For the benefit of the overall community this pointer to the recently published Registry Constituency position paper might be of help... http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-01-15-01.pdf

Thanks, I had missed it. You're right, it's a good summary of the issues and the main proposals. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Another document that may be of value... or not :) DRAFT GAC PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE PURPOSE AND USE OF WHOIS DATA Presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee December 6, 2006 Preamble 1.1 The purpose of this document is to identify a set of general public policy principles related to the operation and management of the generic top level domain (gTLD) WHOIS service. 1.2These principles have been developed in consultation with privacy, law enforcement, consumer and intellectual property bodies within each GAC member government. Objective of this document 2.1 These principles are intended to guide the work within ICANN pertaining to the WHOIS service and to inform the ICANN Board of the consensus views of the GAC regarding the range of public policy uses of WHOIS data. Public Policy Aspects of WHOIS Data 3.1 The GAC believes that the WHOIS database serves many legitimate purposes, including: 1.Assisting national law enforcement agencies, both civil and criminal, in resolving cases that involve the use of the Internet (such as child pornography, violent crimes, wire fraud, cyber crime, consumer fraud, identity theft, phishing, and other violations of consumer privacy and data security); 2.Combating intellectual property infringement and theft through the identification of cybersquatters, trademark infringers, counterfeiters, and copyright pirates; 3.Supporting Internet network operators responsible for the operation, security, and stability of the Internet; 4.Protecting the rights of consumers by facilitating their identification of legitimate online businesses; and 5. Assisting businesses in investigating fraud, phishing and other violations of law affecting their business interests and the interests of their customers. 3.2 While the GAC recognizes the complexity posed by such a broad range of public policy uses of WHOIS data, the GAC believes that the policy development process regarding the definition, purpose and operation of gTLD WHOIS services needs to reflect the interests and concerns of this broad range of users of WHOIS data. Principles Applicable to WHOIS Data 4.1 The GAC believes that a fully functional WHOIS service should: 1.Satisfy the traditional and ongoing goal of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet; 2.Facilitate continued, timely and cross-border access to accurate WHOIS data for law enforcement, intellectual property rights protection, consumer protection, and compliance and regulatory purposes; 3.Provide the necessary level of data regarding domain name registrants and registrations to any user who seeks it, including, for example, civil and criminal law enforcement officials, online consumers, network operators, intellectual property rights holders, and registries and registrars; and 4.Consider national laws and global agreements associated with trade practices, consumer protection, intellectual property rights and copyright protection, and privacy protection. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com

Hello all, I've created a home page for NARALO at http://www.icannwiki.org/North_America_RALO .

From there you can access a new contact information page intended to list the voting delegate for each ALS. ALSs should enter their rep's name there.

The home page also includes a proposed time-frame for formation of our NARALO. As for our OP and MOU, we still have to add the text along Robert Guerra's suggestions. My English being what it is, someone else would certainly do a better job of writing it. Any volunteers? Hope this helps, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-cerf-02feb07.pdf GAC Response to ICANN call-for-comments on the revised proposed agreement for the .XXX sTLD The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) notes ICANN’s announcement of 5 January 2007 seeking public comments on a revised proposed agreement for the .xxx domain. The GAC convened a teleconference on 17 January 2007 to discuss its reaction to abovementioned call. The GAC members who participated in the teleconference noted that the modifications to the proposed agreement are intended to address public policy issues raised by the GAC in its Wellington, New Zealand Communiqué of March 2006. The Wellington Communiqué remains a valid and important expression of the GAC’s views on .xxx. Taking into account the GAC operating principles and traditions, it is unlikely that the GAC will be in a position to provide any comments on .xxx, above and beyond that provided in the Wellington Communiqué, before the next meeting in Lisbon. This of course does not preclude individual GAC members providing input. We note that the Wellington Communiqué also requested written clarification from the ICANN Board regarding its decision of 1 June 2005 authorising staff to enter into contractual negotiations with ICM Registry, despite deficiencies identified by the Sponsorship and Community Evaluation Panel. Notwithstanding the ICANN President’s letters to the GAC Chair on 11 February and 4 May 2006, as GAC Chair and GAC Chair Elect, we reiterate the GAC's request for a clear explanation of why the ICANN Board is satisfied that the .xxx application has overcome the deficiencies relating to the proposed sponsorship community. In Wellington, the GAC also requested confirmation from the ICANN Board that the proposed .xxx agreement would include enforceable provisions covering all of ICM Registry’s commitments. The GAC notes that the ICM Registry referred to this request in material it posted on 5 January 2007, but that ICANN Board has yet to provide such confirmation to the GAC. GAC members note that the deadline for submissions for the current public comments process is 5 February 2007 and assume that the necessary analysis of stakeholder comments that have been received will begin after this date. GAC members feel therefore that if ICANN intends to seek further formal GAC advice (in addition to that provided in Wellington) it would be appropriate to hold face-to-face discussions between GAC and the ICANN Board in Lisbon in March 2007. At this point, GAC members will have had the opportunity to discuss the issue themselves and the ICANN Board would be in a position to report on the results of the public consultation as well as address the other outstanding issues noted above. Finally, we draw your attention to the fact that the Wellington Communiqué highlighted that several GAC members were "emphatically opposed from a public policy perspective to the introduction of an .xxx sTLD" and that this was not contingent on the specificities of the proposed agreement. In the interim and given the significant public and governmental interest in this matter, GAC members would urge the Board to defer any final decision on this application until the Lisbon meeting. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16jan07.htm Discussion of Proposed .XXX Registry Agreement with ICM Kurt Pritz explained that staff had posted on 5-January, 2007 a new contract to establish a .XXX Registry. This followed additional discussions with the applicant, ICM resulting from their request to resubmit a registry agreement relating to their pending application from the unresolved sTLD round. Kurt explained that there was an extensive background to this proposal and that this had been posted on the ICANN website on 5-January 2007. He noted that an important element of the history of the consideration of the .XXX Registry had been the communiqué from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) received by the Board during the ICANN Wellington Meeting in March 2006. Kurt explained that when the Board considered this issue at its meeting of 10 May 2006, the decision by the Board was not to reject the application, but to reject the contract that ICM requested that the Board vote on at that time. ICM believes that it has in its new proposed contract addressed many issues that were of concern to the Board and the GAC. Materials were also posted on the ICANN website regarding the changes and ICM's view that they had met the requirements set out in the previously mentioned GAC Communiqué. The Chair asked whether Staff would be able to provide to the Board outside of this meeting an outline of the criteria that would be required for ICM to comply with the terms of the agreement, if implemented. John Jeffrey stated that it was possible to supply that information and that Staff would endeavor to do so. He also added that there had already been good dialogue regarding some of the legal issues among a number of the Board members. Steve Goldstein requested clarification about the fee per registration under this proposal. He was concerned that the figure may be extremely high. Staff clarified that the figure being proposed by the ICM was close to $90 per registration. Sharil Tarmizi restated that the GAC had expressed strong concerns based on the previous contract proposed by ICM and that these concerns had been set out in the GAC Communiqué during the ICANN Wellington Meeting. He suggested that a number of members of the GAC were of the understanding that this issue had been decided upon by the Board in May 2006 and had asked for clarification about why the matter was now being considered again. Sharil made it clear that the GAC was advised of the reasons for ICANN's review of a revised agreement on the same day that he was made aware which was 5 January 2007. However, he also made it clear that the deadline for consultation by 5 February 2007 was an insufficient time to respond for all members of the GAC. While some members were already analyzing the contract, it was unlikely that there would be a complete response from the GAC until ICANN's Lisbon meeting. Janis Karklins as GAC Chair-elect also supported Sharil's view that many on the GAC felt that the .XXX matter had been decided previously and that some were not aware that the contract was still under discussion. The Chair stated that he would provide a further communication to Sharil as current Chair of the GAC and Janis as Chair-elect explaining clearly that the Board was considering a new contract and that the application for a .XXX domain had remained in place. Sharil also stated that the application was a volatile issue. In previous discussions in the GAC, there had emerged very diverse responses from GAC members. These included: opposition on moral grounds; views that ICM did not meet sponsorship criteria; concern about the enforcement of Registry agreement provisions. Eventually the GAC brought its views formally to expression through its communiqué at Wellington. Susan Crawford said that she had looked carefully at this new contract. She is concerned that the current draft still puts ICANN in the position of a "hands-on" role in relation to ICM's administration of the proposed Registry, and that this situation was not appropriate. Paul Twomey indicated that the process of consideration so far for this proposed registry application was very clear. The decision that the Board took at its meeting on 10 May 2006 was a vote on the contract to establish the Registry not a denial of ICM's application. The decision of the Board in voting down the contract was posted in the preliminary report and minutes of that board meeting and there was media coverage that included this delineation. Paul was also made clear that the applicant applied to go through the Board's reconsideration process. There was communication about the reconsideration process in the President's report to the GAC at meetings since the Wellington meeting. On 4 January 2007, an update on the sTLD round was posted and the fact that the .XXX domain proposal was still being considered as a live application amongst other sTLDs was included. Finally a posting of the new proposed contract from ICM and a comprehensive background was posted on 5 January 2007. Paul Twomey said that while he appreciated that some may have thought that the Board's decision of 10 May 2006 was a decision to reject the proposal it was a decision to reject the contract and there has been a consistent communications process about this since May 2006. He also pointed out that if there is any perception that the consideration of this new contract was sudden, that perception may have been driven by the timing of the revised contractual framework, which was only discussed and made clear by the applicant after ICANN's Sao Paulo meeting. Sharil Tarmizi also wanted it noted that whilst ICM has stated that this new proposed contract addressed the GAC's concern there had been no communications between the applicant and the GAC. He differentiated between the documents outlining ICM's contention that they have met the conditions set out by the GAC as not being the same as the GAC determining the conditions have been met. Rita Rodin stated as a new member of the Board she believed that there was clear knowledge that the contract could be re-submitted after the Board's decision of 10 May 2006. However, she acknowledged that there might be some confusion on the part of observers. Janis Karklins asked whether the Board considered this as a new proposal from ICM or a revision of the previous one, because different procedural provisions would apply. The Chair stated that it can not be considered a new proposal because it is not new. He reiterated that it was consideration of a contract to establish a .XXX domain that resulted from an Request For Proposal response in 2004. Paul Twomey added again that in May 2006 ICM had asked the Board to vote up or down on the contractual agreement and that is exactly what happened, concluding that the Board did not take the step of voting down the application at that time. The Chair drew discussion on this item to a conclusion noting the consultation period remained open until 5 February 2007, and that it would be discussed again at the next meeting on 12 February 2007. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

12 February 2007 Special Meeting of the Board Proposed Board Agenda 1. Consideration of Proposed .XXX Registry Agreement and recent public comment period 2. Consideration of .MOBI sTLD Contract Amendment Regarding ICANN Fees and recent public comment period 3. Consideration and follow up from last meeting on UM (United States Minor Outlying Islands) 4. Succession Planning and Leadership Planning within the Board 5. Discussion of ICANN Bylaws-Mandated Reviews 6. Budget Discussion from Board Finance Committee 7. Consideration of additional information regarding the GW (Guinea-Bissau) Redelegation request 8. Discussion on Retiring Country Code Top-Level Domains 9. Meetings Committee Discussion Proposal regarding ICANN Board Meetings 10. Authorization to Open Bank Account to assist Registrar Constituency 11. Other Business ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Correspondence from PIR's David Maher to Paul Twomey http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-twomey-07feb07.pdf Dear Paul: Last week I attended the North American Registry/Registrar Regional Gathering in Santa Monica. The ICANN staff deserves commendation for a wellrun and informative meeting. Stacy Burnette, in particular, gave a very well organized and thoughtful presentation regarding the new Compliance procedures for registrar (and registry) contracts. She was impressive in fielding some complex questions from the audience. At least some of the questions showed an element of hostility to ICANN's involvement in the area of compliance. These questions, mostly from members of the registrar constituency, raise some important issues about ICANN's fulfillment of its mission. Some registrars appear to believe that ICANN should have only a very limited role in setting standards for performance. One representative of the registrars suggested that, in a free enterprise system, an accredited registrar should be able to offer a low priced registration service with minimal customer service. This approach to registrar operations (even if registrants are informed in advance about service standards) is not consistent with ICANN's corporate purpose of "promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet." I have always believed that serving the public interest is an important element in the domain name system, including the operations of registries and registrars. Now that the Internet is the mass medium of telecommunications, service in the public interest takes on even greater importance. However, the development of the secondary market in domain names appears to have led some registrars to a view of their role that sacrifices the public interest to their economic interests. This is not conducive to the operational stability of the Internet. While I recognize that the registrar function is best served by a competitive business model, the Internet has become too important to all its users to allow pure competition to set the standards for customer service. Indeed, ICANN's definition of its accreditation function for registrars recognizes that "'Accredit' means to identify and set minimum standards for the performance of registration functions." It is time to consider clarifying these minimum standards. The discussion at the Regional Gathering, and especially the questions raised during the Compliance presentation, indicate that a race to the bottom in service standards may well be under way. I hope that ICANN will turn its attention to this issue, and bring the concept of service to the public interest back to the registration of domain names. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367