March 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

[Fwd: RE: [council] Motion for absentee voting]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 24, 2008

March 24, 2008

FYI Sujet: RE: [council] Motion for absentee voting Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:58:07 +0200 De: Bilal S. Beirm I second the motion Bilal Beiram -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:02 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion for absentee voting A second please for this motion. Philip --------------------------------------- Whereas Council members are from time to time disenfranchised from voting by the current ICANN by-laws, Council requests the Board to adopt the following change to the bylaws drafted by the ICANN general council's office to permit absentee voting in certain specific circumstances. Add to:ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE X: Section 3. 8 c. Absentee voting. Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on whether to initiate a PDP, forward a policy recommendation to the Board, or fill a position open for election may vote by absentee ballot. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours after the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. Philip Sheppard

1 0

fast flux hosting issues report
by Liz Gasster March 22, 2008

March 22, 2008

All, Due to the holiday weekend, the fast flux hosting issues report will be distributed Tuesday, March 25. Thanks, Liz

2 1

Public comment period extended to 25 April 2008 for the BGC Report GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 22, 2008

March 22, 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] Dear All, http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-19mar08.htm Please note that the Public Comment period http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-improvements-report-2008 for the Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements has been extended to 25 April 2008 as stated in the Preliminary Report of the Executive Committee of the ICANN Board on 19 March 2008, http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-19mar08.htm "C) Extension of Comment Period for Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements – The Committee acknowledged receipt of a comment from Philip Sheppard on behalf of: The Commercial and Business Users, the Intellectual Property, and the Internet Service and Connection Providers constituencies requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period to 25 April 2008. The Committee engaged in a detailed discussion about the rationale for the request for extension and agreed unanimously (of all attending) to the following resolution: Resolved (__), the Executive Committee hereby extends the public comment period on the “Comment Period for Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements” to 25 April 2008, to permit sufficient time for: i) the parties requesting the extension to have sufficient time to provide to the ICANN Board their proposal, including the details of the consultations and nature of the support that they have gathered; and, ii) to allow time for an additional call to the community to file submissions relating to all aspects of the posted report. " -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level
by Tim Ruiz March 22, 2008

March 22, 2008

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level
by Tim Ruiz March 22, 2008

March 22, 2008

Sorry Jeff. What I was asking was if (and that's a big if) this statement were true: "Based on studies and expert research of the Security and Stability implications there is compelling and just cause for the release of single-character gTLD names at the second-level." would that fulfill criteria of 3.1(b)(v)(I): "unless justified by compelling and just cause based on Security and Stability?" Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 8:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Daniel Halloran" <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Sorry, I do not follow your point.....I must be missing something. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:39 AM To: Daniel Halloran Cc: Neuman, Jeff; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Chuck Gomes Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level >> "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant >> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling >> and just cause based on Security and Stability." >> It isn't clear to me that above refers only to compelling evidence of a Security and Stability problem or threat. Couldn't *compelling and just cause* be overwhelming, verifiable, and compelling evidence that there is no Security and Stability problem or threat? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, March 20, 2008 9:44 pm To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Cc: Jeffrey Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, council(a)gnso.icann.org Chuck, FYI -- copied below is my response to Jeff Neuman's question that you forwarded to the Council list earlier today regarding single-character names at the second-level of gTLDs. I'm cc'ing Jeff here ... he also gave me the OK to send the below excerpts of additional discussion on this thread in case it might be helpful to you and the rest of the Council. Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Dan Halloran cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Begin forwarded message: > From: Daniel Halloran > Date: 20 March 2008 2008-03-20T14:27 > To: "Neuman, Jeff" > Cc: "Patrick Jones", "Kurt Pritz", "John Jeffrey", "Craig Schwartz", > "Drazek, Keith", "Tindal, Richard", "Stacy Burnette" > Subject: Re: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second- > Level > > Jeff, > > Thanks for your note. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > As Patrick indicated below, we're not talking about a "Consensus > Policy" that would force anybody to do anything. I understood that > this was a discussion about possible allocation models in the event > that registries requested the release of these reserved names. Your > comment to the effect that one size won't fit all, and your input on > NeuStar's preferred distribution model are both very valuable. I > think you made your point clearly. > > I hope you'll continue to contribute to the community discussion > about whether ICANN needs to continue requiring registries to > reserve these single-character second-level domains, and how the > domains could be allocated should the reservation ever be lifted. As > you noted, the registry agreements differ on whether there is an > express provision for granting exceptions to the reserved strings > list, but any reservation could of course be lifted through a waiver > or bilateral amendment. > > Earlier in this thread you asked a hypothetical question about > whether ICANN could "force" registries to allocate previously > reserved names. I haven't heard anyone discuss that as a possible > outcome of the current discussions. If I understand correctly, > you're asking for a purely advisory opinion from ICANN about how to > interpret NeuStar's contract in the hypothetical event that ICANN > might some day try to require NeuStar to release single-character > SLDs? I'm not prepared to answer that right now, and I don't think > ICANN should be in the business of handing out such hypothetical > advisory opinions to its contracted parties. You clearly think this > is important, and we have no problem listening to your > interpretation of the agreement. > > If the GNSO was to decide for some reason to launch a policy- > development process on this issue (which staff doesn't think is > necessary), then the Issue Report would include a formal General > Counsel's opinion on whether the issue is properly within the scope > of the ICANN policy process. I think it's premature to venture a > guess on what that opinion would be, but I will note that the extent > of the GNSO's scope is broader than the extent of the subjects on > which gTLD registrars and registries can be "forced" to comply with > Consensus Policies (which I'd guess is at the core of your > question). Said another way, I think we'd agree that just because > the GNSO discusses something doesn't mean ICANN could "force" a new > obligation on registries or registrars on that subject. Makes sense? > > Thanks again for your inquiry, and for your patience. Please feel > free to let me know if you have any further questions or if we can > be of any other assistance. > > Best regards, > > Dan > > > On 19 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> All, >> >> I was wondering if you all had an answer to the questions posed. >> I am told the GNSO Council has this on their agenda next week and >> they need to know if there are any issues about scope before they >> spend time and resources on this issue. >> >> When can we expect a response? >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & >> Business Development >> NeuStar, Inc. [...snip...] >> >> From: Patrick Jones >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:56 PM >> To: Neuman, Jeff >> Cc: Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; Craig Schwartz; Daniel Halloran >> Subject: RE: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the >> Second-Level >> >> Jeff, >> >> This paper is an incremental step to advance the work on single- >> character second-level names. The paper was prepared at the >> direction of the GNSO Council and Reserved Names Working Group, >> which recommended that single-character domain names at the second- >> level be released. Consensus policy is not necessary to release >> single-character names. The Schedule of Reserved Names for most >> registry agreements states "Except to the extent that ICANN >> otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator >> shall reserve names formed with the following labels from initial >> (i.e. other than renewal) registration within the TLD." >> >> Patrick >> >> From: Neuman, Jeff >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:17 PM >> To: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning; Patrick Jones; Craig >> Schwartz >> Cc: Daniel Halloran; John Jeffrey >> Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- >> Character Names at the Second-Level >> >> I am cc'ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat >> the same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board >> members. I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency >> meeting in Dehli to follow up on these questions. >> >> I would like the following answered: >> >> Does ICANN believe that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate >> single letter domain names in the first place through a Consensus >> Policy? I note the following statement in the report: "ICANN has >> received many inquiries from third parties seeking to register >> single-character domain names, has advised these parties that the >> names are reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation >> can be removed through a bottom-up process. >> >> - On what basis did ICANN make these statements? >> >> I do not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these >> reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there >> is a Consensus Policy. If ICANN feels differently, please explain >> the rationale of your statement. >> >> Let me expand on why I believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of >> single letter domains. The following is from the .biz agreement >> (also in .com, .net, .info and others) which states that Consensus >> policies may not >> >> "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant >> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling >> and just cause based on Security and Stability." >> >> 3.1(d) is the section talking about Registry Operations. It >> includes the following: >> >> "3.1 (d)(i)(A) Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register >> any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings >> attached as Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt >> for initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration at the second >> level within the TLD." >> >> >> >> SO, IT STATES THAT A CONSENSUS POLICY MAY NOT MODIFY THE RESERVED >> NAMES LIST "UNLESS JUSTIFIED BY COMPELLING AND JUST CAUSE BASED ON >> SECURITY AND STABILITY". ICANN - WHERE IS THE COMPELLING SECURITY >> JUSTIFICATION???????????? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & >> Business Development >> NeuStar, Inc. >> >> From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM >> ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM >> To: REGYCON-L(a)NIC.MUSEUM >> Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- >> Character Names at the Second-Level >> >> I haven't had a chance to read this yet but thought I would forward >> it right away. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the >> Second-Level >> Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the Council that staff was >> preparing a paper on single-character domain names at the second- >> level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Domain >> Names at the Second-Level is being sent to the Council for >> information and discussion. Staff is working on engagement of a >> qualified entity or entities to assist with additional process >> development for various auction needs. Further information will be >> provided to the community and the Council. >> >> In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near >> the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 March? >> >> Regards, >> >> Patrick >> >> Patrick L. Jones >> Registry Liaison Manager & >> Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >> Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >> Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> >> >

1 0

RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level
by Tim Ruiz March 22, 2008

March 22, 2008

>> "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant >> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling >> and just cause based on Security and Stability." >> It isn't clear to me that above refers only to compelling evidence of a Security and Stability problem or threat. Couldn't *compelling and just cause* be overwhelming, verifiable, and compelling evidence that there is no Security and Stability problem or threat? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, March 20, 2008 9:44 pm To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Cc: Jeffrey Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, council(a)gnso.icann.org Chuck, FYI -- copied below is my response to Jeff Neuman's question that you forwarded to the Council list earlier today regarding single-character names at the second-level of gTLDs. I'm cc'ing Jeff here ... he also gave me the OK to send the below excerpts of additional discussion on this thread in case it might be helpful to you and the rest of the Council. Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Dan Halloran cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Begin forwarded message: > From: Daniel Halloran > Date: 20 March 2008 2008-03-20T14:27 > To: "Neuman, Jeff" > Cc: "Patrick Jones", "Kurt Pritz", "John Jeffrey", "Craig Schwartz", > "Drazek, Keith", "Tindal, Richard", "Stacy Burnette" > Subject: Re: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second- > Level > > Jeff, > > Thanks for your note. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > As Patrick indicated below, we're not talking about a "Consensus > Policy" that would force anybody to do anything. I understood that > this was a discussion about possible allocation models in the event > that registries requested the release of these reserved names. Your > comment to the effect that one size won't fit all, and your input on > NeuStar's preferred distribution model are both very valuable. I > think you made your point clearly. > > I hope you'll continue to contribute to the community discussion > about whether ICANN needs to continue requiring registries to > reserve these single-character second-level domains, and how the > domains could be allocated should the reservation ever be lifted. As > you noted, the registry agreements differ on whether there is an > express provision for granting exceptions to the reserved strings > list, but any reservation could of course be lifted through a waiver > or bilateral amendment. > > Earlier in this thread you asked a hypothetical question about > whether ICANN could "force" registries to allocate previously > reserved names. I haven't heard anyone discuss that as a possible > outcome of the current discussions. If I understand correctly, > you're asking for a purely advisory opinion from ICANN about how to > interpret NeuStar's contract in the hypothetical event that ICANN > might some day try to require NeuStar to release single-character > SLDs? I'm not prepared to answer that right now, and I don't think > ICANN should be in the business of handing out such hypothetical > advisory opinions to its contracted parties. You clearly think this > is important, and we have no problem listening to your > interpretation of the agreement. > > If the GNSO was to decide for some reason to launch a policy- > development process on this issue (which staff doesn't think is > necessary), then the Issue Report would include a formal General > Counsel's opinion on whether the issue is properly within the scope > of the ICANN policy process. I think it's premature to venture a > guess on what that opinion would be, but I will note that the extent > of the GNSO's scope is broader than the extent of the subjects on > which gTLD registrars and registries can be "forced" to comply with > Consensus Policies (which I'd guess is at the core of your > question). Said another way, I think we'd agree that just because > the GNSO discusses something doesn't mean ICANN could "force" a new > obligation on registries or registrars on that subject. Makes sense? > > Thanks again for your inquiry, and for your patience. Please feel > free to let me know if you have any further questions or if we can > be of any other assistance. > > Best regards, > > Dan > > > On 19 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> All, >> >> I was wondering if you all had an answer to the questions posed. >> I am told the GNSO Council has this on their agenda next week and >> they need to know if there are any issues about scope before they >> spend time and resources on this issue. >> >> When can we expect a response? >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & >> Business Development >> NeuStar, Inc. [...snip...] >> >> From: Patrick Jones >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:56 PM >> To: Neuman, Jeff >> Cc: Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; Craig Schwartz; Daniel Halloran >> Subject: RE: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the >> Second-Level >> >> Jeff, >> >> This paper is an incremental step to advance the work on single- >> character second-level names. The paper was prepared at the >> direction of the GNSO Council and Reserved Names Working Group, >> which recommended that single-character domain names at the second- >> level be released. Consensus policy is not necessary to release >> single-character names. The Schedule of Reserved Names for most >> registry agreements states "Except to the extent that ICANN >> otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator >> shall reserve names formed with the following labels from initial >> (i.e. other than renewal) registration within the TLD." >> >> Patrick >> >> From: Neuman, Jeff >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:17 PM >> To: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning; Patrick Jones; Craig >> Schwartz >> Cc: Daniel Halloran; John Jeffrey >> Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- >> Character Names at the Second-Level >> >> I am cc'ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat >> the same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board >> members. I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency >> meeting in Dehli to follow up on these questions. >> >> I would like the following answered: >> >> Does ICANN believe that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate >> single letter domain names in the first place through a Consensus >> Policy? I note the following statement in the report: "ICANN has >> received many inquiries from third parties seeking to register >> single-character domain names, has advised these parties that the >> names are reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation >> can be removed through a bottom-up process. >> >> - On what basis did ICANN make these statements? >> >> I do not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these >> reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there >> is a Consensus Policy. If ICANN feels differently, please explain >> the rationale of your statement. >> >> Let me expand on why I believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of >> single letter domains. The following is from the .biz agreement >> (also in .com, .net, .info and others) which states that Consensus >> policies may not >> >> "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant >> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling >> and just cause based on Security and Stability." >> >> 3.1(d) is the section talking about Registry Operations. It >> includes the following: >> >> "3.1 (d)(i)(A) Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register >> any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings >> attached as Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt >> for initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration at the second >> level within the TLD." >> >> >> >> SO, IT STATES THAT A CONSENSUS POLICY MAY NOT MODIFY THE RESERVED >> NAMES LIST "UNLESS JUSTIFIED BY COMPELLING AND JUST CAUSE BASED ON >> SECURITY AND STABILITY". ICANN - WHERE IS THE COMPELLING SECURITY >> JUSTIFICATION???????????? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & >> Business Development >> NeuStar, Inc. >> >> From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM >> ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM >> To: REGYCON-L(a)NIC.MUSEUM >> Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- >> Character Names at the Second-Level >> >> I haven't had a chance to read this yet but thought I would forward >> it right away. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the >> Second-Level >> Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the Council that staff was >> preparing a paper on single-character domain names at the second- >> level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Domain >> Names at the Second-Level is being sent to the Council for >> information and discussion. Staff is working on engagement of a >> qualified entity or entities to assist with additional process >> development for various auction needs. Further information will be >> provided to the community and the Council. >> >> In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near >> the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 March? >> >> Regards, >> >> Patrick >> >> Patrick L. Jones >> Registry Liaison Manager & >> Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >> Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >> Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> >> >

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- Time Running Out to Make the Internet Your Business
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG March 21, 2008

March 21, 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-20mar08.htm Time Running Out to Make the Internet Your Business Volunteers needed for ICANN leadership positions, nomination deadline nears 20 March 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: Time is running out to make the Internet your business and put your name forward to join the global leadership volunteers who help the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers coordinate the polices and process that shape the future of the Internet. "If you want to be a part of ICANN?s exciting work on bringing the languages of the world to domain names, and creating more choice for consumers by allowing for the creation of new Internet extensions beyond the ones currently available like .net or .org, now is the time to let the us know," said Hagen Hultzsch, Chair of the Nominating Committee (NomCom). "ICANN?s global team of Internet leaders is working on some of the biggest changes to the Internet since it was created ? and this is the chance to help make that happen." The Nominating Committee is independent of ICANN and is tasked with searching the world for experienced individuals to fill key positions on ICANN?s Board and its Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. The following positions are being filled this year: - 2 Board Directors - 1 GNSO Council member - 1 ccNSO Council member - 2 ALAC members (who will represent Europe and North American regions) "The ICANN leadership team is a dedicated group of volunteers from across the world who have helped shape the Internet used by more than a billion people globally. The coordination work done by ICANN has provided a foundation for businesses across the globe?and fostered operations that rely on the Domain Name System?s ability to connect them to customers and business partners," said Hultzsch. "We?re looking for volunteers to join this team and work alongside people who come from in the technical field, who are leading policy experts, and even individuals who helped create the very foundations of the Internet." The deadline to submit Statements of Interest is 15 April 2008 23:59 UTC. "Beyond its responsibilities for keeping the Internet secure, stable, and interoperable, ICANN?s mission is to grow and evolve its global multi-stakeholder decision-making process, so it is the individuals who make up the wider Internet community who direct and decide the Internet?s future," Hultzsch added. There have been 42 Statements of Interest received so far: - 40 from men - 2 from women - 12 from Europe - 8 from Asia/Australia/Pacific - 5 from Latin America/Caribbean - 12 from North America - 6 from Africa Some candidates count toward more than one ICANN region. Of the candidates, 34 have declared a willingness to serve on the ICANN Board, 23 have stated they would serve on the GNSO Council, 20 have declared a willingness to serve on the ccNSO Council, and 13 have offered to serve on the ALAC. Some candidates have asked to be considered for more than one position. ICANN covers travel expenses related with ICANN duties. Information on applying is available at http://nomcom.icann.org/. The 2008 Nominating Committee does not anticipate extending the nomination period as it has done in previous years. About ICANN: ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers like domain names (like .org, .museum and country codes like .uk) and the addresses used in a variety of Internet protocols that help computers reach each other over the Internet. Careful management of these resources is vital to the Internet's operation, so ICANN's global stakeholders meet regularly to develop policies that ensure the Internet's ongoing security and stability. ICANN is an internationally organized, public benefit non-profit company. For more information please visit: www.icann.org . Media Contacts: Jason Keenan Media Adviser, ICANN Ph: +1 310 382 4004 E: jason.keenan(a)icann.org International: Andrew Robertson Edelman (London) Ph: +44 7921 588 770 E: andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine http://www.icann.org/magazine/ This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Powered by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com Manage your subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9826720&l=6333&s=9MXL&m=130… -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motion to approve 31 Jan 08 GNSO Council minutes
by Gomes, Chuck March 21, 2008

March 21, 2008

To save a little time in our meeting, I am submitting the following motion regarding agenda item 3 for our 27 March 2008 meeting: "I move that the 31 January 2008 GNSO Council Meeting minutes be approved as found at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04828.html " A second is welcome as well as discussion in advance of our meeting; discussion will also be allowed in the meeting. Chuck Gomes

2 1

Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level
by Daniel Halloran March 21, 2008

March 21, 2008

Chuck, FYI -- copied below is my response to Jeff Neuman's question that you forwarded to the Council list earlier today regarding single-character names at the second-level of gTLDs. I'm cc'ing Jeff here ... he also gave me the OK to send the below excerpts of additional discussion on this thread in case it might be helpful to you and the rest of the Council. Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Dan Halloran cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Begin forwarded message: > From: Daniel Halloran > Date: 20 March 2008 2008-03-20T14:27 > To: "Neuman, Jeff" > Cc: "Patrick Jones", "Kurt Pritz", "John Jeffrey", "Craig Schwartz", > "Drazek, Keith", "Tindal, Richard", "Stacy Burnette" > Subject: Re: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second- > Level > > Jeff, > > Thanks for your note. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > As Patrick indicated below, we're not talking about a "Consensus > Policy" that would force anybody to do anything. I understood that > this was a discussion about possible allocation models in the event > that registries requested the release of these reserved names. Your > comment to the effect that one size won't fit all, and your input on > NeuStar's preferred distribution model are both very valuable. I > think you made your point clearly. > > I hope you'll continue to contribute to the community discussion > about whether ICANN needs to continue requiring registries to > reserve these single-character second-level domains, and how the > domains could be allocated should the reservation ever be lifted. As > you noted, the registry agreements differ on whether there is an > express provision for granting exceptions to the reserved strings > list, but any reservation could of course be lifted through a waiver > or bilateral amendment. > > Earlier in this thread you asked a hypothetical question about > whether ICANN could "force" registries to allocate previously > reserved names. I haven't heard anyone discuss that as a possible > outcome of the current discussions. If I understand correctly, > you're asking for a purely advisory opinion from ICANN about how to > interpret NeuStar's contract in the hypothetical event that ICANN > might some day try to require NeuStar to release single-character > SLDs? I'm not prepared to answer that right now, and I don't think > ICANN should be in the business of handing out such hypothetical > advisory opinions to its contracted parties. You clearly think this > is important, and we have no problem listening to your > interpretation of the agreement. > > If the GNSO was to decide for some reason to launch a policy- > development process on this issue (which staff doesn't think is > necessary), then the Issue Report would include a formal General > Counsel's opinion on whether the issue is properly within the scope > of the ICANN policy process. I think it's premature to venture a > guess on what that opinion would be, but I will note that the extent > of the GNSO's scope is broader than the extent of the subjects on > which gTLD registrars and registries can be "forced" to comply with > Consensus Policies (which I'd guess is at the core of your > question). Said another way, I think we'd agree that just because > the GNSO discusses something doesn't mean ICANN could "force" a new > obligation on registries or registrars on that subject. Makes sense? > > Thanks again for your inquiry, and for your patience. Please feel > free to let me know if you have any further questions or if we can > be of any other assistance. > > Best regards, > > Dan > > > On 19 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> All, >> >> I was wondering if you all had an answer to the questions posed. >> I am told the GNSO Council has this on their agenda next week and >> they need to know if there are any issues about scope before they >> spend time and resources on this issue. >> >> When can we expect a response? >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & >> Business Development >> NeuStar, Inc. [...snip...] >> >> From: Patrick Jones >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:56 PM >> To: Neuman, Jeff >> Cc: Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; Craig Schwartz; Daniel Halloran >> Subject: RE: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the >> Second-Level >> >> Jeff, >> >> This paper is an incremental step to advance the work on single- >> character second-level names. The paper was prepared at the >> direction of the GNSO Council and Reserved Names Working Group, >> which recommended that single-character domain names at the second- >> level be released. Consensus policy is not necessary to release >> single-character names. The Schedule of Reserved Names for most >> registry agreements states “Except to the extent that ICANN >> otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator >> shall reserve names formed with the following labels from initial >> (i.e. other than renewal) registration within the TLD.” >> >> Patrick >> >> From: Neuman, Jeff >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:17 PM >> To: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning; Patrick Jones; Craig >> Schwartz >> Cc: Daniel Halloran; John Jeffrey >> Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- >> Character Names at the Second-Level >> >> I am cc’ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat >> the same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board >> members. I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency >> meeting in Dehli to follow up on these questions. >> >> I would like the following answered: >> >> Does ICANN believe that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate >> single letter domain names in the first place through a Consensus >> Policy? I note the following statement in the report: “ICANN has >> received many inquiries from third parties seeking to register >> single-character domain names, has advised these parties that the >> names are reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation >> can be removed through a bottom-up process. >> >> - On what basis did ICANN make these statements? >> >> I do not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these >> reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there >> is a Consensus Policy. If ICANN feels differently, please explain >> the rationale of your statement. >> >> Let me expand on why I believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of >> single letter domains. The following is from the .biz agreement >> (also in .com, .net, .info and others) which states that Consensus >> policies may not >> >> “3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant >> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling >> and just cause based on Security and Stability.” >> >> 3.1(d) is the section talking about Registry Operations. It >> includes the following: >> >> “3.1 (d)(i)(A) Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register >> any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings >> attached as Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt >> for initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration at the second >> level within the TLD.” >> >> >> >> SO, IT STATES THAT A CONSENSUS POLICY MAY NOT MODIFY THE RESERVED >> NAMES LIST “UNLESS JUSTIFIED BY COMPELLING AND JUST CAUSE BASED ON >> SECURITY AND STABILITY”. ICANN – WHERE IS THE COMPELLING SECURITY >> JUSTIFICATION???????????? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & >> Business Development >> NeuStar, Inc. >> >> From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM >> ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM >> To: REGYCON-L(a)NIC.MUSEUM >> Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- >> Character Names at the Second-Level >> >> I haven't had a chance to read this yet but thought I would forward >> it right away. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org >> ] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the >> Second-Level >> Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the Council that staff was >> preparing a paper on single-character domain names at the second- >> level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Domain >> Names at the Second-Level is being sent to the Council for >> information and discussion. Staff is working on engagement of a >> qualified entity or entities to assist with additional process >> development for various auction needs. Further information will be >> provided to the community and the Council. >> >> In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near >> the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 March? >> >> Regards, >> >> Patrick >> >> Patrick L. Jones >> Registry Liaison Manager & >> Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >> Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >> Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> >> >

1 0

Motion re. Whois Studies
by Gomes, Chuck March 21, 2008

March 21, 2008

Regarding agenda item 9 (Discuss Whois report - Start discussions on what to ask for a bid on) for our 27 March 2008 meeting, I submit the following motion: Whereas: 1. On 31 October 2007 the Council passed a motion to ". . . initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council" (resolution 20071031-3 <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ) 2. On 6 December 2007 the Council initiated formation of a group of volunteers to develop a proposed "format to solicit what studies should be undertaken" 3. On 20 December 2007 the Council reviewed and discussed the WHOIS template <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04322.html%20> developed by the group and approved it with one additional column under potential sources of data, asking proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data 4. From 8 January through 15 February 2008 a public comment period was held soliciting suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted 5. A report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and dated 25 February 2008 summarized the study suggestions and comments received during the public comment period (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf ) Resolve to form a group of volunteers to: 1. Review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' 2. Develop a proposed list of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council 3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. I welcome a second of the motion as well as discussion and amendments between now and our meeting. Also, assuming support for the motion, I encourage Councilors to identify volunteers for the group prior to the meeting if possible. Chuck Gomes

1 0