[council] GNSO Council: REVISED draft minutes 18 January 2007

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 
held on 18 January 2007.
The modifications are as follows:
- 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 TO BE COMPLETED within 30 days AFTER THE LISBON MEETINGS."
- Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the Statement of Work for the 
Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) with the modification in the 
timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin
- 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.

Please let me know if you would like any other changes made.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,
Glen
..........................................................................
18 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 - apology 
received after meeting
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. Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to the GNSO 
Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings
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, 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 [need link]

(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 to be completed within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings.
Alistair Dixon, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed approving the statement 
of work for the Working Group on Reserved Names with the modification in 
the timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin.
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 Statement of Work for the 
Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) with the modification in the 
timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin

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.


- 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