ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council]

  • To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council]
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:54:10 -0500
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <BAY105-DAV144444E484B81E2F96C155D3AA0@phx.gbl>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <BAY105-DAV144444E484B81E2F96C155D3AA0@phx.gbl>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20061207)

I didn't want to drag down the call making a statement regarding my vote on this item, but I do think its important to have a note of explanation on the record.

For the record, I am not opposed to having a conversation about this topic in order to discover areas of common interest in the community. However, I am not sufficiently convinced that this issue warrants a high enough priority to pursue it at this time.

Thanks all,


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


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
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 22-25
2.              Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to
the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN
3.              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 Section
2.              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,
3.              Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names -
see Background Section
4.              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 procedures
6.              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 parts
2.              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
b.                    Importance/relevance to complete any future policy
work prior to the introduction of new gTLDs
c.                     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 recommendations
5.              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
7.              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 IDNs
2.              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 level
3.              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 or
c.                     Whether there is different treatment proposed for
existing reserved names at the second level, in the first level
d.                    Whether reserved name requirements need to be the same
for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might vary
e.                     Whether there should be a procedure by which staff
publishes new categories  of reserved names before adding them to registry
4.              Discuss and review processes by which names could be put
into reserved status at the top level
5.              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 reserved
6.              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)
2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved names
3) Status report on single letter names - to be provided Relevant Initiatives: (1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on new
gTLDs, 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 must
Meet 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.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>