Hello All, We received emails from two individuals that were intended to be read out during the GNSO public forum on Friday. We can discuss these at our next meeting. From: Richard Henderson: (1) Regarding .pro and the use of proxy registrants With reference to the use of proxy registrants like EnCirca to circumvent the restrictions on who may acquire .Pro domains, may I ask what actions and conclusions have been arrived at by ICANN staff or Board, as requested at the last ICANN Meeting? Specifically, concerns were expressed that the use of proxy registrations in the .Pro registry might in themselves contravene the intentions of the ICANN Agreements that .Pro should be a restricted TLD limited to verified professionals; and concerns were also expressed that this style of proxy registration by a registrar like Encirca could set a precedent which might subvert the restricted nature of future sTLDs such as .Travel. ICANN staff were requested to address this issue and Tina Dam was to deal with this. Does ICANN endorse this kind of proxy registration for acquiring future sTLDs which might otherwise be restricted by the spirit and intention of the ICANN Agreements. If so, what is the point of having the restrictions and verification procedures in the first place? (2) Regarding forming an individual users constituency with the GNSO Given the need for ICANN to demonstrate as wide a base of worldwide support as possible, at a time when its authority and legitimacy are being challenged, would consideration and support be given to a petition to establish an Individual Users Constituency within the GNSO? This would enable a wider spectrum of informed participation from individuals who do not 'fit' other constituency definitions, and also offer representation within the GNSO to what is in reality the largest constituency of all: the millions of individuals who use the Internet and its DNS for a multiplicity of valid reasons. This constituency would promote individual membership and stimulate participation and involvement in a way that ALAC (which is institution-based) has frankly failed to do outside the GNSO. It would also strengthen the authority and identity of the GNSO, widen its base, and answer those critics at the UN who feel that ICANN pays little account to the global community of internet users. This petition may be presented by long-term participants before, or at, the Wellington meeting. Do members of the GNSO welcome this initiative in principle? (3) Proposed .com agreement Who will actually benefit from the ICANN-Verisign Agreement apart from ICANN and Verisign? In the context of ICANN's commission to act as steward over the fair distribution of the DNS, and the condition of promoting competition as set out in its MoU with the DoC, how do the ICANN staff and Board justify a "deal" which offers a perpetual monopoly, guarantees built-in price hikes, and sets out terms not available to other registries? In the context of its commitment to the *whole* internet community, why did it not encourage a bidding process and seek to bring down prices; why did it elect to couple the resolution of other legal matters with the unrelated issue of finding the best terms for the Internet community with regard to the .com TLD; why did it fail to involve its own constituencies in a negotiation process based on "bottom-up" consensus; why did it hand Verisign a package which provides so little incentive to drive prices down and customer service up? Why are the Internet Community and ICANN's own constituencies being foisted with a privately-brokered deal which seems to be presented "top down" and which seems to be to the advantage of Verisign, but also seems to threaten the interests of other entities as well as the competitive imperative upon which the MoU is supposedly grounded?
From Danny Younger:
(4) Escrow/Protection of data on registrants I know that the Council has many items on its plate, but I continue to remain concerned about the security of registration data. Although the RRA requires registrars to escrow registrant data, we are all aware that this has not been happening -- our registrant registration data remains at risk. My question: What will the Council do on behalf of individual registrants to ensure that our registration data is safe? (5) Participation in new generic TLD process The GNSO Council is poised to move forward on the issue of new TLDs. In keeping with past practice it will doubtless appoint a task force to deal with the issue. What provision will the GNSO Council make for those that have no constituency affiliation to participate in the GNSO task force process? Regards, Bruce Tonkin