February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Revised Proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 12, 2008

Feb. 12, 2008

All, Attached please find a revised proposed GNSO Council motion on domain tasting and redline that highlights the changes from the previous motion. The primary changes are: 1. Additional Whereas clauses to highlight how the design team followed the terms of reference; 2. Deletion of brackets around 10%; 3. Deletion of the "speculative registration language"; and 4. Addition of an "extraordinary circumstances" exemption that carries with it a reporting requirement. Some comments: I do not yet have the IPC's instructions on this text, but do not anticipate significant objections. I believe that is true for Mike, too. The bracketed language reflects Tim's objection. I have left the language in for discussion proposes. The reasoning for the reporting requirement is that if a registrar experiences such an extraordinary circumstance that it warrants exemption from the application of consensus policy then it seems reasonable to provide ICANN and the registrant community with the information that the registrar is seeking an exemption and, if it is granted, the basis for it. K <<02122008 revised DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-12-08 09_58.DOC>> <<redline 02122008 DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53-#.DOC>>

1 0

RE: AW: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 12, 2008

Feb. 12, 2008

I don't agree completely. Either ICANN manages the root or it doesn't. My personal opinion is that any TLD entered into the ICANN managed root should all be done so under the same rules and conditions. I did not bust my behind for the last seven years to see all that we've built slowly go down the drain because the ccTLD name space overwhelms the gTLD space due to a more favorable competitive environment. I have no problem with the ccTLD space competing fiercly with the gTLD space, but it should be on an equal basis to the extent possible. Whether ICANN or anyone else likes to call it regulation or not, the fact is that the gTLD space is heavily regulated. The ccTLD space is not. That said, I feel that: 1. It is unlikely that we can stand in the way of one ccTLD-like IDN being allocated per ccTLD, nor should we try. However, the WHOLE community should be equally involved in the process that defines how that's done, not just the ccNSO. The fact that it is likely these new ccTLD-like IDNs will be operated under ccTLD rules, not gTLD rules is an argument FOR full and equal community involvement, not against it. 2. There needs to be a continual review of the results of such allocations and the effect on the supposed competitive environment that ICANN espouses to support in its bylaws. Such review very well may indicate that the relaxing of certain policies and regulations within the gTLD space, for both registries and registrars, is required to maintain an even playing field. Finally, all the FUD about split roots, independent roots, etc. is just that, FUD. That may very well happen regardless of what's done here. But ultimately, if that happens, consumer demand, user demand, money, whatever will eventually require they all work together somehow if they want to succeed long term. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report From: "Thomas Keller" <tom(a)1und1.de> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 6:39 am To: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxrodenbaugh(a)yahoo.com>, "'Robin Gross'" <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I have to agree with Mike, I do not think that there is any way of keeping governments from having their countries name in the scripts used in their country (or likewise important to their country). Trying to impose or persuade them to have such "territorial TLDs"under a GNSO ICANN governed regime if they could have the liberty to set the rules by themselves does not seem to me a good use of our time. Lets not kid our self if i.e the USG decides out of whatever reasons that they want .USA in kanji script there is no way that a.) ICANN can keep them from doing so a.) that they would submit them self to the GNSO processes. That holds also true for the German and Cambodian or in fact every government in the world. Instead of getting in endless debates with the cc Community and the GAC about how many TLDs a country can have and what scripts it can be we should rather engage into discussions on how to come up with a "new " iso 3166 list or algorithm to make a clear distinction between cc and g. Best, tom Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Rodenbaugh Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2008 13:41 An: 'Robin Gross'; 'Council GNSO' Betreff: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report I would be fine with concept of an IDN ccTLD for any string that is a 'meaningful representation of a country name.' I understand there is work to define that and to provide a challenge procedure, but think that should not be very difficult. The toughest part I envision is to ensure that words that are languages can be gTLDs, i.e. .hebrew or ..korean in those scripts; even though .israel or .korea in those scripts would be proper ccTLDs. If ccNSO and GAC commit that they will not request any additional strings beyond representations of country names, then we should not stand in the way of those. In answer to Robin's question whether any/every country should get an IDN ccTLD in Chinese, I think that would be fine, just as they all have one in ASCII. Thanks, Mike From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:13 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report I see that my statement below has a typo that should be corrected on the issue of the number of scripts per country. I did not mean "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain name, ..." I meant, if two COMMUNITIES within a country are going to start a war over a domain name..." Further on this point, I don't think we should succumb to the threat, "if you don't give us what we want, we will kill each other". That does not strike me as the kind of principled argument we should bow to. Robin On Feb 10, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Robin Gross wrote: The same issue was raised at my table by the board members. The feeling was "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain name, that is their problem. They must pick 1 name." I think there is merit to this view. It was also mentioned that Chinese is a script that is used by a large community in just about EVERY country in the world, so does this mean every country gets a script in Chinese? In the US alone, there are large language communities for probably 10 scripts, giving the US 10 scripts under our rule. I do not believe this is what we intended. And a few other points were raised that need to be dealt with. In particular, the recommendation that "strings must not be confusingly similar" is misplaced. Only technical confusion is the type that should be dealt with here, not general confusion. I agree. This recommendation really does not make sense from a trademark viewpoint (although that is how it is intended), since a domain name, by itself, does not cause confusion, but only with relation to how the domain is used. We are going well beyond technical stability and trying to regulate other things that are outside ICANN's authority. Perhaps we should give more thought to our recommendations before we vote on them. I found the feedback from the board to be enormously useful and we should try to address their concerns before voting. Thanks, Robin On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented. At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another table - there was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language group": "their government should decide to choose just one." I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/social/cultural implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sections of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed as "not ICANN's problem." Norbert - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Date: Monday, 11 February 2008 From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Agreed. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report The same issue was raised at our table Avri. I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. Regards, Adrian Kinderis -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com Agreed. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report The same issue was raised at our table Avri. I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. 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 Web: www.ausregistrygroup.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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report 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. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

1 0

Fwd: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Norbert Klein Feb. 12, 2008

Feb. 12, 2008

I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented. At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another table - there was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language group": "their government should decide to choose just one." I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/social/cultural implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sections of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed as "not ICANN's problem." Norbert - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Date: Monday, 11 February 2008 From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Agreed. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > The same issue was raised at our table Avri. > > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. > > Regards, > > Adrian Kinderis -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com Agreed. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > The same issue was raised at our table Avri. > > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. > > 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 > Web: www.ausregistrygroup.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. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > 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.

7 8

Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 12, 2008

Feb. 12, 2008

I agree with Chuck. Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tue Feb 12 07:11:02 2008 Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Hi, While it would be inconsistent with the new gTLD policy recommendations, I don't know if there is a necessity for consistency in this case as we are dealing with ccTLDs not gTLDs and we are dealing with significant expressions of a countries name or identity. So the conditions might be different. In terms of the statement I am not sure I know what Technical confusion is any more then I really understood what confusingly similar was. Are we saying it should not be visually or homographically similar,? I also wonder if there is another problem in this one. The name of a country in various representations will be similar to the name of the country in another representation - but in a sense that seems appropriate and not a problem. a. On 12 Feb 2008, at 16:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > That would be inconsistent with the recommendations made for new > gTLDs. We can't go back now and change what we already did. > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:53 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > How about: > "Strings that cause technical confusion should be avoided." > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> On 12 Feb 2008, at 14:29, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> >>> **** THEREFORE, I propose that we amend our statement, so that >>> only "technical confusion" is the type of confusion that we deal >>> with. Otherwise, not only are we in contrast with legal norms, >>> we are also outside the scope of ICANN's authority. >> >> >> Can you suggest the exact wording change you are proposing? >> >> As with other suggested changes, I believe we can make if there are >> no objections. >> On the other hand, if there are objections, we may need to vote on >> this amendment before voting on the response itself. >> >> thanks >> >> a. >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > >

2 1

Revised agenda for the Open Council meeting in New Delhi
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 11, 2008

Feb. 11, 2008

Dear Council members, Attached please find the revised agenda for the open Council meeting in New Delhi. There is no break as discussed, and GNSO improvements have been added. Thank you. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

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

Copy of Kurt's presentation
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 9, 2008

Feb. 9, 2008

Hello All, From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-gnso-new-gtlds-09f eb08.pdf See attached. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Has the meeting started?
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 9, 2008

Feb. 9, 2008

I'm on the line, but can't hear anything. Thanks. K

1 0

Rob Hoggarth
by Denise Michel Feb. 9, 2008

Feb. 9, 2008

I am pleased to announce that Rob Hoggarth has joined ICANN's Policy Staff as Senior Policy Director. Rob will be managing key projects and cross-cutting activities that support ICANN's policy development objectives, including initiatives to improve our Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. He also will serve as a primary liaison with other departments in ICANN and will provide support, as needed, for policy development initiatives. Rob will report to me and will split his time between his home office in Silver Spring, Maryland and Marina del Rey. Rob has had a distinguished career in technology and communications policy and law, including managing his own private consulting practice for domestic and international clients, serving as a Senior Vice President and General Manager for NTT America, Inc. (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone in the United States), and as a Senior Vice President for the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA). He also represented communications companies for a decade as a lawyer in private practice. Rob has written numerous white papers on a wide variety of telecommunications subjects and has organized and participated in conferences and seminars on emerging telecommunications issues and technologies throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia. Please join me in welcoming him to ICANN. He can be reached at < robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org <rob.hoggarth(a)icann.org>>. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org

1 0

Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting
by Olof Nordling Feb. 8, 2008

Feb. 8, 2008

Dear all, Attached is a Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting, prepared by staff following the public comment period for the Initial Report and incorporating the comments received. I hope you find it useful in the upcoming discussions on this topic. Very best regards Olof PS. And it IS still the 8th of February, even in New Delhi...

1 0

Updated GNSO related events schedule
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 7, 2008

Feb. 7, 2008

Dear All, Attached please find the updated schedule. Some of the rooms have been changed. There will be no lunch served on Saturday, but there are a number of places in the hotel to have lunch or a snack. There will be printed copies of the agenda. 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

Public Comments Requested on DNS Stability: The Effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 7, 2008

Feb. 7, 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/announcements/announcement-06feb08.htm Public Comments Requested on DNS Stability: The Effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System 6 February 2008 DNS Stability: The Effect of New Generic Top Level Domains on the Internet Domain Name System [PDF, 53K] The ICANN community has recently completed a policy development process regarding the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). This effort took place within ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) (see http://gnso.icann.org/) and resulted in a set of recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4…) to guide ICANN in introducing new gTLDs to the namespace. In its recommendations, the GNSO concluded that "ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains," and called for a procedure respecting the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. In preparing for the expected implementation of the gTLD policy recommendations, staff is conducting some review and analysis of the technical issues involved in this development. The addition of gTLDs to the namespace is an expansion of the DNS on a potentially large scale, to include many more names at the top level. One of the policy recommendations developed in relation to the introduction of new gTLDs included the requirement that "Strings must not cause any technical instability." ICANN is publishing this paper to solicit informed input on the technical issues relevant to the addition of new gTLDs, and to provide transparency toward how it will interpret and implement this recommendation. The goal is a clear set of rules that will be available to potential new gTLD applicants; so that it is known from the outset what tests will be applied to each application. ICANN is seeking feedback on the proposed approach as a step in its implementation planning for the introduction of new gTLDs. Comments may be submitted to new-gtlds-dns-stability(a)icann.org by March 7 2008. Comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-dns-stability/. For more information about the New gTLD Program, please go to http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 7, 2008

Feb. 7, 2008

Thanks, Tim. I had assumed you supported it, but didn't want to use names without confirmation. To clarify, I am not saying that I can't/won't support 10%. I would like to discuss the reasons for that number. Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Feb 07 01:49:10 2008 Subject: RE: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion Kristina, Sorry for not responding to the discussion that ensued after my suggested edits. My only comment is that I would support staying with the 10%. The differences in the delete rates have more to do with business models than anything else. I think that's at least partly why Neustar and Afilias chose the 10%. I also think that the 10% will reduce exception requests for the registries. Not that I would expect they will get a lot of those, but the fewer they get the less disruptive it will be to them and help avoid costs on their end supporting those requests. Finally, from a practical point of view, since that's what both Neustar and Afilias came up with based on the discussions they reported in their funnel requests I think we will get better support for the recommendation in general. Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Direct: 319-329-9804 Fax: 480-247-4516 tim(a)godaddy.com How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president(a)godaddy.com with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 9:31 pm To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by the domain tasting design team. Some comments may be helpful. 1. The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that, because of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose further work. Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for the Council to recommend a policy to the Board. 2. The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP -- is the subject of unanimous agreement. 3. The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of unanimous agreement. More specifically: a. Two members of the team are not committed to the 10% threshold and would prefer a lower percentage. I am one of them. I calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc., Tucows, Register.com, and Network Solutions. GoDaddy's average percentage was less than 2%. As a result of that review, I have questions as to why a 10% limit is appropriate if the largest registrar in .com (by a factor of at least 2) has a less than 2% deletion rate. It would be helpful to me if someone could provide on Saturday a general explanation as to why the registrars smaller than GoDaddy had larger percentages (some more than 5 times as high). b. One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes being, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in domain registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause. 4. It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on Saturday. Kristina -*- Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 6 February 2008 Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…> and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina…> ; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP; Whereas, the Board of Directors resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encouraged community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee; Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Final Report on Domain Tasting [final title tbd]; Whereas, the By-Laws require the GNSO Council Chair to call, within ten (10) days of receipt of the Final Report, for a formal Council meeting in which the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority Vote to present to the Board; Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges both that some stakeholders have advocated the elimination of the AGP as a means to combat the abuse of it and that other stakeholders have advocated the retention of the AGP as a means to pursue legitimate, non-abusive uses of it; Whereas, the GNSO Council welcomes the Board of Directors’ 23 January 2008 resolution pertaining to inclusion of fees for all domain names added, and wishes to recommend to the Board of Directors a Consensus Policy to address the abuses of the AGP and to maintain the availability of the AGP for legitimate, non-abusive uses; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; Therefore, the GNSO Council resolves as follows: 1. To recommend to the Board of Directors that it adopt a Consensus Policy to (i) restrict applicability of the AGP to a maximum of 50 deletes per registrar per month or [10%] of that registrar’s net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater; [and (ii) deem a registrar’s deletes in excess of this maximum to be indicative of, barring exceptional circumstances, speculative registrations;] while (iii) not intending to prohibit a registry the flexibility of proposing more restrictive excess deletion rules. 2. To suggest to the Board of Directors that the Consensus Policy may be implemented by amending Section 3.1.1 to Appendix 7 of each Registry Agreement to read as follows: Delete: If a domain is deleted within the Add Grace Period, the sponsoring Registrar at the time of the deletion is credited for the amount of the registration; provided, however, at the end of the month the Registry shall debit the Registrar’s account for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshhold of 50 deletes per month or [10%] of that sponsoring Registrar’s net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater (“Usual Deletes”); and further provided, however, that the Registry Operator shall have the right to propose more restrictive rules for deletes in excess of Usual Deletes during the Add Grace Period. [Deletes in excess of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculative registrations.] The domain is deleted from the Registry database and is immediately available for registration by any Registrar. See Section 3.2 for a description of overlapping grace period exceptions. <<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53.DOC>>

1 0

Fwd: Agenda for the gNSO and ccNSO njont meeting in New Delhi
by Avri Doria Feb. 7, 2008

Feb. 7, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Patrick Sharry" <patrick.sharry(a)ps2.com.au> > Date: 7 February 2008 04:34:57 GMT+01:00 > Subject: Agenda for the gNSO and ccNSO njont meeting in New Delhi > > Dear Avri and Chris > > Thank you for inviting me to facilitate the joint meeting of the > gNSO Council and the ccNSO Council in New Delhi. Having spoken > with both of you, I think that we are in agreement about the agenda: > · Welcome, expectations, brief context (Patrick) > · Brief explanation of the GNSO letter and its intents; > questions and brief discussion to clarify matters (Avri and Patrick) > · Brief explanation of the ccNSO letter and it intents; > questions and brief discussion to clarify matters (Chris and Patrick) > · Facilitated general discussion, focusing on key issues > (Patrick/ All) > · Discussion of how to continue to work together to resolve > issues; agreement on next steps (Patrick/ All) > > Could you please forward this to your respective councils so that > they are aware of what will be happening. > > Regards > > Patrick >

1 0

RE: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 7, 2008

Feb. 7, 2008

1 0

Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 7, 2008

Feb. 7, 2008

All, Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by the domain tasting design team. Some comments may be helpful. 1. The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that, because of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose further work. Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for the Council to recommend a policy to the Board. 2. The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP -- is the subject of unanimous agreement. 3. The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of unanimous agreement. More specifically: a. Two members of the team are not committed to the 10% threshold and would prefer a lower percentage. I am one of them. I calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc., Tucows, Register.com, and Network Solutions. GoDaddy's average percentage was less than 2%. As a result of that review, I have questions as to why a 10% limit is appropriate if the largest registrar in .com (by a factor of at least 2) has a less than 2% deletion rate. It would be helpful to me if someone could provide on Saturday a general explanation as to why the registrars smaller than GoDaddy had larger percentages (some more than 5 times as high). b. One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes being, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in domain registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause. 4. It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on Saturday. Kristina -*- Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 6 February 2008 Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report- 14jun07.pdf> and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report- final.pdf> ; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP; Whereas, the Board of Directors resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encouraged community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee; Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Final Report on Domain Tasting [final title tbd]; Whereas, the By-Laws require the GNSO Council Chair to call, within ten (10) days of receipt of the Final Report, for a formal Council meeting in which the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority Vote to present to the Board; Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges both that some stakeholders have advocated the elimination of the AGP as a means to combat the abuse of it and that other stakeholders have advocated the retention of the AGP as a means to pursue legitimate, non-abusive uses of it; Whereas, the GNSO Council welcomes the Board of Directors' 23 January 2008 resolution pertaining to inclusion of fees for all domain names added, and wishes to recommend to the Board of Directors a Consensus Policy to address the abuses of the AGP and to maintain the availability of the AGP for legitimate, non-abusive uses; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; Therefore, the GNSO Council resolves as follows: 1. To recommend to the Board of Directors that it adopt a Consensus Policy to (i) restrict applicability of the AGP to a maximum of 50 deletes per registrar per month or [10%] of that registrar's net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater; [and (ii) deem a registrar's deletes in excess of this maximum to be indicative of, barring exceptional circumstances, speculative registrations;] while (iii) not intending to prohibit a registry the flexibility of proposing more restrictive excess deletion rules. 2. To suggest to the Board of Directors that the Consensus Policy may be implemented by amending Section 3.1.1 to Appendix 7 of each Registry Agreement to read as follows: Delete: If a domain is deleted within the Add Grace Period, the sponsoring Registrar at the time of the deletion is credited for the amount of the registration; provided, however, at the end of the month the Registry shall debit the Registrar's account for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month's set threshhold of 50 deletes per month or [10%] of that sponsoring Registrar's net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater ("Usual Deletes"); and further provided, however, that the Registry Operator shall have the right to propose more restrictive rules for deletes in excess of Usual Deletes during the Add Grace Period. [Deletes in excess of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculative registrations.] The domain is deleted from the Registry database and is immediately available for registration by any Registrar. See Section 3.2 for a description of overlapping grace period exceptions. <<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53.DOC>>

1 0