February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Objectives for meeting with ccNSO later today
by Adrian Kinderis Feb. 11, 2008

Feb. 11, 2008

All, >From our GNSO Council meeting yesterday please see the following notes for the meeting with the ccNSO Council today; Objectives of the meeting with the ccNSO Council - To convey the following; o That understand our issues and also our goals o They we clarify our position, dispel some mythology o That we collectively clarify the respective roles of each Council o That the GNSO explicitly support for fast track!! - To solve the classification issue (soon) - To agree at the meeting to work together and go down the road of solving it o Develop a plan/key next steps for collaboration - Potentially suggest Reserve List compromise (?) Meeting Etiquette; - Contributions from Council members, not only Chair & vice-Chair - Expect a positive attitude from the ccNSO Council - Concise and clear messages, saying same things from different perspectives I hope this helps. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

Update Agenda item for wednesday meeting
by Avri Doria Feb. 11, 2008

Feb. 11, 2008

Hi, Based on our discussions this afternoon, we added an item to the council meeting - GNSO Improvements Under this item, Philip will give an brief overview of the agreed council position on the GNSO improvements plan. Additionally, each constituency is invited to give a 3 minute statement on the plan. thanks a.

2 1

Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Avri Doria Feb. 11, 2008

Feb. 11, 2008

Hi, At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's concurrence" While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn community had achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure. I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without prior community concurrence" thanks a.

4 3

Domain tasting agenda item for Wednesday 13 Feb meeting.
by Avri Doria Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

Hi, At today's meting we discussed the various possible outcomes for the DNT on Wednesday. We discussed the following possibilities: 1. All of the bracketed text in the proposed motion could be resolved and if all constituencies are ready for a vote and if the motion was made and seconded, the council could vote on the motion in that meeting. Note: while there is no by-laws requirement for the amount of time the (draft) final report report needs to be public before the vote, I think that 3 days may be a bit short. 2. The motion could be tabled until our next meeting to allow for further discussion among council members and within the constituencies. 3. The motion could be delayed until such time as updated impact statements related to the motion, according to the terms of reference, were collected from the constituencies. If we choose this option we will need to set a schedule for collecting these constituency impact statements. 4. We could create an open working group to do further work. In this case we would need to create a charter for this working group. One suggestion for a WG would be to study the possible implementation options, e.g. the maximum level of deletes for AGP applicability. I would like to ask the constituencies during their meetings on Tuesday to discus these options, and perhaps other possibilities they wish to suggest, so that we can determine what path we wish to follow at the Wednesday meeting. Thanks a.

1 0

revised draft GNSO Council response to ccNSO GAC issues report on IDN TLDs attached
by Liz Gasster Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

All, As promised earlier today, attached are two versions of the latest draft response, one with track changes, one clean version, reflecting the edits discussed this morning. Please let me know ASAP if I've missed anything. We will also post these documents on the GNSO draft documents page today. Thanks, Liz

1 0

Regarding string requirements for new gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

Hello All, ICANN recently called for Public Comments on DNS Stability: The Effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06feb08.htm This is actually part of the implementation of the new gTLD recommendations. One of the recommendations was around ensuring that strings added to the root don't have technical issues. Below is the current implementation suggested by ICANN staff for comment. (1) Rules for what characters are allowed in strings: - Labels must consist only of ASCII LDH characters (letters, digits, and hyphen). - Labels must be 63 characters or less. - Labels must not be made up entirely of digits. - Labels featuring hyphens in the third and fourth character positions must be valid Punycode labels using the approved IDNA prefix. - Labels must not begin or end with a hyphen. - Labels must not begin with the characters "0x" followed by a hexadecimal character. (2) Regarding file extensions (e.g .exe etc) - it is the recommendation of the ICANN technical staff to allow applications for TLD strings that may also be commonly used for file extensions. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

IDN country or territory
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

On reading further ISO refers back to the UN list. See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm The UN uses the phrase 'country or area'. And provides a footnote. Maybe a better reference than our use of territory which clearly has some overtones that the UN was seeking to avoid. Philip

1 0

Repeat copy of draft response for this morning's meeting
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

Here is the version of the document we will be using this morning. This is the same one I sent out a couple of weeks ago. 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."

2 1

Today's Meetings - comments on GNSO response to ccNSO-GAC IDN issues report
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

All, I probably will not be participating in today's meetings, but wanted to send along some comments about the current draft "GNSO Comments in Response to ccNSO-GAC IDN Issues Report." It's very well-drafted - many thanks to those of you who worked on it. I have only one general comment and two specific comments: General comment: The use of "should-must-may" appears in some places to correspond to RFC 2119 and to correspond to the specific question in others. If the intention is to use the RFC 2119 convention, it may be worthwhile to run quickly through the paper to have them conform. Specific comments: p. 4, lines 10-18: I found this answer confusing. I read the first two sentences to suggest a desire to avoid a "post award change" (comparable to the type we've discussed in connection with new gTLD recommendation 20), and the latter to shift the focus to contractual conditions. If this answer is referring, for example, to ccTLDs like .tv and .cm, then it seems inconsistent with the position that we've taken to date w/r/t new gTLDs in which the applicant claims to target a community, is awarded the gTLD on that basis, and then no longer targets that community. p. 12, lines 32-33 and 45-46: These answers seem inconsistent to me. I'll be on line until about 8:30 AM Delhi time and am happy to answer questions if you have them. K

2 1

SSAC comment on Whois Studies
by Avri Doria Feb. 10, 2008

Feb. 10, 2008

Hi, SSAC has released a comment to GNSO regarding WHOIS studies http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac027.pdf thanks a.

1 0