<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council]
Attachment:
Status_report_onsingle_letter_domain.doc
Description: Binary data
Colleagues
I have just read through this material. I have attached the
September 2005 Single Letter Second Level status report which was
referred to in the document. This refers to the treatment of
reserved names in existing registries. Please note section 2 which
outlines the policy questions associated with this work and the
questions around any policy for an appropriate allocation method for
reserved names that could, in the future, be released for use.
It is my recommendation that the two streams of work -- reserved
names that relate to new TLDs and reserved names that relate to
existing registries -- be treated as two separate projects. There
are two purposes to considering reserved names in the new TLDs
context -- a list which would guide potential applicants about
strings which would be reserved and a list to guide successful
applicants about what names may be reserved in any new registry.
The work on new TLDs is very time critical and can be integrated into
the work on new TLDs which has already taken place. As everyone who
has been working on the PDP Feb 06 will be aware, policy discussions
for contractual conditions for existing registries are an important
and sensitive area of work. The treatment of reserved names for
existing registries is contained in each of the existing registry
contracts.
I would recommend that the GNSO Council consider launching a formal
PDP on reserved names in existing registries -- rather than a Working
Group -- and prioritise that work according to the Council's program
which includes the IDN WG, the new TLDs Committee, the WHOIS working
group and the PDP Feb 06.
I would note, and the GNSO calendar confirms, that we have an
extremely tight schedule of work on new TLDs, PDP Feb 06, the IDN WG
and the WHOIS committee. We have a limited number of constituency
members to populate working groups and I would hope that we could
complete at least one of the four active pieces of work on the
Council's agenda prior to taking on another formal PDP.
Kind regards.
Liz
.....................................................
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob
On 18 Jan 2007, at 02:18, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Dear colleagues
With apologies for the ‘just in time substitution’ for tomorrow’s
Council call agenda item on the Statement of Work for Reserved
Names, Chuck Gomes and Marilyn Cade ask that you accept this
document as a replacement to the earlier draft which we posted now
about 7 days ago.
We have received some comments and tried to address them. In
addition, we have improved the document and reorganized and
streamlined some sections. We make a special effort to note that we
believe that the work initiatives can be broken into sub-elements
and addressed in even sequential tracks, so that not all work has
to be done at the same time. We have discussed in the preparation
of this version that we believe that some work will have a higher
priority than other.
We will work from the document attached above in the discussion on
the Statement of Work. In the event that you have trouble with
opening documents for any reason, it is pasted below, as well.
Thanks to Liz Williams for her assistance.
Submitted by Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes
Draft Statement of Work – Version 2
for
Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN)
I. Formation of the Working Group The Working Group (WG) is
chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work,
as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the
work of the group. 1. Voting: In general, the working group should
operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be
made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members
are willing to support. “Straw poll voting” should be used to
determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues.
In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide
the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of
representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating
committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting. 2.
Membership The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors
and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC,
GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members
may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any
time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have
representatives participate as observers because there may be
implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes,
which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite
external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer)
that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort. Every
effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and
consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more
important that all varying points of view are examined and
reflected than for every constituency or group to have
representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is
achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough
consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced
representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will
then have opportunity to act. Members should be selected who can
commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to
facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in
the next section (Working Timeline). The Council will appoint an
initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group
should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-
chair(s). 3. Working Timeline The Working Group is asked to
convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following
targets:1. Progress report in the upcoming
intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the
Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-252.
Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to the GNSO
Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN
meetings3. Provide any follow-up actions requested by
the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings. As
appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with
the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO
Council. II. Purpose of the Working Group The purpose of the WG
will be to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment
of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the
goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the
TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on
defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a
full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations.
This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of
reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad
topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate
policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow
some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner
so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction
of new gTLDs. The treatment of reserved names is a matter of
contract for existing gTLDs and will be a matter of contract for
future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP
regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the
Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries,
Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of
reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing
and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06
does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report
to the Council regarding relevant recommendations. III. Working
Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach A. To
perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of
reserved domain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities
and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following:
1. Review the present treatment and process for
reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest
gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing
treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts –
link provided in Background Section2. Review any other
discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names
for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the
GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.)
3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved
names – see Background Section4. Review any relevant
technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs –see Background Section
and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB, SSAC,etc.) is
needed and complete. 5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as
needed, including legal and operational, to identify and review any
existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names
processes and procedures6. Liaise with the ccNSO and
the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter
names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined
in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessary B. Proposed Working
Approach for Working Group: 1. Initially, examine
the sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names to consider
breaking the broad topic into smaller parts2. Estimate
the complexity of issues associated with each of the sub-elements
and briefly describe the elements of complexity (e.g., more
controversial issues involving multiple stakeholder groups with
competing views might be rated more complex; consultation with the
GAC might be rated as more complex; etc.)3. Prioritize
the sub-elements according to these two
factors:a. Estimated level of complexity (less
complex to higher)b. Importance/relevance to
complete any future policy work prior to the introduction of new
gTLDsc. Other {to be developed}4.
Identify any sub-elements for which any needed policy work may be
able to be completed in time for the introduction of new gTLDs and
develop recommendations about how that might best be accomplished/
launch development of recommendations5. Identify the
remaining sub elements and establish a working plan to address
these, including considering parallel work tracks, if feasible and
resources permit, versus sequential work. 6. Prepare
and submit an interim report to the relevant PDP group and/or the
Council so that any additional policy work needed could be started
as soon as possible referencing the Time Line provided by the
Council7. Prepare and submit a final report regarding
all of the above for both PDP groups and the Council upon
conclusion of work.. Regular progress reports should be provided
for both PDP groups and the Council corresponding to scheduled
meetings of those groups and the Council. IV. Example of Topics
for Reserved Names This section provides an example of a work plan
outline for the work of the Working Group. It is provided as an
initial resource for potential use by the Working Group and to
attempt to help to launch the Working Group quickly, due to the
pressures of time limitations. It is not intended to be
comprehensive nor prescriptive. It should be assumed that the work
will need to ask the question of how reserved names apply to IDNs
at both second and first levels, as well as Latin character gTLDs.
1. Identify possible roles and purposes for reserved
names at the top level and review and examine those roles and
purposes, including how to address the role of reserved names in
IDNs2. Identify and develop proposals to address any
policy issues that should be or are under consideration by the
existing GNSO PDPs regarding policy considerations related to the
role, use, reservation, and release and allocation of reserved
names at the top and second level3.
Determine:a. The various roles that reserved
names may play in new gTLDs in addressing controversial categories
of names, including whether trademark names and country/
geopolitical names should have initial or permanent reserved
status; etc.b. Whether existing reserved names
at the second level should automatically be included at the first
level orc. Whether there is different treatment
proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the
first leveld. Whether reserved name requirements
need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might
varye. Whether there should be a procedure by
which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before
adding them to registry agreements4. Discuss and
review processes by which names could be put into reserved status
at the top level5. Discuss and propose processes by
which names can be unreserved at the top level and made available
for allocation, including discussion of whether there are unique
treatments in allocation for names that are reserved6.
Discuss whether and how categories of names can be unreserved and
allocated at the second level from the existing categories,
including second level reservations in single character[1] and two
character labels, and reservations for geographic and geopolitical
names, to include examination of any existing technical concerns
7. Reconfirm whether there should be a process by
which new names or categories are added to the reserved status in
the second level (e.g., should we assume that all new strings
allocated for operation as registries are reserved at the second
level when they are awarded?)
Background Materials and Relevant Initiatives to take into
account: Background: 1) Existing Registry Agreements Reserved
Names (Annex 6 and other examples)http://www.icann.org/registries/
agreements.htm 2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved
names http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/
rfc2606.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc./
rfc2141.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt
3) Status report on single letter names – to be provided Relevant
Initiatives: (1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on
newgTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-
Dec05. http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ (2) PDP 06
[need link] (3) IDN Working Group http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/
idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm
Submitted by: Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes
Attachment 1: Additional considerations: For a policy issue to
warrant a policy development process it mustMeet the following
criteria: (A) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B)
is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C)
is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the
need for occasional updates; (D) Will establish a guide or
framework for future decision-making; or (E) Implicates or affects
an existing ICANN policy.
<Draft Statement of Work - WG Reserved Names Revised v2.doc>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|