RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 17 Jan 2006 - discussion under #6

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've reviewed the updated Council work plan, provided by Maria today
[thanks,Maria!], and our agenda for the Council call, and the transcript
from the ICANN Vancouver meeting and subsequent postings re the
com/litigation settlement PROPOSED agreement, and offer the following
comment. 

 

The resolution of the Council regarding the .com bid/litigation settlement
PROPOSED agreements, forwarded to the Board, made it clear to the Board that
the Council sees policy issues inherent/embedded in the PROPOSED agreements,
and intends to offer guidance. 

 

That must mean in a timely manner. 

 

Obviously, we have a full plate. However, we can?t just say: oops. Well,
don?t have time to do our job on the policy guidance we told the Board and
Community was our responsibility. So, we have to develop a methodology to
consider these issues quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly, and meet the PDP
requirements for public comment. 

 

I'll be prepared to offer some concrete suggestions during our call on how
to allocate and identify resources to address the issues in 6. We should
assume a priority of making decisions on this topic. 

 

One addition to the list in #6, however: I have reviewed the comments from
the various constituencies and the ALAC, and the workshop jointly organized
and hosted by the ALAC and several constituencies, and note that we need to
include "traffic data" in the topics to be addressed as policy, in order to
capture the widely supported concerns identified by the broad community. 

 

Prioritization:

I've stated this before, but it bears stating again. The Council will need
to make this particular policy process a priority and develop additional
resources to ensure that this priority concern is adequately resourced. With
that in mind, I remind Council that Council has the authority to identify
external resources as needed. In this instance, it appears appropriate to
retain an independent resource to undertake preparation of the Issues
Report, and provide additional expert advice to the Council. I fully
appreciate that while we can augment or even replace some of the demands on
ICANN policy staff with this methodology, we will have the burden still on
Councilors. However, I note that given the seriousness of the community's
concern; Council's obvious responsibilities, and the timeline the ICANN
Board and staff seem to be pursing on the negotiations of the PROPOSED
agreement re .com/litigation settlement, we must meet an accelerated time
line.

 

I think we would have failed in our responsibilities if we didn't understand
this and reprioritize, as needed, to meet this need. 

 

It's a simple matter of triage. When a patient is bleeding to death, that
patient moves to the top of the list of those who get attention and care.
Other patients may be in pain, but not in a life threatening situation and
can wait a bit ? even if they, and their ?families? do complain bitterly. 

 

Given the time factors, Council will need to make decisions on Tuesday?s
call on approaches and resources. 

 

Have a good week end, everyone!

 

Best regards, 

 

Marilyn Cade

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:49 PM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 17 Jan 2006

 

 

Also add under item 7

- update on GNSO review (Dr Liz Williams)

 

Regards,

Bruce

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin

> Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:40 AM

> To: GNSO Council

> Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 

> 17 Jan 2006

> 

> Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 17 January 2006

> 

> Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00

> 

> (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next 

> day) Melbourne ) 

> 

> Item 1: Approval of minutes of 2 Dec 2005 and 21 Dec 2005

> 

> Item 2: Update on new gTLD policy development process

> - advise constituency representatives

> 

> Item 3: Update on WHOIS poloicy development

> - preliminary report on purpose of WHOIS

> - current work

> 

> Item 4: IETF draft on IDN issues

> - discuss document authored by John Klensin and Patrik Fältström

> - see 

> http://www.iab.org/documents/drafts/draft-iab-idn-nextsteps-00.txt

> 

> Abstract:

> 

> This note describe issues raised by the deployment and use of 

> Internationalized Domain Names.  It describes problems both 

> at the time of registration and those for use of those names 

> for use in the DNS.  It recommends that IETF should update 

> the IDN related RFCs and a framework to be followed in doing 

> so, as well as summarizing and identifying some work that is 

> required outside the IETF.  In particular, it proposes that 

> some changes be investigated for the IDNA standard and its 

> supporting tables, based on experience gained since those 

> standards were completed.

> 

> Document status:

> 

> This document reviews the IDN landscape from an IETF 

> perspective and presents the recommendations and conclusions 

> of an IAB-convened ad hoc committee charged with reviewing 

> IDN issues and the path forward (See Section 6).  Its 

> recommendations are recommendations to the IETF, or in a few 

> cases to other bodies, for topics to be examined and actions 

> to be taken if those bodies, after their examinations, 

> consider those actions appropriate.

> 

> Neither the IAB nor the members of the ad hoc committee have 

> yet reached consensus that this document is ready for final 

> publication.

> However, the IAB concluded that it was appropriate to expose 

> it, as a working draft, for community comment and feedback.  

> Such comments should be sent to iab@xxxxxxx (relevant 

> material will be forwarded to the IAB IDN Ad Hoc committee).

> 

> Item 5: Update on status of proposed .com agreement

> 

> Item 6: Next steps on policy issues related to proposed .com 

> agreement E.g

> - policy for renewal of gtld agreements

> - funding model policy (possible new policy)

> - policy for capping fees that a registry can charge

> - exclusions in agreements from future consensus polices or 

> changes in consensus polices

> 

> Item 7: Any other business

> 

> Regards,

> Bruce Tonkin

> 

> 

>