Re: [council] GNSO Council drfat minutes 18 January 2007

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Glen,

Thank you as always for sending the teleconference notes.   I note your
remarks viz 'absent' and 'absent-apology'.

I wanted clarification on how you note this things, as I recall sending an
apology prior to you sending out these feedback, stating that I could not be
on the call due to issues with receiving email, i.e could not have known the
meeting dates.   It appears the 'apologies' are only accepted prior and not
after? should that be?

Thanks ahead.
Sophia


On 21/01/07, GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [council[at]gnso.icann.org]
>
> Dear Council Members,
>
> Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on
> 18 January 2007.
>
> Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
> ...................................................................................
> 8 January 2007
>
> Proposed agenda and relevant documents
>
> List of attendees:
> Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies
> Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C.
> Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C
> Greg Ruth - ISCPC
> Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies
> Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent
> Thomas Keller- Registrars
> Ross Rader - Registrars
> Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
> Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
> Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
> Cary Karp - gTLD registries
> Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
> Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
> Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
> Robin Gross - NCUC.
> Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent
> Mawaki Chango - NCUC
> Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent
> Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
> Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
>
> 15 Council Members
> (21 Votes - quorum)
>
> ICANN Staff
> John Jeffrey - General Counsel
> Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor, Asia-Pacific, General Counsel
> Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
> Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
> Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
> Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
> Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer
> Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
>
> Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member
>
> GNSO Council Liaisons
> Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
> Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent
>
> Quorum present at 19:05 UTC.
>
> MP3 Recording
>
> Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting
>
> Approval of the agenda
>
> Item 1: Update any statements of interest
> No updates
>
> Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December 2006
>
> Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 December
> 2006.
>
> Abstentions were noted from Council members who were not yet on the
> Council on 6 December 2006:
> Jon Bing, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung.
>
> Motion approved.
>
> Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 21 December 2006
>
> Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 21 December
> 2006.
> Abstentions were noted from Mawaki Chango.
>
> Motion approved.
>
> Decision 1: The minutes of the GNSO Council meetings on 6 December 2006
> and 21 December 2006 were adopted.
>
> Item 3: Correspondence
> Bruce Tonkin mentioned that there had been correspondence from Chris
> Disspain, the chair of the ccNSO notifying that the ccNSO and GAC were
> forming a joint working group to work on ccTLD IDNs, and
> requested a representative from the GNSO. This request has been
> forwarded to the GNSO's IDN Working group for action.
>
> Item 4: PDP on new gTLDs work
> - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to review the creation of a
> reserved words list for the top level and update the list for the second
> level for gTLDs
> (use: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/jobs/appendix-6-05may05.htm
>
> -- Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes to draft terms of reference for
> consideration
>
> Chuck Gomes presented the draft Statement of Work - Version 2 for the
> 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
> 22-25
> 2. Complete its work and deliver written recommendations for next steps
> to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon
> ICANN meetings
> 3. Respond to 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, etc.)
> 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 higher)
> 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 Council
> 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 agreements
> 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) 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 new
> gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05.
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>
> (2) PDP 06
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/
>
> (3) IDN Working Group
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm
>
>
> 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.
>
> Bruce Tonkin commented that the use of a working group could lead to a
> faster policy development process, in that it was a short term approach
> to identify agreement on certain issues, which could help the Council
> decide whether or not a PDP process was likely to be successful. The
> statement of work could be looked upon as an initial issues report.
> In the context of new gTLDs it is what happens at both the top level and
> the second level of new gTLDs.
> In the evolution of gTLDs there were originally very few reserved words
> at the second level of .com/.net/.org, but since then the list for new
> gTLD operators has grown, and it would be appropriate for the community
> to discuss the topic, rather than leave it to the discretion of the
> staff as in previous gTLD selections
>
> Bruce Tonkin proposed that the language of the timelines could be
> modified after the current meeting, the concept being that the working
> group would complete its work one week prior to the ICANN meetings in
> Lisbon, that is, by 16 March 2007, but the Council may request some
> follow up work within 30 days thereafter.
>
> Alistair Dixon, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed approving the statement
> of work for the Working Group on Reserved Names.
>
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
>
> Ross Rader voted against the motion with the following explanation on
> 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."
>
> Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the Draft Statement of Work -
> Version 2 for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN)
>
> - Proposal to form a GNSO working group to review the sunrise processes
> used by recent gTLDs and ccTLDs (e.g .eu) and determine whether a
> standardised process that is scalable for many new gTLDs is feasible
>
> -- Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to draft terms of reference for
> consideration
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03135.html
>
> Bruce Tonkin commented that the current new gTLD report had no
> recommendation that a sunrise period was needed, but during committee
> discussions questions arose about what mechanisms there would be to
> protect trade mark holders during the start-up stages of new TLDs.
>
> Kristina Rosette introduced the draft Statement of Work for Sunrise
> Working Group
>
> Proposed Purpose: Analyze processes used to allow owners of trademark
> and analogous intellectual property rights to register, before the
> Landrush or general public registration period, domain names
> corresponding to such rights ("Sunrise processes"), identify
> commonalities among such Sunrise processes, assess the feasibility of
> developing and implementing a Sunrise process that is scalable for new
> gTLDs, and identify and evaluate alternative processes.
>
> Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan
>
> I. Analyze Existing Sunrise Processes
> A. Identify Relevant TLDs
> B. Describe Sunrise Processes
> 1. Eligibility
> 2. Rights bases or requirements
> 3. Submission process and costs of submission
> 4. Review of applications
> 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism
> C. Issues Arising out of or Related to Sunrise Process
> 1. Eligibility
> 2. Rights bases or requirements
> 3. Review of applications
> 4. Allocation
> D. Analyze Quantitative Success
> 1. Number of Sunrise registrations, number of Sunrise registrations vs.
> overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are
> purely defensive
> 2. Number of Sunrise challenges overall and in relation to number of
> registrations;
>
> challenger success rate
> E. Analyze Qualitative Success
> 1. Nature of use of names registered during sunrise
> 2. Whether Sunrise process protects IP rights in a cost-effective manner
> F. Impact on registries and registrars
> 1. Resource allocation
> a) Development of Sunrise process
> b) Implementation of Sunrise process
> 2. Revenue generation
> 3. Other considerations
> II. Identify Commonalities Among Sunrise Processes
> A. Eligibility Commonalities
> B. Procedural Commonalities
> 1. Submission
> 2. Review
> 3. Challenge
> C. User Satisfaction
> III. Developing and Implementing Scalable Sunrise Process
> A. Feasibility
> 1. Likely to be certain conclusions derived from I and II above --
> sunrise registration user satisfaction; impact on registrars,
> registries, and other affected parties; IP owner concerns
> B. Content
> C. Implementation Considerations
> IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms
> A. Alternatives
> B. Evaluation
>
> Suggested Working Group Membership*
>
> 1. U.S. owner of globally famous brand
> 2. Non-U.S. owner of globally famous brand
> 3. INTA Internet Committee member or Sunrise dispute panelist
> 4. Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
> 5. Registrar that participated in Sunrise process
> 6. Registrar that participated in alternate mechanism
> 7. Registry with Sunrise process
> 8. Registry with alternative mechanism
> 9. Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
> 10. Commercial financial institution representative
> 11. IPC designee
> 12. NCUC designee
> 13. ISP designee
> 14. BC designee
>
> * Suggested Working Group Membership is "floor", not "ceiling"
>
> Avri Doria asked, given that in the establishment of new gTLDs there was
> a known set of rights, that extended into IDNs which presumption
> pertained to all new gTLDs that needed to be protected, was it the
> working group's intention to explore the notion of rights and whether
> there were counter rights to that that would affect the mechanisms that
> would be acceptable.
>
> Kristina Rosette responded not in the broad sense that intellectual
> property rights would be protected, because all of the new gTLD
> applications had had a mechanism for protecting prior rights and the
> Intellectual Property Constituency had not pushed for a sunrise period.
> But the working group would examine who would be eligible for the
> sunrise period.
>
> Chuck Gomes commented that it was important for the Statement of work to
> identify problems and in that light, evaluate and analyse their
> qualitative and quantitative success as well as any alternatives that
> might be proposed in the future.
>
> Bruce Tonkin summarised, the group should consider the role of the
> sunrise process and the problems that the sunrise process sought to solve.
> The term 'sunrise' should be elaborated, for example WIPO referred to
> preventive Intellectual Property protection mechanisms.
>
> Rita Rodin commented that in the applications for new gTLDs there was a
> requirement that applicants provide a mechanisms to provide protection
> for Intellectual Property rights.
> John Jeffrey confirmed the statement was correct Any new TLDs will have
> to deal with protecting Intellectual Property rights and there were
> mechanism in place to protect such rights.
> Chuck Gomes commented that there had been in the previous rounds, but it
> did not necessarily mean that the requirement was going forward.
>
> John Jeffrey considered it a good discussion because such issues should
> be pointed out to the community as issues that have been included and
> could continue to be included in future rounds. It would be natural to
> include those provisions and to require that all appropriate laws were
> followed.
> There are likely to be intellectual property laws relating to these
> areas that might require some specific views or concerns relating to
> these registrations.
>
> Bruce Tonkin asked John Jeffrey to restate the wording of the request in
> the RFP.
> John Jeffrey proposed sending the specific provisions to the council as
> well as references requiring compliance with the laws of the contractual
> agreement.
>
> Bruce Tonkin wanted to confirm one of the mechanisms in place in ICANN.
> Taking the .com example, the mechanism that provided some protection or
> mechanisms to assist in protection was that the registration agreement
> for a dot com name, required the registrant to agree to comply to the
> outcome of a UDRP. It was thus a contractual obligation of the
> registrant to submit to that process.
>
> John Jeffrey commented that also in the newer agreements, such
> mechanisms existed that required compliance relating to the intellectual
> property laws.
>
> Bruce Tonkin cautioned against the side effects of some of the previous
> processes.
> The general language John Jeffrey used was preferable, looking at
> mechanisms for protecting Intellectual Property rights, rather than
> presupposing a start-up phase where some had priority rights over others.
>
> Ute Decker clarified that the working group attempted to find solutions
> to alleviate the problem that faced Intellectual Property holders with
> the launch of new gTLDs.
> Two separate solutions could be envisaged:
> - the UDRP which could address problems that have fallen through the net,
> - a broad brush solution at the beginning of the process was necessary
> that would obviate a large number of applications having to resort to
> UDRPs at a later stage.
>
> Avri Doria commented that the rights of all should be considered, not
> only those of Intellectual property holders, but those excluded because
> they had no such rights.
>
> Jon Bing commented that there were other types of protected strings, not
> only proper names but the examples of dot com domains which corresponded
> to names of public agencies in non-English language jurisdictions, such
> as the 'Ministry of Justice' in Norwegian was used as a domain name
> which could be misleading. The relation between preventing the dispute
> and resolving a dispute should be considered.
>
> Mawaki Chango insisted on the point raised by Avri Doria as to what was
> exactly the problem intended to be addressed by the sunrise process. In
> other words, it was important not to carry on with the apparent
> assumption that it was just about protecting trademarks and intellectual
> property, if it was not so as Jon Bing pointed out. Mawaki would thus
> encourage the team working on this issue to try to provide as a complete
> view as possible of the purpose of the sunrise period and mechanism.
>
> Bruce Tonkin proposed that the GNSO Council meet on February 1 2007, to
> consider a revised draft of the statement of work.
> Constituencies may start identifying members of the working group in
> parallel with the revision of the draft statement of work.
> Bruce Tonkin commented that the outcome of the working group was not on
> the critical path for the work of the new gTLDs.
> The working group should focus on concluding its work and providing a
> report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007.
>
> Item 5: Update on planning for policy meeting on PDP-Dec05 and PDP-Feb06
> in February
> - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update
>
> Bruce Tonkin confirmed that the new gTLD (PDP-Dec05) work would take
> place on the first two days of the face to face meetings, Thursday 22
> and Friday 23 and the PDP-Feb06 work on Saturday 24 and Sunday 25
> February.
>
> The secretariat reported that some constituencies were considering
> sending different representatives for the two working sessions and
> splitting the funding. There would be room for observers, but
> constituencies were encouraged to identify the observers as soon as
> possible.
>
> ICANN technical staff will assist with the Remote participation.
>
> Item 6: Update on progress in WHOIS task force
>
> Jordyn Buchanan provided the followingupdate on the WHOIS task force:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03156.html
>
> "- We've briefly discussed two new proposals (one from Avri/Wendy/Robin
> to eliminate Whois or remove all non-technical contact information;
> and one from Marilyn with ideas to remove port 43 access, limit bulk
> Whois, and further study the topic).
> - We've had some further discussions about access to data that might
> be removed from public view by the TF. We've begun limiting the
> options from the five presented in the preliminary report.
> - Public comment period just closed and we've also received several
> constituency statements. We'll be discussing these next week.
> - We remain on track for completing our work on February 12 (I hope).
>
> Marilyn Cade, who submitted the 'pragmatic steps' proposal, added that
> it ' suggested moving all access to WHOIS to web based, with security
> measures; eliminating Port 43; using stronger contracts, enforced by
> ICANN for bulk access, and having ICANN undertake, and fund a study to
> inform policy making, not just now, but on a continual and occasional
> basis'.
>
>
> Item 7: Update on progress in PDP-Feb06
>
> Avri Doria reported that the work on terms of reference 1 4 & 6 were
> essentially completed.
> An updated draft report would be forthcoming in February.
> The schedule has been organised to keep the end date for completion but
> include the two day face to face meeting in February.
> Work has started on term of reference 5 and the work should be ready to
> discuss at the face to face meeting in February.
> The task force was examining the data collected by registries in order
> to categorize it.
> The categories were still under discussion and part of the problem was
> that the task force did not have a
> firm grasp of what data was collected.
> For the next meeting on Tuesday 23 February the task force is
> considering what data was collected. There is outreach to the
> registries, the registry liaison and the legal staff, and outside
> sources with real expert knowledge on what data is collected by
> registries and how it is dealt with.
> Avri Doria requested that a registry liaison or legal staff person,
> attend the PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 February 2007 to inform the
> task force on registry data and how it is used.
> Terms of Reference 5 relate to Uses of registry data, and without full
> knowledge of the issue it would be difficult to consider whether or not
> a policy was needed.
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/tor-pdp-28feb06.html
>
> John Jeffrey committed to working with the policy team on having a staff
> person available at the next PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 January
> to review the various terms on traffic and registry data.
>
> Bruce Tonkin gave a high level overview:
> The Registry contract is detailed about the data that must be collected
> and stored for both registries and registrars. Additional data could be
> collected via logging the activity of registrants that connect to
> registrars (.e g from which IP address and how often they log into a
> domain name control panel) or logging incoming DNS queries at
> nameservers (either at the registry or at nameservers operated by
> registrars, ISPs, etc) so as to abstain information including IP
> address, the number of queries from that IP address, and the content of
> the query (e.g which domain name or resource record was the subject of
> the DNS query). This would be the Information that could be collected
> but it is not required.
>
> Cary Karp commented that there misperceptions about whose IP address was
> known to a registry when a resolution request was submitted. There was
> some belief that the IP address of the end user was probated to the
> registry and the registry was capable of knowing individually who was
> asking for the resolution of names which was not true.
> Bruce Tonkin commented that in many cases the IP address seen by the
> registry is of a DNS server within an ISP's network, that in turn is
> responding to a query from an individual's computer.
> There was a need to understand how DNS resolution works.
>
> Kurt Pritz proposed that the staff could coordinate an informational
> discussion among the registries to provide information on how the data
> is used and what data is available. Registry data is available to the
> registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry
> data could include information on domain name registrants, information
> in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the
> DNS resolution services associated with the registry.
>
> Item 8: Any other business
> 8.1. Chair for the working group on reserved names
> Given the statement of work has been approved by the Council a chair is
> needed to start the work as a deadline has been approved.
>
> Chuck Gomes proposed that constituency representatives called for
> participants from the constituency and that names be provided within a
> week.
>
> Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed Chuck Gomes as the interim
> chair of the working group on reserved names.
>
> The motion passed by a vote of acclamation
>
> Decision 3: Chuck Gomes selected as the interim chair of the working
> group on reserved names.
>
> Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for
> participating.
>
> The meeting ended: 21:00 UTC
>
> Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 1 February 2007 at 19:00 UTC.
> see: Calendar
>
> Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes:
>
> 1. Arising from Item 3:
>
> Select a GNSO representative to the ccNSO and GAC joint working group to
> work on ccTLD IDNs
>
> 2. Arising from Item 5:
>
> 2.1 Kristina Rosette and Ute Decker to revise the draft terms of
> reference for the sunrise processes.
>
> 2.2 John Jeffrey to send the specific provisions in the RFP to the
> council as well as references requiring compliance with the laws of the
> contractual agreement.
>
> 2.3.Constituencies to start identifying members of the working group in
> parallel with the revision of the draft statement of work on the sunrise
> periods.
>
> 3. Arising from Item 7
>
> 3.1 John Jeffrey to work with the policy team to assign a staff person
> for the next PDPFeb06 task force meeting on 23 January to review the
> various terms on traffic and registry data.
>
> 3.2 Kurt Pritz proposed that the staff could coordinate an informational
> discussion among the registries to provide information on how the data
> is used and what data is available.
>
> 4. Arising from Item 8
>
> Chuck Gomes to call for participants for the reserved names working
> group within the week.
> --
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org