January 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Regarding individual users
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Mike, I just meant to point out that part of Avri's comment was not entirely accurate. Registrants have a huge choice of registrars and if they don't like the policies of one they can choose another. But I agree that this choice doesn't cover every issue (WHOIS for example). Regarding WHOIS, registrars have basically been compromising when we say it should just be left alone. I think if you actually query each registrar individually you will come up with a majority wanting to make it a completely opt-in service or something close to that. I doubt that is what you're looking for. On the other end of the spectrum, to address the vast number of registrants who want more privacy many registrars have implemented privacy or proxy services. The RRA issue went the way it did because there was a desire for some signficant changes to address the issues raised by the Registerfly debacle. The route taken was quicker than initiating multiple PDPs on the issues. However, we just felt that some issues raised may be better left to a PDP or to further discussions that could be more granular and allow for more focus, more time, etc. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Regarding individual users From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Wed, January 07, 2009 11:34 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, As an elected representative of commercial registrants, I don't see much if any evidence of having a "powerful voice in getting a fair deal from registrars" -- particularly with respect to the RAA and WHOIS issues. Instead, the registrars have negotiated with Staff on the RAA and largely ignored the voices of registrants, and they have taken a position simply that WHOIS is fine and should never be discussed again. I fail to see how either position respects the voices of any substantial group of registrants. If I am missing something, please enlighten me. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:48 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Regarding individual users > they are dependent on the GNSO and its council as > the only voice they have in order to get a fair > deal from ICANN and its contracted parties. Avri, not disagreeing with your comments below in general. But felt it necessary to point out that registrants as a class have the most powerful voice of all in getting a fair deal from contracted parties - at least registrars. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding individual users From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Fri, December 26, 2008 10:40 am To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, On 26 Dec 2008, at 05:21, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > I note that individual commercial Internet users also are quite > diverse > in their interests in domain names - ranging from those that are not > domain name registrants and merely use the Internet for communication > with suppliers, to those that actively maintain a portfolio of second > level domains that either appreciate in capital value or earn money > through advertising. While I have not seen figures and it would be interesting to see such figures, I assume a much larger group (at least larger then the portfolio holder category) of Commercial interest are the Registrants whose small or single proprietor businesses depend on the outreach, advertising and information distribution gained through use of heir web sites. And while the outreach of the GNSO into the non-registrant user community has been prescribed, I still think the GNSO needs to make sure that we care for the interests of all registrants, commercial and non-commercial, as a special class, as they are dependent on the GNSO and its council as the only voice they have in order to get a fair deal from ICANN and its contracted parties. I am hoping we don't forget these two categories of registrants while making a further outreach to non-registrant users as these registrants remain unrepresented for the most part (despite a few individuals who are represented). a.

1 0

RE: [council] draft working definitions of WHOIS-related terms attached
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Attached in rtf and pdf formats. If you get a bunch of file code errors on the links in the rtf, those can be ignored. Not sure why they show up but I didn't change any of the links. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] draft working definitions of WHOIS-related terms attached From: "Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen(a)ngelaw.com> Date: Wed, January 07, 2009 10:51 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)actonline.org>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Tim, I am unable to open your document. Can you please resend in pdf or some other format? Thanks! Lee Lee J. Eulgen Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP 2 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60602-3801 312.269.8465 312.578.2807 (facsimile) leulgen(a)ngelaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without copying or further transmitting the same. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:39 AM To: Liz Gasster Cc: GNSO Council; Steven Metalitz; Steve DelBianco; Steve DelBianco; Eulgen, Lee J. Subject: RE: [council] draft working definitions of WHOIS-related terms attached Thanks for pulling this together Liz. All, the attaced redline includes my suggested revisions. I think they are pretty clear, but let me know if you have any questions. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] draft working definitions of WHOIS-related terms attached From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, December 23, 2008 4:34 pm To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)actonline.org>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen(a)ngelaw.com> All, You may recall that in Cairo the Council decided that it would be helpful to develop "working definitions" of several terms that are being used in the context of Council discussions of possible future studies of WHOIS. At the meeting, Council members identified eight terms and asked staff to develop initial working definitions that the Council could use as a starting point for further discussion and definition. In order to respond to the Council's request, staff solicited definitions for these terms from GNSO Council members and community stakeholders. We also researched and reviewed ICANN meeting transcripts, policy and compliance documents and constituency position statements, as well as other reference papers. The attached is a compilation of that research, intended to respond to the Council's request. The attached is an initial first draft - it does not represent the viewpoints or positions of ICANN or ICANN staff and is for community discussion purposes only. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information. I will also be uploading a copy of this draft to the Council workspace under "Whois references" -- https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references Thanks, Liz

1 0

RE: [council] Regarding individual users
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

> they are dependent on the GNSO and its council as > the only voice they have in order to get a fair > deal from ICANN and its contracted parties. Avri, not disagreeing with your comments below in general. But felt it necessary to point out that registrants as a class have the most powerful voice of all in getting a fair deal from contracted parties - at least registrars. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding individual users From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Fri, December 26, 2008 10:40 am To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, On 26 Dec 2008, at 05:21, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > > I note that individual commercial Internet users also are quite > diverse > in their interests in domain names - ranging from those that are not > domain name registrants and merely use the Internet for communication > with suppliers, to those that actively maintain a portfolio of second > level domains that either appreciate in capital value or earn money > through advertising. While I have not seen figures and it would be interesting to see such figures, I assume a much larger group (at least larger then the portfolio holder category) of Commercial interest are the Registrants whose small or single proprietor businesses depend on the outreach, advertising and information distribution gained through use of heir web sites. And while the outreach of the GNSO into the non-registrant user community has been prescribed, I still think the GNSO needs to make sure that we care for the interests of all registrants, commercial and non-commercial, as a special class, as they are dependent on the GNSO and its council as the only voice they have in order to get a fair deal from ICANN and its contracted parties. I am hoping we don't forget these two categories of registrants while making a further outreach to non-registrant users as these registrants remain unrepresented for the most part (despite a few individuals who are represented). a.

2 1

RE: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

One example that was recently pointed out to me is a shortened version of Thailand. Evidently, when abbreviated as two internationalized characters it becomes the Thai word for "free". A Thai-script IDN ccTLD for Thailand could then possibly conflict out ".free" as a gTLD and its IDN foreign language equivalents. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> Date: Fri, January 02, 2009 8:34 pm To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 1. The headings were taken directly from the Draft Implementation Plan, see http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… (page 26) 2. Similarly, that was taken from the Draft Implementation Plan (as above), Module 7, Discussion of Additional Topics: " This Module 7 contains a description of issues and topics that are relevant parts of the Draft Implementation Plan, but were not (fully) covered in the IDNC Final Report. It also includes the list of outstanding issues which the ICANN Board directed staff to produce in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008." The intent of including all of the topics was to make a point that some of these "Additional Topics" may/should require further discussion by the community because it could potentially have broader impact and was not already covered by the IDNC. Also, just because it is restricted to a meaningful representation of a country name, it does not I think automatically mean that it will never conflict with a potential/existing gTLD string OR a then existing ccTLD. Edmon From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2009 8:01 AM To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO Subject: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments Edmon, Good job. I have just two comments: It seems to me that "Compliance with consensus policies." is not a very good heading for item 4, dealing with security & stability. Would this be better: "Ensuring security and stability'?Is item 5 really a concern in the fast tract if the IDN ccTLD fast track names are restricted to country names as defined by the IDNC? It seems to me that it might not be. Chuck From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 12:35 AM To: gnso-idnc-initial(a)icann.org; 'Council GNSO' Subject: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments Hi Everyone, Apologies for the delay on this matter, please find attached the draft for the council comments on the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan. The document is mainly separated into 2 parts: (A) response on Module 7, where 5 open questions were raised (B) reemphasizing some of the issues raised previously For (A) the 5 open questions listed in Module 7 were: 1. Ensuring ongoing compliance with the IDN technical standards, including the IDNA protocol and the IDN Guidelines. 2. Possible establishment of financial contributions. 3. IDN ccTLD operator association to the ICANN community. 4. Compliance with consensus policies 5. Prevention of contention issues with existing TLDs and those under application in the gTLD process. The draft mainly extracted statements from previous documents to respond to the topics, but have also emphasized that we may require much broader input from the community on the issues because they are largely new considerations not specifically discussed previously. In particular, 3 & 4, and some respects 2 & 5. For (B) 3 items were specifically reemphasized: 1. Lack of structure for implementation in the situation where a proposed Fast Track IDN ccTLD string is not listed in the UNGEGN manual (i.e. not in a particular authoritative list) 2. Lack of clarity in the process for linguistic process check and confirmation of a requested string 3. Lack of consideration for avoiding confusingly similar strings Comments/thoughts welcome. Since, the deadline for comments to the draft implementation plan is Jan 9, in view of time, perhaps we can have a discussion on the council list and on our meeting on Jan 8 to finalize our response. Edmon PS. Happy New Year! :-)

1 0

RE: [council] New gTLD Motion 3 Edits?
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

I second this motion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] New gTLD Motion 3 Edits? From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, December 30, 2008 1:11 pm To: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> The following motion was tabled in our 18 Dec 08 Council meeting to allow for some wording edits that a couple people volunteered to submit. This is just a reminder for those who were planning to suggest edits. Chuck Motion 3 (tabled until 8 January meeting)Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded: Adrain Kinderis Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, Resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following as gTLDs must do: i) follow minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.

1 0

RE: [council] draft working definitions of WHOIS-related terms attached
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Thanks for pulling this together Liz. All, the attaced redline includes my suggested revisions. I think they are pretty clear, but let me know if you have any questions. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] draft working definitions of WHOIS-related terms attached From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, December 23, 2008 4:34 pm To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Steven Metalitz <met(a)msk.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)actonline.org>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen(a)ngelaw.com> All, You may recall that in Cairo the Council decided that it would be helpful to develop “working definitions” of several terms that are being used in the context of Council discussions of possible future studies of WHOIS. At the meeting, Council members identified eight terms and asked staff to develop initial working definitions that the Council could use as a starting point for further discussion and definition. In order to respond to the Council’s request, staff solicited definitions for these terms from GNSO Council members and community stakeholders. We also researched and reviewed ICANN meeting transcripts, policy and compliance documents and constituency position statements, as well as other reference papers. The attached is a compilation of that research, intended to respond to the Council’s request. The attached is an initial first draft – it does not represent the viewpoints or positions of ICANN or ICANN staff and is for community discussion purposes only. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information. I will also be uploading a copy of this draft to the Council workspace under “Whois references” -- https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references Thanks, Liz

1 0

New gTLD Motion 3 Edits?
by Gomes, Chuck Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

The following motion was tabled in our 18 Dec 08 Council meeting to allow for some wording edits that a couple people volunteered to submit. This is just a reminder for those who were planning to suggest edits. Chuck Motion 3 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded: Adrain Kinderis Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, Resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following as gTLDs must do: i) follow minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.

3 5

Fwd: Travel data form
by Avri Doria Jan. 6, 2009

Jan. 6, 2009

Hi, We have an issue that needs to be dealt with by the constituencies. Stacy Hoffberg is asking for the names of those who will receive ICANN travel support by Friday Jan 9, with a drop dead date of Jan 16. While this is ok for the NCAs, I understand it is a problem for the constituencies as we do not have answers from the staff to our motion of 18 Dec 08 that will allow the constituencies to make their determinations. Not only that, our motion asked for the answer by 15 Jan, and they want all the information by 16 Jan. I note that we had no warning that this would be deadline. I also understand that the consensus seems to be that that Council have no role in determining the list of names as was done for the Cairo meeting. I, therefore, think there is little I can do other then pass this request on to the constituencies. I am enclosing the form that needs to be filled out for all travelers. The NCAs should just fill it out and send it to Glen. As for the constituencies, I do not know what to say. Perhaps the info of all the candidates should be collected so at least you all will be ready if/when we get responses from the staff to the motion of Dec 18. I have put an item on the GNSO Council agenda for thrusday asking the staff for status on this issue. a. Begin forwarded message: >

2 2

Volunteers needed for drafting team on Registration Abuse Policies
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 5, 2009

Jan. 5, 2009

Dear All, There are 3 volunteers so far for the drafting team approved in the following resolution that the Council passed at its 18 December 2008 meeting. (see resolution below) Mike Rodenbaugh - CBUC Greg Aaron - Registry c. James Bladel - Registrar c. You are invited to send names and email addresses to the GNSO Secretariat <GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG> by NLT COB Tuesday 6 January 2009, so that the group can schedule a meeting. The mailing list address is: gnso-rap-dt(a)icann.org and the public archives are at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/ Thank you for your urgent attention. Kind regards, Glen Resolution on the GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies Whereas: The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed - e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the councl will take the by-laws required PDP vote. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary
by Liz Gasster Jan. 5, 2009

Jan. 5, 2009

All, Attached are the initial priority scores for Whois studies from the Business Constituency. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:14 AM To: Liz Gasster Cc: Chuck Gomes; Avri Doria Subject: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary Liz -- here are initial priority scores for the BC. Just let me know if you have any questions. --Steve On 12/15/08 12:57 PM, "Liz Gasster" <Liz.gasster(a)icann.org> wrote: > The current matrix of WHOIS Constituency views has been uploaded to > the WHOIS discussion area of the GNSO Council workspace (including > numeric levels for the RyC constituency). You may find this at: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion > > Constituency representatives are urged to update the information > currently posted using a numeric weighting scale as agreed on the last call: > > Top = 5 > Medium high = 4 > Medium = 3 > Medium low = 2 > Low = 1 > No study = 0 > > Our next call is this Wednesday 17 December and call-in details will > be provided shortly. If you have any difficulty updating the wiki or > if you would prefer that we update, just send your information to me > and I will take care of it. > > Thanks, Liz > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:41 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen, Lee J.; > Liz Gasster > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary > > The attached file contains the RyC numberical priorties and > feasibility entries. I used 0 to 5, where a 0 is used for a study > that the RyC thought should not be pursued. In cases of combined > studies where the RyC had assigned different priorities to studies in > the combined group, I entered an approximate average (e.g., 4.5). I > also added the following to the > spreadsheet: 1) a new row to cover the study in Area 6 titled Met b; > 2) a new column to identify the type of study (i.e., formal study, > fact gathtering & analysis, or fact gathering only). > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:16 AM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen, Lee J.; >> Liz Gasster >> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary >> >> hi Chuck, >> >> I was working on how I was going to work with the other NCAs to >> figure out our collective viewpoint and went back to your original >> document where instead of using the words Top/Med/Low you used values >> from 5- [1,0] (not sure you allowed for 0). >> >> In terms of figuring out where the top priorities really are on a >> council wide basis, i think it would be good to go back to those >> values and then we could ado simple stats on them to see which really >> were the top priority items on a council wide basis. And by allowing >> a value of 0 for no-study we take into account the possible viewpoint >> of RC and NCUC and perhaps others on specific studies they feel are >> not worth doing. >> >> In terms of values it could be something like: >> >> Priority >> >> Top = 5 >> Medium high = 4 >> Medium = 3 >> Medium low = 2 >> Low = 1 >> No study = 0 >> >> >> and for Feasibility >> >> yes = 1 >> maybe/don't know = 0 >> no = -1 >> >> I also recommend that, for now, we unify the table without separating >> it for top/med/low and fill in numeric values for all of the >> constituencies, NCA, ALAC, and GAC if they are interested (though we >> can assume they give top marks to the studies they recommended). >> This will allow us to sort on the stats to get a better picture. >> >> I have attached a sample excel file (haven't put in the equations >> yet) that would capture it. With a 'little' bit of work, for some >> value of 'little', it could be turned into a form that the >> constituencies could just fill in the values for. >> Alternatively, each constituency could submit its values. >> >> This is just a suggestion, but I cannot think of a non numerical way >> to make sure that all of the constituencies valuations are all taken >> into account. I.e. how do we turn a bunch of low, med and highs into >> an average without using numbers? >> >> a. >> >>

1 0