Re: [council]
Attachment:
Status_report_onsingle_letter_domain.doc ColleaguesI 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 colleaguesWith 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.htmSubmitted by: Marilyn Cade and Chuck GomesAttachment 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>
|