October 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
by Olof Nordling Oct. 7, 2008

Oct. 7, 2008

Dear drafting group members and Councilors, Please see the summary of public comments below - the single comment on-topic was posted by Danny Younger and is included in full in the summary. As the GNSO handling of this PDP has concluded and the outcome is now due for the ICANN Board, I would appreciate comments to the statements made by Danny Younger, in order to fully inform the Board's handling of the PDP outcome. Very best regards Olof Nordling ------------------------------------------------------------ Summary of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP The comment period ran from 15 September 2008 to 6 October 2008. Two comments were received of which one off-topic (from Shantanu Panigrahi) expressing concerns over a particular transfer case and one comment (from Danny Younger) objecting to a part of the definition in the proposed new text for Denial Reason #9. The proposed text for Denial Reason #9 is as follows: "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy." Danny Younger states the following: "With regard to Denial Reason #9, I take issue with the clause "or transfer to the Registrar of Record" included therein. In the first instance, this clause is out of scope as the clarifications requested were only to pertain to inter-registrar transfers. In the second place, the clause serves to validate the unacceptable practice known as the Registrar Direct Transfer, i.e. "Should you choose not to renew your domain name during any applicable grace period, you agree that we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name to a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a "Direct Transfer")." Third, the clause is anticompetitive. With this language, the following scenario would unfold: 1. a registrant doesn't renew his domain name and the domain is transfered to the registrar of record 2. The registrar auctions the domain to a third party 3. The third-party is prevented from readily transferring the registration to another registrar because of the 60-day lock. This practice serves to keep most Direct Transfers at the incumbent registrar (as such impeding free competition for domain name registration services)."

1 0

ICANN Seeks Interest in IDN ccTLD Fast-Track Process
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

[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] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02oct08-en.htm ICANN Seeks Interest in IDN ccTLD Fast-Track Process 2 October 2008 The IDNC WG recommended that as part of the implementation plan of the IDN ccTLD "fast-track" process a request for information (RFI) is sent out to all territories to gain an understanding of the interest of individual territories to participate in the Fast Track process. Participation in the RFI is not be mandatory to be eligible for an IDN ccTLD under the Fast Track. In recent weeks the CEO & President of ICANN has written to national governments about the introduction of IDNs at the lop level of the domain name system, and to seek their assistance in forecasting the number of countries and territories interesting in seeking an IDN ccTLD/s through the "fast track: process. A copy of this correspondence is available below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: To Dear , The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the international not-for-profit organisation which coordinates the technical policies and associated data bases by which 250,000 private and public networks operate as one global, interoperable Internet. To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination there would not be one global Internet. One of the most significant innovations in the Internet since its inception will be the introduction of Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) at the top level of the domain name system. Until now, top level domains (TLD) such as .com, .org and .uk have, for technical reasons, been presented only in the basic Latin alphabet (or script). This is now changing and over the next year ICANN will introduce the capacity to have TLDs in other character sets, such as Arabic and Chinese (to list just two examples). IDNs offer many potential new opportunities and benefits for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to establish and use domains in their native languages and alphabets. In addition to the technical challenges associated with introducing IDNs at the top level, ICANN's policy making bodies have been considering a number of interesting and challenging policy issues, particularly with regard to IDN country-code top level domains (hereafter referred to as an "IDN ccTLD"). ICANN's policies are developed through bottom-up consensus based processes and in this instance the policy issues will be addressed by ICANN's country code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) in accordance with Annex B: ccNSO Policy-Development Process (ccPDP) http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexB of the ICANN bylaws. Some of the key policy questions being as part of the ccPDP include who is eligible to apply for an IDN ccTLD, how many IDN ccTLDs can a territory apply for (currently countries or territories on the ISO 3166-1 list has one two letter ccTLD) and should a list of possible strings (or names) be mandated. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN (see www.gac.icann.org) which considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, have been actively involved in this process and contributed to the framing of the policy questions. It is anticipated that this ccPDP will take in the order of two years to complete and will result in a well-defined policy allowing for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs into the domain name system. However, early consultations and discussions on this issue revealed that there are already some countries and territories who have an urgent need for an IDN ccTLD. As a result, a "fast track" process that does not pre-empt the outcome of the ccPDP, is being developed to address this need. As part of this process, ICANN is attempting to forecast the number of countries and territories interested in seeking an IDN ccTLD/s through the "fast track" process. I would appreciate your assistance with this forecasting by ensuring that the questionnaire which immediately follows this email is completed and returned to idn-cctld-rfi(a)icann.org or fax +1 310 823 8649 by 17 October 2008. I would recommend that you read the Important Background Information also enclosed with this letter for context. I would emphasise that the questionnaire is for planning and information purposes only. It is intended that any information you provide will be published on the ICANN website as transparent information will benefit and accelerate the process. However, any indication that you would like all or part of the information treated as confidential will be respected. Responding to the questions is not mandatory to be eligible for an IDN ccTLD under the "fast track" process, nor should a response to the questions be considered a commitment by ICANN to introduce a particular IDN ccTLD. I will also be writing to [XX] the ccTLD manager for [.XX] about this matter. You may wish to involve them in formulating your responses. ICANN is committed to the widest possible consultation on policy issues such as this and governments can participate in the process through the GAC. More information on the GAC is available at http://gac.icann.org Further information about ICANN is available on our website http://icann.org and information about IDNs can be found at http://icann.org/topics/idn. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Donna Austin, Manager, Governmental Relations. Thank you in advance for taking the time to participate in this exercise. I would also like to take this opportunity to let you know that I will be writing to you again in the near future regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. Yours sincerely, Paul Twomey CEO & President cc. [GAC member] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enc. Important Background Information Questionnaire Important Background Information The purpose of the fast-track is to introduce a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-11 list of two-letter country codes in a short timeframe to meet near term demand. It is anticipated that the fast-track will be made available in 2009 and the process will continue until the ICANN policy development process is concluded in the next few years. To be eligible under the fast-track process: the territory2 should be listed on the ISO 3166-1 list ; and the proposed domain name (or string) should be a meaningful representation of the name of the territory in an official language3 of the territory. the language is represented in a non-Latin script. For the purposes of the fast-track, a domain name (or string) is considered meaningful if it is in an official language and: is the name of the territory; or a part of the name of the territory that denotes the territory in the language; or a short-form designation for the name of the territory, recognizably denoting it in the indicated language ; and There is a limit to the length of the domain name as described in the attached documentation but it is likely that all complete country and territory names can be accommodated. As a first step in the process, it will be the responsibility of the respective territory's local Internet community4 to, among other things: identify the script and official language to be used in the domain name select the domain name which is a meaningful representation of the territory document the endorsement of the selected domain name, the script and language to be used. appoint or select an IDN ccTLD manager (delegate) or identify the relevant public authority to perform the role until one is selected and prepare documentation on endorsement/support, and other items necessary to enter the Due Diligence stage prepare a language table that describes the list of eligible letters or characters required to express the official language The above information represents only selected elements of a report on the fast-track process prepared by an ICANN working group. If you believe your territory is interested in participating in the fast track process, but has not been involved in the ICANN policy discussions, it is important that you read the full report which is available at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15jul08-en.htm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions for Each Territory [PDF, 29K] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 International Organisation for Standardisation ISO 3166-1, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions-Part 1: Country Codes (http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes.htm) 2 To be read as 'country and territory'. 3 For the purpose of the fast track an official language is one that has a legal status in the territory or that serves as a language of the administration. 4 Selected delegate (IDN ccTLD manager), relevant public authority and parities served by the IDN ccTLD. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Council meeting: New gTLD Update
by Kurt Pritz Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity on last week's Council call to provide information regarding the current state of implementation planning for the GNSO's new gTLD policy recommendations. I thought I would take few minutes of your time to reiterate some of the points made during our discussion and indicate possible paths for Council and community discussion. As you may recall, one of the items described during the Council call was a recent discussion with the GAC to obtain a better understanding of the issues raised in their policy advice to the ICANN Board: "GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs." In that meeting (and earlier ones in Delhi and Paris), GAC members provided some detail as to the expectations of governments and the possible protections to be afforded to geographical names in the new gTLD application and evaluation process. As a result of those consultations, ICANN will post two documents. The first will be a letter from Paul Twomey to GAC Chair Janis Karklins that: (1) repeats back the meeting discussion points in order to ensure understanding; (2) provides a potential model for going ahead with some of the protections the government representatives are requesting; and (3) describes areas where requested protections would be problematic to implement or enforce. The second document, for public comment, review and modification, is the upcoming draft of the new gTLD "RFP" - the guidebook that will be provided to potential applicants. The RFP will also describe some of those potential protections. Those documents are being presented for public discussion and do not represent a final implementation model. The documents are intended to highlight discrepancies between the report of the GNSO Reserved Names working group and the GAC advice to the Board by describing potential implementation details. I.e., creating potential operational processes brings to light more clearly issues for implementation discussion. They will inform a discussion in Cairo where there will be opportunity for additional consultations with the GAC and the GNSO. The draft RFP will be posted and discussed in Cairo, and will be modified through public dialogue. It is planned that the draft RFP will be revised and posted again before a final version is posted for ICANN Board approval. The Board will be informed by this upcoming dialogue as it considers the final implementation model of the completed and approved GNSO policy recommendation for approval. Sorry this took so long to describe (I thought the note would be shorter.) I hope the intent and meaning are clear. Denise or I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks for your time & regards, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey. CA 90292 +1.310.301.5809 (office) +1.310.400.4184 (mobile)

1 0

GAC response re: GNSO Council Resolution on Whois 4 September 2008
by Liz Gasster Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

All, In response to the Council's recent request for comments from the GAC on possible studies of Whois, the ICANN staff liaison to the GAC reports that per the Chair of the GAC, the GAC letter of 16 April 2008 outlines the GAC views on the subject and should be considered as a permanent GAC position. The full text of the resolution is reprinted below, and the GAC letter of April can be found at: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf Thanks, Liz Gasster ........................................................................................................................ Whois Hypotheses Moved: Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross Friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh accepted. Whereas: *On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ ) *Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted *Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25 feb08.pdf ) On 28 March 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a group of volunteers (Whois Study Group) to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml ) There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted, on 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (Whois Hypotheses WG) to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits and to deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council () The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26 August 2008 (https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whois_st udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report). Resolve: The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG Council representatives including liaisons are asked to: 1) forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable; 2) be prepared in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion; and 3) in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 to start development of a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies, that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance to justify having ICANN staff prepare cost estimates. ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible. Passed unanimously by voice vote ............................................................................ ............. _______________________________________________ gac mailing list gac(a)gac.icann.org https://mm.gac.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac _______________________________________________ gac mailing list gac(a)gac.icann.org https://mm.gac.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed way forward
by Avri Doria Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Hi, Last week, Mike O'Connor, stepped down as chair of the Fast Flux PDP WG in a surprise note to the FF PDP WG mailing list . The group is at a critical juncture and, hopefully, coming to a close on its efforts to produce a report. While I do not expect this report to make policy recommendations that are necessarily ready for a final PDP vote, it will represent a substantive point where the Council will have enough information to take decisions about next steps. My concern, and that of several people I talked to, was that if the WG did not finish this report, the work of the last months would be lost. After various conversations, this is the path I am recommending. At our meeting on 16 Ocober, I will be asking the Council to enodrse my taking this role and following the recommended path. I did speak to Mike R. about which of us should take the chair role, and we agreed that in this case I should take it. I am hoping he will remain in the role of Council Liaison for this WG. I have no intention of remaining chair of this WG beyond the completion of the report and any possible renewal of the charter. Should the council decide to renew the charter, we will need to recruit a new chair. A last note, I believe this event has taught us some things about the running of WGs in the GNSO. I am hoping we can capture this information in the proposed GNSO Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) if it is approved. thanks a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Date: 1 October 2008 07:27:36 EDT > To: gnso-ff-pdp-may08(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed way forward > > > Hi, > > Subsequent to Mike O'Connor's surprise resignation, several of us > started a series of conversations to figure out what to do next. > After speaking to the policy support staff and Mike R. I have > decided that I will take on the chair role temporarily. I will > participate as a neutral chair and will not take part in any of the > decision making at the WG level. I will only stay in the role > until we deliver the current report to the GNSO council and it is > determined what to do next. I will ask the GNSO Council to endorse > my taking this temporary role. > > My goal is to bring the current effort to the point where there is a > solid document that describes the current state of analysis and > opinion that can be sent to the GNSO council for further > consideration. At that point the council can figure out the next > steps, including the possibility of re-chartering, public comment, > decisions etc... > > The following is the track I propose to follow: > > 1. Go ahead with the poll that most of the group had already agreed > to. This will be sent out in the next day or so and will last for a > week. > > 2. Marika will take the results of the poll and produce a revised > report. This will include her best guesses at the rankings. These > will be: agreement for full consensus, Support for rough consensus, > and Alternative view(s) and will be based on the polling results. > > 3. The WG will then start walking through the document to make sure > that it corresponds to the various views of the group. Where it > doesn't the group, or perhaps sub-groups of those most concerned, > will hold further discussion to arrive at sufficient description of > the viewpoints. At this point, we will not focus on working toward > further consensus, but toward an accurate description of the current > viewpoints and positions. Obviously if, once we clarify the > viewpoints, we find we have consensus or rough consensus, it will be > recorded. We will also make sue the the rankings (Agreement, > Support, Alternatives Views) are agreed upon buy the gorup members. > > 4. The report will be put out for public and constituency comment > and then will be discussed by the GNSO council. > > Note: At this point I want to take discussion of the charter off > the table. Once we have completed the substantive document, the > group can discuss the charter and make recommendations to the > council on this topic. And of course anyone who has comments on the > charter, past or future is welcome to submit text that will be > appended to the charter discussion report. > > > I propose that the meetings on 3 and 10 October be cancelled in > order for: > - WG members to have time to do the poll > - Marika to rework the document > - WG members to read the document prior to discussion. > > I would also like to schedule a face to face meeting for Cairo. I > know that not everyone will attend the Cairo meeting, but I am > hoping that the facilities for remote communications will be > adequate for those who can't attend to participate remotely. > > I have also been told that there are several other people who want > to join the group. My inclination is to allow it since I do not > believe in closing off groups to new legitimate participants as this > gives an advantage to insiders. However, I am rather committed to > minimizing the rehash of old arguments, so everyone, current members > and new members alike, will be asked to avoid the drive to rehash. > Since we will be walking through the document, it is fair game to > make sure that all the old arguments are properly represented and it > is reasonable for anyone to ask whether a perspective was > investigated and what the outcome of the discussion was. And if a > perspective, fact or argument is missing, I believe it is reasonable > to discuss it and include it in the report so that the report can be > as complete as possible. > > Finally I know some of you are frustrated and think this should be > done by now. All I can say is that this is nature of Working Groups > - they go on far longer then anyone is comfortable with. But I > believe this is inevitable in a working method that requires that > everyone is able to express their viewpoint so that others can > understand and consider it. Reaching consensus or even rough > consensus on a controversial and complex topic is, unfortunately, an > arduous and lengthy task. > > Well, I can also say that I am grateful to the WG for the work it > has done and that I ask your indulgence for the process I will > employ in bringing this effort to a result as soon as possible. > > thanks > a. > >

2 1

RE: [council] Travel drafting team mailing list open
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

1 0

RE: Declaration of interest regarding transfer of names from a de-accredited registrar
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Hello All, Whoops. Sent my previous note to the wrong list. I am in a Board meeting, and there is discussion (agenda item 4) about the process for transferring names from de-accredited registrars. See: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-06jun08-en.htm The staff proposal includes the option (in section 6.2) of using auctions if ICANN is not otherwise able to select a new registrar. I was just formally declaring, as is my practice, a possible conflict of interest in the discussion. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Declaration of interest regarding transfer of names from a de-accredited registrar
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Hello All, As John Jeffrey quite rightly points out it is possible (but hopefully not likely) that my employer (Melbourne IT) is deaccredited as a registrar and thus it could be perceived that I have a conflict of interest in describing how the funds would be distributed. My main point was that it is important that ICANN is not seen to have a financial incentive to favour an auction process versus trying to find the best party to be the new registrar. I will not comment further on how any funds should be distributed. I was attempting to capture the ideas of others into a sentence for section 6.2, rather than direct where funds should be distributed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0