the GNSO Council resolves to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. The motion was carried by a voice vote. 2 abstentions were noted from Philip Sheppard and Mawaki Chango Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. Item 6: Protection of IGO Names and Abbreviations in line with WIPO 2 - consider recommendation from the intellectual property constituency http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03368.html The constituency recommends that: "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. " see correspondence on this topic: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ on this topic. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tarmizi-13mar06.pdf http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-twomey-15jun06.pdf Kristina Rosette commented on the background to the proposal. When the initial Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) statement was submitted to the new gTLD policy development process there were suggestions to implement parts of the WIPO2 recommendations, specifically, protection of international governmental organization names and abbreviations. The inclusion of that recommendation was motivated by a request made to the IPC during a cross constituency meeting in Vancouver to take a lead in attempting to find a consensus solution proposal to some of the issues raised in the WIPO 2 recommendations. The WIPO 2 recommendations did include other areas, for example, the protection of country names and the protection of personal names. In examining the issue, the IPC had not found sufficient legal basis in international law to justify full implementation of all of the WIPO2 recommendations. Thus, the scope of the IPC recommendation was to restrict it to the protection of IGO names and abbreviations.In summary there is definitely a basis in international law for the protection of IGO names and abbreviations tracing back to the Paris Convention. Currently,there are slightly over 132 IGO's that have followed the procedure for having their names and acronyms registered and consistent with the Paris convention. WIPO itself has provided a draft model and rules for the possession of IGO names and abbreviations as type of modified parallel UDRP procedure. The notable difference would be to restrict the scope to IGOs and create a different appeals procedure from that which is currently in place. WIPO feels quite strongly that it is important to obtain the protection and to have an alternate procedure to allow IGO's to protect their names and marks particularly because of the nature of some of the IGO's, In summary, the IPC requests the GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. IGO Names and Abbreviations are not considered to be trademarks. Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling a motion for the next meeting and requesting feedback from the ICANN Staff in terms of resourcing a policy development process. Item 7: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of work http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03373.html The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that 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 with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 4: The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that 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 with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added. General Tasks 1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon 2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories: a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Geographical and geopolitical names ii. Controversial names c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG i. Three character names at the third level ii. Registry specific names at the second level iii. Other reserved names at the second level 3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs 4. Review IDN-WG Report 5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories 6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated 7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically 8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams Tasks regarding Recommendations 1. ICANN/IANA reserved names a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry. a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN names 1. Provide examples 2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed 2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language i. Provide examples as possible ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 3. Single & two-character reserved names a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to non-roman scripts b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number. c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels 4. Tagged names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’ ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’ iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 5. NIC, Whois and www a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 6. Geographical & geopolitical names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names c. Consult with the GAC as possible d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary 7. Third level names a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable) a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work 9. Other names at the second level a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 10. Controversial names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names b. Consult with the GAC as possible c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary Schedule 1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April 2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended: 14 :15 UTC Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 24 May 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election process for GNSO Council chair. 2. Arising from item 5, revise the WHOIS working group charter to reflect the Council discussions. 3 Arising from item 5, send a communication to the GAC seeking participation from the members as individuals. 4. Arising from item 6, a. table the motion "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. " b. request ICANN staff for feedback on the availability of resources to commence a policy development process (pdp). -- 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

RyC Position re. IPC Request for Issues Report re. IGO Names
by Gomes, Chuck May 23, 2007

May 23, 2007

In anticipation of the Council's discussion tomorrow about agenda item 5 (Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations), please find attached a position paper from the RyC. 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

Location of Third ICANN Meeting for 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 20, 2007

May 20, 2007

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17may07.htm Location of Third ICANN Meeting for 2007 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17may07.htm 17 May 2007 ICANN advises that the public meeting scheduled to be held from 29 October through 2 November 2007 will take place in Los Angeles, California, USA. ICANN holds three public meetings each year. The location of these meetings are rotated through the five ICANN regions and selected on the basis of proposals received from various local groups interested in hosting the meeting. The announced region for the location of the October 2007 meeting was Asia Pacific. A review of proposals from two potential hosts determined that it was not possible to proceed at this time due to various logistical issues. ICANN examined a number of non-hosted locations in the Asia Pacific in attempt to adhere to the Asia Pacific rotation. Again, for reasons of logistics, cost and seasonal demand, it proved extremely difficult to find a location. Given this situation it has been decided to locate this meeting in Los Angeles. Without a host this maximizes the capacity of staff to resource the event in an efficient and economical way. The location is also a major travel hub and the quantity of hotel accommodation means that this should prove to be a less expensive meeting than some other options. ICANN recognizes that, following the upcoming meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this means two meetings in a row held in the United States. As a result, ICANN today is posting a request for proposal to host ICANN meetings in 2008, as well as the dates and rotations for meetings to be held in 2009 and 2010. As part of this posting, ICANN has modified the rotation to designate the region for the first meeting in 2008 as Asia Pacific. The next scheduled North American meeting has been removed from the rotation. Due to the increased participation at the ICANN meetings, significant changes have been made to the requirements to host an ICANN meeting, with ICANN assuming more responsibility for planning and finances. Proposals to host the three 2008 meetings will be accepted through 15 June 2007. The 2008 – 2010 meeting rotation schedule can be found at http://www.icann.org/meetings/ and the request for proposal to host ICANN meetings in 2008 can be found at http://www.icann.org/meetings/rfp/rfp-2007.htm. Questions regarding hosting a meeting should be addressed to the ICANN meeting staff at meeting(a)icann.org. Further details about this meeting will be forthcoming and made available on the ICANN Website. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Posts Proposed 2007-08 Budget
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 20, 2007

May 20, 2007

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Posts Proposed 2007-08 Budget http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-17may07.htm 17 May 2007 In accordance with its bylaws, ICANN today posted the Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2007-08. ICANN will hold a series of consultations and take public comment on this budget through the ICANN meeting in San Juan 23-29 June 2007. The budget and amendments made in response to the consultation will be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration at its meeting in San Juan on 29 June 2007. Comments to the budget can be made to budget-0708(a)icann.org and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/ . -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 24 May 2007
by Bruce Tonkin May 20, 2007

May 20, 2007

Hello Avri, > > On the Agenda, I would like to request that we add consideration of > the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - > Existing > Registries - PDP Feb 06 to the Agenda. The final report was issued > on 4 May. OK. I will add as Agenda Item 7. Item 7: Consideration of the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Ap r07.htm Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 12 April 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 17, 2007

May 17, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 12 April 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen .................................................................................. 12 April 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies 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 Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Sue Jonklaas- Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 12:15 UTC. MP3 recording Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard 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 28 March 2007 The approval of the minutes was deferred to the next Council meeting Item 3: Revision of Transfers Policy - consider staff recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03369.html Ross Rader, chair of theTransfers Policy Review Committee, set up in mid 2005, reported that the committee's goal was to review the effectiveness of the existing Transfer Policy from an operational perspective and determine whether or not any amendments to the existing policy should be recommended for further examination in a policy development process by the GNSO and/or whether or not any additional work would be required on the implementation side at an ICANN Staff level. ICANN Staff prepared 3 summary documents 1) is the draft advisory, unchanged from last message in January. <Draft-Transfer-Advisory-24jan07.doc> 2) is some notes on possible tighter wording/clarifications to the existing policy. This consists of 4 points taken out of the previous "policy issues" list--all of these had to do with the reasons for denial section. <DenialClarifications-28mar07.doc> 3) is a revised list of policy issues with the above-mentioned items taken out. <Draft-TransfersPolicyList-28mar07> The committee had reached a set of recommendations which would be submitted to the GNSO Council by the Puerto Rico meetings for Council's consideration. However the committee would proceed with the staff updating certain wording in the contractual conditions and issuing advisories. Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard for Item 4 concerning the ICANN Board election results. Item 4: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03416.html Results of Election Board seat # 13 : Dr. Bruce Tonkin is elected to the ICANN Board in seat # 13. Total votes 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin 3 abstentions 3 votes not cast The details of the vote: 3 people did not vote by ballot. 1. Bruce Tonkin was not replaced by the Registrar constituency. (2 votes) 2. One Council member did not return a ballot and could not be contacted. (1 vote) 3. One Council member did not return a ballot and under special circumstances, voted by email and phone before the close of the vote on 9 April at 17:00 UTC. (1 vote) The total number of votes that Council could cast was 27 and a majority 14 or more. Philip Sheppard proposed that The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. The motion passes by voice vote. Bruce Tonkin abstained. Decision 1: The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. Philip Sheppard, on behalf of the Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin and handed the chair back to him. Bruce Tonkin thanked the Council for their support and stated that he was prepared to continue chairing the Council until the council elected a new chair and/or he took his place on the ICANN Board in the beginning of June 2007, but that an election process for a new chair should be started based on previous procedures. The GNSO secretariat was requested to launch the process. Item 5: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an interim chair http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html Bruce Tonkin referred to postings to the Council list relating to recent Council decisions regarding Whois , a summary of opposition to the WHOIS task force recommendation, the WHOIS task force recommendations, and IETF working group guidelines for managing working groups. Maria Farrell summarised the changes to the charter proposed by various Council members on the mailing list: 1. Changes that related to the objective of the working group that should explicitly consider the implementation issues raised by Operational Point of Contact (OPOC). 2. Changes to the background section and information, ensuring an explicit reference to the definition of purpose agreed upon by Council on April 12 2006 http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms -of-reference.html 3. The task force policy recommendations should be specified. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-1… 4. Changes referring to the work: a. to use the text of the resolution agreed by the council, rather than the current text. b. only examine the definition of the OPAC in the light of the original resolution then consider whether access should be for a legitimate interest as stated in the original proposal or with regard to legitimate activities, as referenced in the GAC principles c. whether there should be distinctions between people accessing the data and how these should be made. 5. In the assignment of work, which third party and under which condition should have access to unpublished data. 6. Remove the GAC principles from the document. Bruce Tonkin summarised the discussion in Council and indicated where agreement appeared to have been reached: In the background section specifically include a reference to the council decision on the WHOIS purpose http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml and Council's intention to revisit the definition in the light of the final report. Reference Council's 3 decision and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtm http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html Refer to that GAC principles http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html GAC Communiqué is available at: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf and identify that they specifically provided a list of legitimate activities. Move the material currently under 4B into the Background section. In section 3, the policy recommendations being referred to should be specified in a footnote. In section 4B, the motion passed in Lisbon stated 'how legitimate interest will access' while the current document used the term ' how third parties may access for legitimate activity'. Thus 4B could be re-worded to: 'determine how and which legitimate third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query based access. Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria, proposed that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above. [The revised charter as approved is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group…] It was agreed to send a communication to the GAC inviting those interested members in participating as individuals whose expertise would be valued rather than the official view of the particular department or government Item 5 b: appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group Bruce Tonkin commented that Council needed to select a WHOIS working group chair bearing in mind the short mandate of the working group. The person should be currently available, have chairing experience and be acquainted with the WHOIS background and history to get the work started. Bruce Tonkin proposed Philip Sheppard as the interim chair. The discussion emphasised the need for a skilled chair person to remain neutral for the 120 day period while the group was in place. Listening to the discussions, and the various points of view and identifying areas of rough consensus. Bruce Tonkin referred to the RFC2418 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures - dated Sept 1998 as possible guidelines for such a group. Rita Rodin expressed hope that the working group would produce policy and resolve some of the WHOIS issues. Rita emphasised the facilitator role of the chair, aided by a co-chair, in eliciting ideas and moving towards a compromise. Views were stated in favour of having a co-chair because two different neutral perspectives could lead to broader rough consensus being obtained. It was suggested that a facilitator or neutral party, such as an ex-board member or an external paid facilitator, could be a valuable support and sounding board for the chair in pointing out where neutrality could be compromised. It was suggested that Jon Bing, not on the call, Nominating Committee appointee to the Council, relatively new to the Council in a neutral role, could fulfil the role and be consulted by the chair. Philip Sheppard expressed concern with formalizing a co-chair relationship. In accepting the challenge of chair he was prepared to approach the WHOIS issues in a neutral perspective to best resolve a long standing issue. Philip went on to state that if council had concerns about the level of neutrality and ability to exert in this then he would stand down and let somebody else take on the role. Professional staff or someone in the Council/community would be welcomed to fulfil the role of sounding board. Mawaki Chango suggested that the motion should not preclude the possibility of electing co-chairs and urged Philip not to put as a condition that he would step down if there would be a co-chair. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed that: the GNSO Council resolves to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. The motion was carried by a voice vote. 2 abstentions were noted from Philip Sheppard and Mawaki Chango Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. Item 6: Protection of IGO Names and Abbreviations in line with WIPO 2 - consider recommendation from the intellectual property constituency http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03368.html The constituency recommends that: "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. " see correspondence on this topic: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ on this topic. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tarmizi-13mar06.pdf http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-twomey-15jun06.pdf Kristina Rosette commented on the background to the proposal. When the initial Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) statement was submitted to the new gTLD policy development process there were suggestions to implement parts of the WIPO2 recommendations, specifically, protection of international governmental organization names and abbreviations. The inclusion of that recommendation was motivated by a request made to the IPC during a cross constituency meeting in Vancouver to take a lead in attempting to find a consensus solution proposal to some of the issues raised in the WIPO 2 recommendations. The WIPO 2 recommendations did include other areas, for example, the protection of country names and the protection of personal names. In examining the issue, the IPC had not found sufficient legal basis in international law to justify full implementation of all of the WIPO2 recommendations. Thus, the scope of the IPC recommendation was to restrict it to the protection of IGO names and abbreviations.In summary there is definitely a basis in international law for the protection of IGO names and abbreviations tracing back to the Paris Convention. Currently,there are slightly over 132 IGO's that have followed the procedure for having their names and acronyms registered and consistent with the Paris convention. WIPO itself has provided a draft model and rules for the possession of IGO names and abbreviations as type of modified parallel UDRP procedure. The notable difference would be to restrict the scope to IGOs and create a different appeals procedure from that which is currently in place. WIPO feels quite strongly that it is important to obtain the protection and to have an alternate procedure to allow IGO's to protect their names and marks particularly because of the nature of some of the IGO's, In summary, the IPC requests the GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. IGO Names and Abbreviations are not considered to be trademarks. Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling a motion for the next meeting and requesting feedback from the ICANN Staff in terms of resourcing a policy development process. Item 7: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of work http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03373.html The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that 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 with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 4: The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that 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 with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added. General Tasks 1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon 2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories: a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Geographical and geopolitical names ii. Controversial names c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG i. Three character names at the third level ii. Registry specific names at the second level iii. Other reserved names at the second level 3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs 4. Review IDN-WG Report 5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories 6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated 7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically 8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams Tasks regarding Recommendations 1. ICANN/IANA reserved names a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry. a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN names 1. Provide examples 2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed 2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language i. Provide examples as possible ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 3. Single & two-character reserved names a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to non-roman scripts b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number. c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels 4. Tagged names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’ ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’ iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 5. NIC, Whois and www a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 6. Geographical & geopolitical names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names c. Consult with the GAC as possible d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary 7. Third level names a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable) a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work 9. Other names at the second level a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 10. Controversial names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names b. Consult with the GAC as possible c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary Schedule 1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April 2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended: 14 :15 UTC Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 24 May 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election process for GNSO Council chair. 2. Arising from item 5, revise the WHOIS working group charter to reflect the Council discussions. 3 Arising from item 5, send a communication to the GAC seeking participation from the members as individuals. 4. Arising from item 6, a. table the motion "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. " b. request ICANN staff for feedback on the availability of resources to commence a policy development process (pdp). -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

4 4

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 24 May 2007
by Bruce Tonkin May 17, 2007

May 17, 2007

Hello All, Below is a draft agenda for the Council meeting next week. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00 LA, 8:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne, 00:00 Auckland Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 24 May 2007 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 - minutes for 28 March 2007 - minutes for 12 April 2007 Item 3: Update on election process for GNSO Council chair - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update Item 4: Proposed motion to create a Vice-Chair role: The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so. Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. Item 6: ALAC request for an issues report on domain tasting - note request under clause 1(c) of the GNSO Policy Development Process - proposal to schedule consideration of the issues report at the San Juan meeting of the GNSO Council, and get input from the constituencies during the meeting (under clause 3(b) of the PDP) Item 7: any other business

2 2

SAN JUAN attendance
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 16, 2007

May 16, 2007

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Could you please let me know as soon as possible, off the list, whether you will be attending the meetings in San Juan, arrival and departure dates, and whether you would like to be part of the block reservation at the venue hotel, the Caribe Hilton. Attached is the proposed draft schedule to help you plan. Details will be filled in later, but it is proposed that the Chairs of the Reserved Names Working Group and the Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group would present their Final Reports to the Committee on Saturday 23 June. Please see the visas information http://icannsanjuan.pr/visa.php and make sure that you have the necessary formal invitation if required. If you have questions or need any help, please let me know. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Vote for GNSO Council Chair
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 16, 2007

May 16, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The nominations for GNSO Council chair have closed. Philip Sheppard and Avri Doria have been nominated, seconded and accepted their nominations. The ballots go out today, Wednesday 16 May, and the voting period is open for 14 days, closing on Wednesday 30 May at 15:00 UTC. Please note that the ballots come from tally[at]icann.org and can be responded to via the web at the URL or via email by replying to the message in plain text. Please follow the instructions on the ballot to return the ballot as soon as possible. They should not be copied to any e-mail list. The candidate receiving the majority of the votes will be elected as the chair. There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more. In case of a tie, there will be a second round of voting. When the vote is completed, the Secretariat will announce the results on the Council mailing list. The announcement 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. This 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. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a Council meeting 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. Please let me know, off the Council list, if you encounter any problems or do not receive a ballot. 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: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal
by Mawaki Chango May 15, 2007

May 15, 2007

Colleagues, I was pleased to read this, and wanted to share with you. But that's just the second registrar in that huge place called Africa. Methinks we still have a long way to go, both from the continent and from ICANN sides. A nice next step would be a new gTLD Registry agreement for Africa: how about that? Congratulations to Mouhamet Diop, to all those in the ICANN community who have contributed to make this happen, and to all of us for our hard voluntary free work. I'd like to encourage us to keep thinking hard out of the box.Thanks, Mawaki --- Anne-Rachel Inné <annerachel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:59:25 +0200 > From: "Anne-Rachel Inné" <annerachel(a)gmail.com> > To: africann(a)afrinic.net > Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN Accredits First Registrar in > Senegal > > Dear All, > Please join in congratulating Mouhamet Diop for the birth of > KHEWEUL.COM, > the first registrar accredited by ICANN in West Africa! Good > luck Mouhamet. > ar > > --------------------------------------------------------- > ICANN Accredits First Registrar in Senegal > > 14 May 2007 > > *MARINA DEL REY, Calif.*: The Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) has signed its first accreditation agreement > with a > Senegal-based Registrar Kheweul.com SA from Dakar. > > "We have accreditation agreements with more than 890 > Registrars across the > world and this is only the second in Africa," said > Anne-Rachel Inné, > ICANN's Regional Liaison for Africa. "ICANN is continually > working to expand > its international participation and representation and this > agreement is > an important step forward in that." > > Kheweul.com has been accredited to register domain names from > the .biz, > .com, .info, .name, .net, .org, and .pro top-level domains. > > "We're proud to be the first ICANN-accredited Registrar in > West Africa and > the second in Africa," said Mouhamet Diop, Chairman and CEO of > Kheweul.com. > "Kheweul.Com is going to work closely with all African > country-code > top-level domain managers and all world-wide registries to > provide domain > name services to local African communities. We also plan to > promote the > digitalization of African cultural heritage and help the > preserve of African > multimedia content." > > ICANN successfully introduced competition in the registrar > marketplace that > has resulted in the over 890 ICANN accredited registrars now > offering a > range of registration services. A complete list of accredited > registrars is > available at: > http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html. > > ICANN has a contractual relationship with all accredited > registrars that > clearly sets forth the obligations of accredited registrars. > This > information is available at: > http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm. > > * About ICANN: * > > ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the > Internet's system of > unique identifiers like domain names (like .org, .museum and > country codes > like .uk) and the addresses used in a variety of Internet > protocols that > help computers reach each other over the Internet. Careful > management of > these resources is vital to the Internet's operation, so > ICANN's global > stakeholders meet regularly to develop policies that ensure > the Internet's > ongoing security and stability. ICANN is an internationally > organized, > public benefit non-profit company. For more information please > visit: > www.icann.org. > > *About Kheweul.Com: * > > Kheweul.Com is a Senegalese private company based in Senegal, > registered > under the African Jurisdiction, called OHADA, and will serve > all African > countries for any purposes related to Domain Names business. > For more > information please visit: www.kheweul.com. > > Mouhamet Diop's bio and involvement with the international > functions of > ICANN are online at: http://www.icann.org/biog/diop.htm. > > *Media Contacts: * > > Jason Keenan > Media Adviser, ICANN (USA) > Ph: +1 310 382 4004 > E: jason.keenan(a)icann.org > > Mouhamet Diop > Chairman & CEO > Kheweul.Com > SENEGAL > Ph: +221 821 29 39 > Cell: +221 638 42 88 > E: mouhamet.diop(a)kheweul.com > > International: Andrew Robertson > Edelman (London) > Ph: +44 7921 588 770 > E: andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann

1 0

FYI: Whois Funnel Request: Telnic application to change its Whois service obligations
by Maria Farrell May 11, 2007

May 11, 2007

Dear Council members, Please be advised that ICANN has received an application for evaluation of new registry services regarding Whois from Telnic, the operator of the .tel registry which is expected to launch later in 2007. On 27 April, 2007, ICANN Services staff received an application from Telnic who requested an alteration to its contract in order to comply with the UK Data Protection Act (1998), an implementation of the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). Telnic has not provided notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other compliance action that might affect its compliance with its agreement with ICANN regarding the collection, display or distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois. It has carried out informal consultations with stakeholders and the UK Information Commissioner. This evaluation process is completely separate from the Draft ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.ht m) The draft Procedure was developed by the GNSO Council in November 2005 and adopted by the ICANN Board in May 2006. The ICANN staff developed an implementation draft of the procedure and invited public comments (December 2006 - January 2007) on it. The procedure will be finalised pending any input from the Government Advisory Committee. The Telnic request is at step 2.4, 'Preliminary Determination', of the Registry Services Request process. (Process diagram here: http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/workflow.html, process policy here; http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html) The process has not identified significant security or stability issues or competition issues that might bar the implementation of the new registry service. The next step is that the service request will be posted for public comments and sent to the ICANN Board for a decision on implementation. Registry Services Evaluation Process: http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ Telnic Cover letter: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/price-to-pritz-25apr07.pdf Telnic Registry Request Service: http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/telnic-whois-proposal-27apr07.pdf Best regards, Maria Farrell

1 0

Nominations and seconds for GNSO Council chair closed
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 11, 2007

May 11, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Nominations and seconds for the GNSO Council chair have closed. Philip Sheppard has been duly nominated by Mike Rodenbaugh. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03476.html Greg Ruth ISPCP, and Kristina Rosette IPC, both voting Council members, have seconded Philip Sheppard's nomination. Philip Sheppard has accepted his nomination. Avri Doria has been duly nominated by Robin Gross and Norbert Klein. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03477.html http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03483.html Sophia Bekele, Nominating Committee appointee and a voting member on Council has seconded Avri Doria's nomination. Avri Doria has accepted her nomination. The voting period will be open for 14 days, starting Wednesday 16 May, 15:00 UTC and closing on Wednesday 30 May at 15:00 UTC. Thus the two candidates, Philip Sheppard and Avri Doria will appear on the ballot which you will receive. Please be prepared for the ballot that will come from "tally(a)icann.org". Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Nomination of Avri Doria as Chair of GNSO
by Robin Gross May 10, 2007

May 10, 2007

Colleagues, NCUC nominates Avri Doria to be the next chairperson of the GNSO Council. Avri has been a dedicated professional for many years working to solve policy and technical questions related to the Internet. As a NomComm appointee, Avri is able to remain neutral and will not automatically promote the agenda of any particular constituency. Rather, Avri approaches ICANN policy issues with an unbiased perspective and tries to find a solution that is in the best interests of the Internet as a whole. In my view, it is important that the council chair remain unprejudiced in his or her perspective so we can build consensus within the council and move forward with our policy work. Avri's fair-mindedness and depth of knowledge on technical matters, makes her the perfect candidate to be our next Chair. Thank you, Robin Gross Non-Commercial Users Constituency

2 2