September 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN announces Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 24 Sep '07

24 Sep '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Please note: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 19 September 2007 ICANN has observed that there is confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (“Transfer Policy”). The purpose of this Notice of Intent to Issue an Advisory regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy is to allow interested parties 30 days to comment on the proposed advisory. ICANN will consider all comments received at the close of the 30-day comment period. Interested parties have until 19 October 2007 to submit comments at retransfers-comments(a)icann.org. Posted comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/retransfers-comments/. The purpose of the proposed advisory is to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 20 September 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

[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 September 20, 2007 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/council-20070920.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolution 20 September 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolution that the GNSO Council unanimously passed at its meeting on 20 September 2007. i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and; ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration, Be it resolved that; i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" (see: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf) for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and; i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory. ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar TransferPolicy". see: (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf) iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" (see: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf) before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report." 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

for just viewing the motions are at:
by Avri Doria 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcxsr2n8_3q2t4sx

2 1

Added Reference Documents for Council meeting 20 September 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note: Under Item 2, the following 'summary' document will be used during the Council discussion: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccNSO-GAC-IDNs-issues-report-GNSO-draft-commen… Item 2: Report from IDN-ccTLD ad hoc group and discussion (30 min) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-gac-issues-paper-idn-cctld-draft-21Aug07… http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccNSO-GAC-IDNs-issues-report-GNSO-draft-commen… Item 3 Follow-up on the Registrar Transfer Policy Review (20 min) Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [PDF, 96K] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf 23 August 2007 Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review [PDF, 88K] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf 23 August 2007 Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [PDF, 88K] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf 23 August 2007 Item 4: Discuss agenda for LA public meeting (20 min) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Item 5: Follow up on Reserved Names for existing TLDs (20 min) Staff Proposed Implementation Document on GNSO Reserved Names Working http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-implementation-doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07… Item 7: Action Item Review (5 min) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preliminary Report for 11 September 2007 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors
by Bruce Tonkin 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

Hello All, The staff have issued a preliminary report of the ICANN Board teleconference held last week on 11 Sept 2007. Note that you can see that the minutes of the Board meetings are becoming more detailed in terms of reporting the nature of the discussion. Relevant pieces of information for the GNSO Council are: - The location for the ICANN meeting in Feb 2008 is Delhi, India - appointment of Hagen Hultzsch as chair of the nominating committee for next year - there was a discussion on proposed .post agreement, and renewal of .aero and .museum - various exceptions are being sought relating to consensus policies and use of registrars by gTLD registries - my comments were mainly related to taking a uniform approach rather than a case-by-case approach - there was a discussion about the WHOIS policy work - you can see my comments below - generally from reading this list I was not too optimistic that the Council would reach broad agreement in support of a new WHOIS recommendation. I have copied the relevant sections from: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-11sep07.htm that cover the discussion on the registry agreements and WHOIS. Any feedback from the Council or Council members on matters before the Board relating to generic top level domain names would be welcome. Regards, Bruce Tonkin GNSO elected ICANN Board member From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-11sep07.htm Status Report on discussions with the UPU regarding .POST and renewal agreements for .AERO and .MUSEUM ======================================================================== ============================== Kurt Pritz advised that there are issues in common with all the ongoing sTLD negotiations (.MUSEUM, .AERO, and .POST). In some cases negotiations are close to conclusion and in other cases, additional negotiation is required. These issues have come up in other recent registry negotiations and these issues have been themes for discussion across the gTLD community. First, registries are seeking limitations to the requirement to comply with ICANN consensus policies and have to follow and comply with consensus policies. The second issue is the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars to register names in gTLD registries. The third issue is the request for a clause in the agreement requiring indemnification by ICANN to registries for costs associated with compliance to consensus policies. This last clause was included in old gTLD agreements but was eliminated in all new gTLD (including sTLD) agreements. Indemnification was seen as necessary in early days of gTLD development but as the market and registries have matured, it has become apparent that this form of indemnification is not necessary or desirable in the future development of the DNS. Steve Goldstein asked what it means to comply with consensus policies? Kurt Pritz advised that the ccNSO, GNSO or ASO are designated to recommend consensus policy to Board. When the Board approves the consensus policy, it is incorporated by reference into the gTLD agreements. Steve Goldstein clarified that after a contract is signed these can be amended because there are new consensus policies. Kurt Pritz responded that registry agreements include a clause that requires compliance with consensus policy even when the policy is approved after the contract is executed. Sponsored TLDs, by their definition, have significant policy making authority. So certain policy-making authority is reserved to the sponsoring organization in sTLDs. Recent sTLD agreements include requirement for compliance with consensus policy, including the process for considering new registry services - a stability and security threshold review. As these contractual issues were raised, ICANN facilitated public discussion on each and requested public explanations of the sTLDs as to why these contract changes are important to them. It is important for the Board to understand that the public discussion will not necessarily lead to agreement across constituency groups and the Board may be left to decide whether certain agreement terms should be approved in the face of criticism. Kurt then reviewed the negotiating status on each of the registries, as follows: Negotiation status - .MUSEUM: This negotiation is complete, a second version of the agreement is posted for public comment. The controversial issue was that .MUSEUM asked to "self-register" 5000 names. The reason was that .MUSEUM wished to replace the functionality of their "wildcard" that .MUSEUM was giving up in this negotiation. After registrar constituency criticism, Cary Karp met with the registrar constituency in Lisbon. Through that discussion, the contract language evolved to what is posted, including a reduction in the number of names to 4000. The proposed new language was posted on 31 August 2007 and thus far, there has been no comment from the registrar community, which has been primary in its opposition. ICANN Staff anticipates asking the Board to approve the agreement at the 16 October 2007 Board Meeting. Negotiation status - .AERO: Many contractual issues have been resolved, however, some core issues remain uncompleted. The sponsor SITA states that, in the proposed agreement, the language does not adequately protect the sponsor's delegated policy making authority. They have requested a significant exemption from consensus policy compliance. SITA also requested that the old indemnification clause remain in their contract even thought the clause in other agreements has been eliminated. They claim they should not be responsible for costs arising from ICANN actions. Finally, they wish to eliminate the clause present in other agreements that prohibits registries from owning a 15% interest in a gTLD registrar. Their reason is, that in their large organization, a registrar may be acquired without notice to the sponsoring organization. While negotiations are amicable, ICANN Staff and SITA disagree on the approach to these three core issues. Staff continues to work for a conclusion that SITA and ICANN Staff can mutually recommend. Negotiation status - .POST: UPU, the sponsor, has in recent months invigorated the negotiation. The issues here are similar. The UPU seeks exemption from consensus policy and to include indemnification by ICANN for certain costs to the registry. Additionally, their scheme does not plan to utilize ICANN registrars for their 300-400 primary registrations of their member states (uk.POST, for example). These requests have been based on the UPU's special status as a U.N. organization. ICANN has posted a UPU position paper describing their business plan and model to the gTLD constituency group, which has been offered to the community for input. The UPU would like to complete negotiations before the Los Angeles ICANN Meeting, but time is running short for appropriate comment periods and the issues remain controversial. Susan Crawford considered that in relation to the consensus policy structure, it will be important for ICANN to stick with the consensus policy model as it gives ICANN legitimacy and consistency in dealing with registries so long as the right process has been used to achieve the policy. Susan acknowledged the difficulty but concluded that it is essential that the consensus policy clause remain in the agreement. With regard to business models, she hoped it would not always be the case that ICANN-accredited registrars were to be used. Bruce Tonkin noted that in the context of the new gTLD process where the aim is to get consistency in agreements, he is wary of considering agreements on a case-by-case basis. The requirements to adhere to Consensus policy and use ICANN accredited registrars are covered in the proposed new gTLDs policy. His view is that given how hard it is to develop consensus policies these should be adhered to by registries and registrars noting for example that the new gTLD process has taken two years of intensive negotiation and has been through rigorous process. The use of registrars has been part of new gTLD discussion between registries and registrars and the general principle is that the registrar should be accredited by ICANN and should be treated equally. There have been some discussions over whether there should continue to be restrictions on the level of ownership by a registry of a registrar, and whether a registry may also be accredited as a registrar for its TLD. With regard to .POST and the three to four hundred names, there should be a separation between domain name allocation and domain name records maintenance. The .POST application may pre-allocate names as part of the TLD proposal; but maintenance of records could still be done by registrars . It is likely that registrars are already maintaining other domain name records for potential .POST registrants. Kurt Pritz advised that the clean division between registrar and registry is based upon policy and practice and it dates from the beginning the gTLD model structure. The agreements state that a registry cannot own 15% of registrar. The discussion between the roles of registries and registrars is ongoing about how distinction can be kept and business models accommodated. Raimundo Beca asked if the date of November 2 is definite or if it can be moved. Raimundo reflected that we should be careful not to give the UPU any favors, as they are an organization that has a history of monopoly and now there is competition. They should have to comply with the consensus policies. He noted that the UPU and the ITU have a similar history and that the ITU does not have it's own TLD, but is registered under ITU.INT Kurt Pritz advised regarding the November 2 date, the UPU requested ICANN Board approvals by that date so the UPU Congress can consider approving the agreement. We will make every effort to resolve all issues in time for that but have indicated that the deadline might be problematic because of the public debate around this agreement. Question was raised regarding whether the UPU could possibly consider the proposed agreement before Board approval. Steve Goldstein noted that he was against giving special consideration on consensus, indemnity, and registrar with exception of .MUSEUM. If you look ahead to 10,000 TLDs it will be difficult to go forward without common agreement. Steve Goldstein does not want to alienate the registry community, and he does not want ICANN to indemnify the TLD sponsors against consensus policies, so if such clauses were included in these agreements, he would vote "no". Steve Crocker noted that he had previously reviewed this issue and that with regard to .MUSEUM and other special registries using registrars, there is not enough business for those registrars to participate. He noted that .MUSEUM has problems getting the attention of registrars. The idea was to create competition but when registrations fall below a threshold it makes the business model difficult. Its nice to have a one size fits all but this does not fit the facts of the matter. Steve indicated that if we're going to encourage or have a system in place favorable to registries 100,000 minimum business model then we have to have the ability to use a mechanism other than a competitive registrars system. Bruce Tonkin advised that what Steve explained registrars understand, but the concern about considering on a case by case is the use of a series of precedents and trying to look at the issue as a whole and come up with something workable and in recognition of the points made. Steve Crocker noted that he had no problem with the framework developed to deal with those issues but considered that what we have now does not work. Information Update on GNSO's WHOIS Policy Development ===================================================== Denise Michel advised that the GNSO has an ongoing PDP on WHOIS and at a recent GSNO Council meeting a schedule was laid out for WHOIS reports. Council will have a final vote on task force and working group reports that staff are finalizing. Staff was asked to engage in some studies on registrars and misuses, the study is also expected to review processes available today, and other studies staff is working on. An implementation assessment is being prepared on issues involved on what is referred to as the operational point of contact (OPOC) proposal. The working group report completed in March intended a point of contact in lieu of a registrant. More recently the GNSO Council established a short term working group to look at the OPOC issue, and the working group examined the roles and responsibilities of OPOC not fulfilled, legitimate interest, third party contact information should be based on registered name holder, registrants use of domain name. The working group report has some points of agreement and some of points of significant disagreement. Staff is compiling all this information for Council consideration. Susan Crawford asked the timing for when board will get the report from the GNSO. Denise Michel advised that it is very fluid at this point in that with regard to OPOC, at one point there was strong agreement on the ability to consider OPOC proposal and the support for that proposal decreased as we got further into the detail of implementation and effects on registry and registrars became apparent. So there are many open issues and the important step is the staff development of implementation notes. The timing is unknown. Janis Karklins recognized that the GNSO council has used words in GAC WHOIS principles recommendations for action for study on use and misuses of WHOIS data, which is appreciated by the GAC. He is happy that staff has started compiling the data and will prepare a report. He asked about the timeline for the completion of the work and what sources will be used in compiling report. Liz Gasser confirmed that recommendations made by the GAC have been incorporated into the GNSO discussion. Staff is undertaking work to obtain information regarding the uses and potential misuses of information, the use of proxy services as it affects Whois accuracy, and Whois contractual compliance. Staff will provide additional updates on activities. There are some preparatory activities that will guide staff about additional work. Staff will be giving an update to GNSO on 4 October. Bruce Tonkin advised that conflicting draft resolutions have been circulating on the Council list regarding next steps on the WHOIS proposals, however as registries and registrars appear to be withdrawing their support for the taskforce proposal on OPAC, as modified by proposals from the WHOIS working group, he expects Council will say they can't reach an agreement. The Chair asked if the parties in debate agreed accurate information is available, was who has access to the information the primary issue. Bruce Tonkin advised that the work had stopped on accuracy until improvements were made on access control, and that many in the GNSO believe that registrants would be more willing to provide accurate information if it was not publicly available. The Chair suggested that maybe there is a kernel of agreement for drawing together the different sides.

1 0

Reference Documents for Council meeting 20 September 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Here is a list of the documents that will be discussed during the Council meeting, item by item, tomorrow, Thursday 20 September 2007. Item 2: Report from IDN-ccTLD ad hoc group and discussion (30 min) http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-gac-issues-paper-idn-cctld-draft-21Aug07… Item 3 Follow-up on the Registrar Transfer Policy Review (20 min) Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [PDF, 96K] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf 23 August 2007 Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review [PDF, 88K] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf 23 August 2007 Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [PDF, 88K] http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf 23 August 2007 Item 4: Discuss agenda for LA public meeting (20 min) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Item 5: Follow up on Reserved Names for existing TLDs (20 min) Staff Proposed Implementation Document on GNSO Reserved Names Working http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-implementation-doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07… Item 7: Action Item Review (5 min) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Draft minutes of GNSO Council meeting 30 August 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Attached, and in plain text below, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 30 August 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 August 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent - apologies Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C Robin Gross - NCUC - absent Norbert Klein - NCUC Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 15 Council Members (20 Votes - quorum) ICANN Board members Rita Rodin - absent apologies Bruce Tonkin - absent - apologies ICANN Staff Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Patrick Jones - Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Marilyn Vernon - ICANN staff Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat - absent apologies GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Observers Liz Gasster - consultant MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updated statements of interest Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03734.html Avri Doria, seconded by Tom Keller moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007 Motion approved Kristina Rosette, Ross Rader, Cary Karp and Mawaki Chango abstained. Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007. Item 3: Report from whois WG - Final Outcomes Report of the WHOIS Working Group http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf - Whois Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-cha… - Final Task Force Report on WHOIS Services http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-1… Philip Sheppard gave an overview of the WHOIS working group process.The working group ran from 25 April to 1 August, a little over the deadline which was to conclude its work by 30 July 2007. The group included 70 participants, the majority of whom were observers, that is, as described in the WHOIS working group charter, "not members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings". Most of the observers spoke for themselves or their organisation. No attempt was made to assess support by GNSO constituency or other interest grouping. At the beginning three subgroups were formed, each with a separate chair, to work on the three topics in the terms of reference. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-cha… Staff then produced a composite report for the whole working group. The group as a whole then revisited all the subject matter during a series of teleconferences and an extended face to face meeting in Puerto Rico. This led to a continued iteration of reports, which were updated according to those meetings. No votes were conducted, agreed recommendations were supported unanimously or by a substantial majority present at the relevant meeting when that item was discussed, and received insufficient objections to downgrade them in a validation report that followed. Objections that were recorded, went to a final few rounds of validation. This process was used to help assess whether or not opinions stated in the report were agreed, supported or alternative views. Alternative views were differing opinions expressed in relation to the characteristics of support or agreed categories, or opinions about alternate views, not necessarily contrary views. The report identified implementation options which could be further explored after completion of the Working Group's task. Philip then went on to give an overview of the WHOIS Working group report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf In section 1, the objective was broadly stated as public interest - balancing privacy and harm. Section 2 was a description of the Operational Point of Contact, (OPoC) who may be an OPoC, how does the OPoC relate to the registrant, the need for verification of the OPoC's email address, the need for consent to be an OPoC, proxy services, and the OPoC's relationship with technical and administrator contacts. Section 3 described the role and the responsibilities of the OPoC which were covered under the headings, relay, reveal and remedy. Section 4 related to compliance and enforcement. Section 5 described the type of registrant and display implications, the universality of the OPoC and that the distinction should be made between legal and natural persons at the time of registration by the registrant themselves. Section 6 dealt with access to undisplayed data records and described four ways of accessing WHOIS data: access to displayed WHOIS records, one time access, regular query based access to un-displayed data records, and full access to displayed and un-displayed records. Further, was there a need for access, who might do that, whether or not authentication was needed of people making those requests, and if the access services should be chargeable. In section 7 the rejected options, the OPoC Accreditation by ICANN and the distinction between commercial and non-commercial registrants, were mentioned. Section 8, Feasibility Studies, focused around unresolved issues which included cost related studies, data privacy issues arising from the self-declaration of Accessors in the Access proposal described in section 6; mechanisms for a practicable, cost-effective, globally scaleable means of authenticating Accessors as described in section 6, information on gTLD registrants and registrations and the use and misuse of WHOIS data. It was noted that this would be a broadening of a study proposed by the GAC and a go beyond the focus on spam in the June 2007 ICANN SSAC study. Item 4: Discussion on how to close this chapter of WHOIS discussions There were three proposals before Council on closing the WHOIS discussions: Avri Doria, Mike Rodenbaugh on behalf of the CBUC and Ross Rader. Avri Doria proposed the following process for finishing the work on WHOIS 1 - Liz Gasster produces Draft Final Report combining TF report and WG report recommended date: September 13 2 - Council reviews draft on the email list and at meeting (if necessary) possible September 20 meeting 3 - Constituency Review - recommended dates: September 20 - October 4, 2007 4 - Incorporate Constituency comments by October 1, 2007 5 - Community Public Comment: October 15 - November 6, 2007 6 - Staff production of Draft Implementation Notes requested by October 15, 2007 7 - Fact to Face discussion in LA on Saturday October 27, 2007 8 - Discussion during Public Meeting/Comment 9 - First meeting after November 6, 2007 - vote Mike Rodenbaugh on behalf the Business Constituency proposed the following process and resolution: "The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified." 1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows: 1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data). Ross Rader made the following proposition intended to serve as an amendment to the proposed CBUC motion; Whereas; 1. The GNSO Council accepts the WG report and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report. 2. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as sufficiently demonstrating consensus or agreement on substantive policy proposals. 3. The GNSO Council considers that the lack of consensus demonstrated through this open and inclusive working group is representative of the lack of agreement on key issues in this area of policy. 4. The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing consensus policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data provided to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted commercial operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the Whois Data Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy. Therefore; Be it resolved; a) that the GNSO Council concludes the current PDP on Whois. b) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years. c) that the GNSO Council makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. d) that the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN staff and Board of Directors that due to the lack of consensus on issues in this area that current contractual requirements concerning Whois for registries, registrars and registrants that are not supported by consensus policy be eliminated from the current operating agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties until such time that consensus policy in this area has been developed. Avri Doria proposed posting an amended proposal to the Council list to be voted on at the next Council meeting on 6 September 2007 Item 5: Review of Action Items: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf 5.1 New gTLDs Council would vote on September 6, 2007 5.2 IGO Follow up report Olof Nordling reported that the work was advancing and a draft report would be provided to Council. 5.3 Domain Name Tasting ad hoc group Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the group was advancing well within the timelines. 5.4 Ad hoc IDN-ccTLD group The final draft document by the working group tasked with preparing responses to the request for comments regarding the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues was provided to Council on 21 August 2007. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-gac-issues-paper-idn-cctld-draft-21Aug07… The discussion of the recommendations would be on the agenda of the Council meeting on 20 September 2007. 5.5 Reserved Names working group recommendations for new gTLDs. The ICANN Staff Proposed Implementation Document on GNSO Reserved Names Working Group Recommendation was provided to Chuck Gomes, the chair of the Reserved names working group for edits, by Patrick Jones. Council will receive the report before the next meeting. 5.6 Los Angeles Workshop session on new gTLDs Planning in progress by a small group under the leadership of Chuck Gomes for a 6 hour session on Monday 29 October 2007 in Los Angeles. 5.7 Registrar Transfer policy review. Ross Rader reported that the by the September 20, Council meeting, staff would provide Council with a completed report and it would be on the agenda for the Council meeting on 20 September 2007. Avri Doria commented that the high level agenda before Council could change as issues developed. Item 6 AOB: 6.1 Kristina Rosette enquired about the status of the Council resolution on proxy voting. 6.2 Ross Rader enquired about the status of the Council resolution on Term limits for Councillors that was passed at the Council meeting on November 5, 2006. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 15:46 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 6 September 2007 at 14:00 UTC. see: Calendar Action items arising from the Minutes: Item 4: Avri Doria to send to the Council list the amended version of the proposed process for concluding the work on WHOIS services. Schedule a Council meeting for 20 September 2007 Item 5.4 : Discussion of the recommendations in the final draft report by the working group tasked with preparing responses to the request for comments regarding the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues at the Council meeting on 20 September 2007. 5.5 Discussion of Reserved Names working group recommendations for new gTLDs at Council meeting on 20 September 2007. 5.7 Registrar Transfer policy review discussion at Council meeting on 20 September 2007.. Item 6.1 Update on the status of the Council resolution on proxy voting. 6.2 Update on the status of the Council resolution on Term limits for Councillors that was passed at the Council meeting on November 5, 2006. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Concluding the work of the Transfers Review WG.
by Ross Rader 18 Sep '07

18 Sep '07

Colleagues; By way of this message, the working group on inter-registrar transfers concludes its work. Pursuant to Council resolution 20050512-03, this group had a mandate to "...review the staff Transfers report in order to seek clarification, further information and provide guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council..." This working group conducted its work through mailing lists and teleconferences sporadically held throughout 2005-2007. The working group, with much assistance from ICANN staffer Karen Lentz, has produced the following three reports: 1. Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf) This is submitted by the WG to the Council as a suggestion for an advisory to be posted and distributed to the community. It is intended to provide clarifications and reminders on some common questions. The items covered in this document are those raised by the WG and believed to be not generally well-known or understood. 2. Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf) This is submitted by the WG to the Council as a suggestion for tightening the language on 4 areas within the list of reasons for which a registrar may deny a transfer request - to modify these requires policy development work, but this document may be helpful as a starting point to reduce the time necessary to be spent on this work. The purpose is to move toward tighter wording of some key points in the existing policy to remove loopholes/provide clarification. The suggestions included in this document are based on available references to the intent of the original policy work. 3. Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review (Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf) This is submitted by the WG to the Council as a suggestion for areas in which further policy development work may be desirable. This list came from issues identified by the members of the working group. The recommendation of the working group concerning these reports is as follows, in the form of a resolution that may be considered by the GNSO Council; "i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and; ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration, Be it resolved that; i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and; i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory. ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy". iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report." I would personally like to thank the participants of this working group for their time and effort. I would also like to specifically thank Karen Lentz of ICANN for doing all of the heavy lifting and the incredible patience she had with our rather laid back scheduling. We will review these documents at the next Council meeting, but I am available for questions via email beforehand. Thank you all. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492

2 3

Correspondence from the Chairman of Marques, Association of European Trade Mark Owners about WHOIS
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 17 Sep '07

17 Sep '07

Dear Council Members, Please note the recent correspondence from Jane Collins, Chairman of Marques, Association of European Trade Mark Owners, to Dr. Paul Twomey and the ICANN Board, raising concern over Whois issues. http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/collins-to-twomey-11sep07.pdf Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1