[council] Copy of GAC Communiqué

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Below is a copy of the GAC Communiqué that I received from the GAC chair.   It 
will be formally presented tomorrow, but this will allow people to read in 
advance.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


GAC Communiqué-Nairobi

Governmental Advisory Committee

Nairobi, 10 March 2010
GAC Communiqué - Nairobi


I. INTRODUCTION
================

The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Nairobi, during March 6 - 10, 2010.

36 members and 3 observers participated in the meeting, whereas 2 members 
participated
remotely.

The Governmental Advisory Committee expresses utmost gratitude to the 
Communications
Commission of Kenya (CCK) and Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC) for 
hosting
the meeting in Nairobi and thanks ICANN for supporting the GAC meeting.


II. IDN ccTLD
=============

After discussions with ccNSO, the GAC adopted "GAC Interim Principles on IDN 
ccTLDs"
(Annex A) as a contribution to the ongoing policy development process.

III. New gTLDs
==============

The GAC is grateful to receive updates on progress with the new gTLDs 
initiative,
in particular with regard to the root scaling studies being undertaken and the 
Special Trade
Mark Issues Review Team recommendations currently out for public consultation.

The GAC discussed a number of outstanding issues which it believes require 
resolution
before the gTLD program should be launched.  The Chair of the GAC sent the GAC
comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook v3 to the Chair of ICANN Board (Annex 
B)
and the GAC is looking forward to the ongoing dialogue.

The GAC reiterates "the need to explore track differentiation between 
categories" as
indicated in its Seoul communiqué. The Nairobi meeting has also revealed growing
awareness in the community of the importance of further exploring this 
approach.  The GAC
therefore welcomes the proposal for the creation of a cross-community group to 
explore this
topic and to report on it at the latest one month before the Brussels meeting.

The GAC appreciates the exchange of views on these issues with the GNSO.


IV. EoI
========

The mandatory nature of the currently proposed Expression of Interest (EOI) 
model turns it
into a slot reservation step and not a mere data-gathering exercise as 
initially intended and
presented. Opening slot reservation and conferring certain rights to the 
participants against
payment of a fee would constitute a de facto launch of the new gTLD application 
process.
Should the Board intend to use an EOI mechanism as proposed, the GAC, after 
interaction
with the rest of the community, formally advises the Board to launch it only 
after the
overarching issues have been resolved and the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) 
finalized.

In that context, the GAC questions the benefits of pursuing further a separate 
EOI process,
which could distract attention and resources from finalizing the new gTLD 
program. The
GAC believes that public forum comments on the EOI and face-to-face discussions 
in
Nairobi have helped identify ideas and concerns that can usefully inform the 
development of
DAG v4, on which the community should focus.


V. Morality and public order issues
===================================

The GAC continues to have concerns regarding the procedures outlined in DAG v3 
for
objections on the basis of morality and public order. The GAC questions the 
appropriateness
of the phrase "morality and public order" and is unclear how the proposed 
mechanism would
work in practice. The GAC believes this item should not be listed on the 
"closed items" list
with respect to the new gTLD process and requests a more detailed briefing from 
the ICANN
staff on the anticipated practical implementation of the approach.


VI. Law enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations
=================================================

The GAC received an update from law enforcement representatives on domain name 
abuse
and their proposals to mitigate the negative effects of such abuse on 
consumers, including
through further amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).

The GAC is aware that these proposals have been favorably reviewed by the high 
tech crime
experts in the G8 and Interpol and will forward their statements of support to 
the Board
separately. These law enforcement RAA amendment proposals will also be shared 
with the
GNSO RAA working group. The GAC expects that these proposals will be thoroughly
examined and taken into consideration.


VII. Security and Stability issues
==================================

The GAC welcomes the update by ICANN staff regarding ICANN Strategic 
Initiatives for
Security, Stability and Resiliency as well as the SSAC update on root scaling 
issues.

The GAC welcomes information about the "Global DNS-CERT Business Case" and the
initiative to launch a global strategy concerning the medium-long term planning 
about
security of the DNS presented in the recently published documents "Proposed 
Initiatives for
Improved DNS Security and Resiliency".

Concerning the DNS CERT, the GAC recommends that ICANN informs the relevant GAC
Representatives about its consultations with national and regional CERTs and is 
concerned
about possible duplication of efforts.

The GAC notes progress on the analysis of the factors that provoke the 
expansion of the root
zone file.

In the context of scaling the root, the increasing adoption of DNSSEC will be 
the major
factor; an important milestone will be July 2010 with the anticipated signing 
of the root going live.

In particular the GAC notes that, in the context of the root scaling issue, 
"anycast" related
questions have been identified as an additional element to be considered.

Furthermore, the GAC notes that, in the context of IDNs, the concept of 
"variants" requires
further clarification.

The GAC finally notes that, in order to take a position on the technical limits 
to the number
of new gTLDs that can be added over a certain time, SSAC needs further analysis 
with the
actors involved.


VIII. Board/ GAC Joint Working Group on the Review of the Role of the GAC at 
ICANN
===================================================================================

The Board /GAC Joint Working Group (JWG) met at the Nairobi meeting. The Working
Group discussed provision of GAC advice to the Board; the role of GAC liaisons; 
travel
support to GAC members from developing countries and secretariat support for 
the GAC.

In particular, the JWG agreed that further consideration of the nature of GAC 
advice to
Board, and its treatment once it has been generated, would assist the JWG in 
making any
recommendations for improvements.

The JWG aims at finalizing its report at the Brussels meeting.

The GAC discussed various models for a secretariat where independence and 
sustainability
would be fundamental considerations. A "hybrid" model, the details of which 
need to be
refined - where a secretariat would be co-funded by governments and ICANN - was 
viewed
as the most promising way forward. At the meeting The Netherlands, Brazil and 
Norway
committed to contribute to fund such a hybrid model, if adopted, for an initial 
period of 5
years. The proposal will be worked on further inter-sessionally and a detailed 
proposal will
be presented at the Brussels meeting with the purpose of seeking GAC approval.


IX. GAC Operating Principles
============================

The GAC adopted amendments to the Article IX of the Operating Principles (Annex 
C).

The GAC decided to engage in further revisions of its Operating Principles as a 
consequence
of the work of the GAC/Board Joint Working Group and in this regard is 
considering the
establishment of an ad hoc Group in the near future.

* * * *

The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed 
to the
dialogue with the GAC in Nairobi.

The next GAC meeting will take place during the period of the ICANN meeting in 
Brussels,
Belgium.


Annex A
========


GAC Interim Principles on IDN ccTLDs

1. General Principles The main provisions of the GAC ccTLDs principles:
"Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country
Code Top Level Domains" apply also for IDN ccTLDs. The current principles
are intended to supplement the aforementioned principles insofar as non-ASCII
ccTLDs are concerned.

2. The introduction and operation of IDN ccTLDs should not undermine the
security and stability of the DNS. To this end, all actors, including TLD
operators, ICANN and the relevant government should work together to ensure
that the highest standards of TLD operation are achieved, taking account of best
practices and internationally accepted technical standards where they exist.

3. All countries and distinct economies, listed in the International Standard 
ISO
3166-11 have equal rights to creating IDN ccTLDs that reflect their languages
and scripts.

4. Ultimate public policy authority over the IDN ccTLD(s) of a country or 
distinct
economy rests with the government or relevant public authority. How this
authority is exercised, is determined by applicable law.

5. On receipt of an IDN ccTLD application, ICANN should ensure that either the
proposal has the support of the Government or relevant public authority or that
the Government or relevant public authority raises no objections to the
application. In the event that such confirmation is not obtainable, ICANN
should desist from the introduction of the proposed IDN ccTLD until such
confirmation is obtained.

6. The number of IDN strings per territory should reflect the cultural and 
linguistic
characteristics of the community concerned. A limit on the number of IDN
strings per territory may only be considered if there are reasons to believe 
that
some form of limitation on the overall size of the root zone file is necessary 
to
preserve the stability of the DNS. If a limit is to be introduced, this should 
be
done in agreement with the government or relevant public authority of the
territory concerned, and adequate justification for such a limit should be made
clear beforehand in order for territories to establish their priorities 
properly.

7. It is anticipated in most cases that the Government or relevant public 
authority
will decide that one IDN ccTLD per script will be sufficient, but it should also
be borne in mind that within some countries and distinct economies different
scripts are in use and, in some cases, the same script is used in a number of
widely used languages. In these cases the Government or relevant public
authority may determine that more than one IDN ccTLD is necessary.
IDN ccTLDs Strings

8. It is anticipated that an IDN ccTLD string will normally:

   o be shortest meaningful representation of the name of the territory

   o not be restricted to a fixed length, its maximum length being set by the
prevailing technical standards with stability, security, integrity and usability
in mind

9. Given the different form that IDN ccTLDs will take and the absence of an
equivalent of the ISO 3166-1 list used for ASCII ccTLDs, the experience of
relevant international organizations2 should be taken into account.

10. Only the Government or the relevant public authority of the country or 
distinct
economy concerned, representing all relevant stakeholders within its
jurisdiction, can provide authoritative advice to ICANN on the legitimacy of any
application for an IDN ccTLD.

11. An IDN ccTLD string that refers to a specific country or distinct economy, 
even
if unapplied for, should be reserved for it.


IDN ccTLDs Scripts
==================

12. Nobody has property rights over a script. Some scripts are commonly used to
write more than one language and should be available to be used for IDN
ccTLD purposes in each of those languages.

13. It is recommended that each language community develop one language table
for its script. Language tables, after elaboration, should be deposited with
IANA and posted for public use by any registry with no restriction in any sense.

14. The latest available version of Unicode in use should be complete, 
including all
scripts, and constantly upgraded with newer versions to help include maximum
character sets of any language and ensure a strong and dynamic variant table to
handle security issues.


Stakeholders
=============

15. Relevant actors for international coordination include:

o Concerned governments
o Relevant international organizations within their respective mandates
o Standardization bodies
o Language experts
o Language communities and local users
o ICANN SOs/ACs
o ISOC (chapters)
o IETF
o Unicode consortium

16. All relevant actors should participate in a public and inclusive 
consultation
process, at the international level, and work towards evolving a consensus for
IDN ccTLDs formulation from the point of view of technical and operational
stability, security as well as addressing public-policy issues.


Introduction and Delegation of IDN ccTLDs
=========================================

17. Procedure for delegation of an IDN ccTLD should follow GAC ccTLDs
principles: "Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of
Country Code Top Level Domains".

18. A mandated list / reference table of strings representing the IDN ccTLDs of
countries and distinct economies, as listed in the ISO 3166-13, would facilitate
management and would ensure predictability of the IDN ccTLD system.

19. Competing or confusingly similar requests should be dealt with on a case by
case basis and resolved in consultation with all concerned stakeholders.

20. Policies for dealing with multiple applications, objections to applications 
or
disputes that are currently applied for ASCII ccTLDs should be equally applied
to IDN ccTLDs.

21. The decision regarding whether an existing ASCII ccTLD manager should also
be the operator of a corresponding IDN ccTLD is a matter to be decided by the
national/local Internet community, including the government or relevant public
authority, subject to applicable legislation. In cases of dispute, ICANN should
seek authoritative advice from the government or relevant public authority.

22. There should be some form of transparent communication as appropriate
between ICANN and any IDN ccTLD registry to define their respective roles
and responsibilities.


Annex B
========


GAC COMMENTS ON NEW gTLDs AND DAG v3

The GAC acknowledges the positive effects that a carefully-built program for the
introduction of new gTLDs can produce in terms of:
a) stimulating competition and innovation in the Internet domain space;
b) facilitating the online presence of communities;
c) creating new opportunities for businesses - both large and small - to 
enhance their
online identities, develop domestic and global marketing strategies, and 
introduce new
services.

While noting the widespread concern that the introduction of new gTLDs is not 
happening as
early as originally envisaged, the GAC nonetheless expects ICANN to ensure that 
the
opening up of the gTLD space is undertaken in a way that does not compromise 
the resilience
and integrity of the DNS and serves the global public interest. All significant 
outstanding
community issues of concern must therefore be resolved or mitigated before the 
first steps are taken to implement the new gTLD application framework, 
consistent with Article 9.3 of the
Affirmation of Commitments.

The GAC reiterates the importance of addressing comprehensively the following 
four
overarching issues:

1. The root scaling implications arising from the scale and rate of change of 
any introduction
of new gTLDs at the same time as other changes - notably deployment of DNSSec 
in the
root, the introduction of IDNs and IPv6 transition - and the rate of these 
changes, must
have no negative impact on the resilience, security and stability of the DNS. 
Each round
of applications should encompass an appropriate number of strings that will not 
raise any
concern in that regard.

2. More action must be taken to ensure that the introduction of new gTLDs does 
not lead to
a concomitant increase in malicious conduct and abuse of the DNS. Improvements 
in
ICANN's post-delegation monitoring and enforcement of the commitments made by
delegated operator registries and registrars are warranted.

3. It is important to ensure that intellectual property rights are properly 
respected in the new
gTLD space consistent with national and international law and standards. The GAC
expects that the proposed Trademark Clearing House should be made available to 
all
trademark owners, irrespective of the legal regime they operate under, and that 
an
effective and sustainable Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), with appropriate 
remedies,
and a Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy are established to ensure 
appropriate
trade mark protection. While these initiatives are broadly welcomed therefore 
in serving
to help address the concerns of brand owners, the GAC believes that they 
require further
refining. In particular, "substantive examination" should be re-defined so that
registrations examined on "absolute grounds" are included in order to ensure 
broader
availability of the URS.

4. The urgent need for economic studies to be concluded which assess whether 
the benefits
of new gTLDs are likely to outweigh any costs to users and to assess whether 
any registry
operator can or will be able to exercise market power with respect to any 
existing or new
gTLD, before any changes are made to the current policy requiring vertical 
separation
between registries and registrars. Economic studies should also distinguish 
demand for
new name registrations versus defensive registrations by current brand holders.

The GAC awaits the publication of the documents currently being prepared by 
ICANN
relating to the above overarching issues and will provide additional comments 
on these.

The GAC will also wish to comment on the detailed communication strategies for 
the new
gTLD program for all regions, including developing country markets

The GAC also wishes to state its position and views on the following specific 
issues:

1. The GAC restates the advice contained in the Chair's letter of 18 August 
2009 which
states: "Strings that are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a 
country name
or territory name should not be allowed in the gTLD space". The GAC interprets 
para
2.2 of the GAC gTLD principles that strings which are a meaningful 
representation or
abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the 
forthcoming
ccTLD PDP , and other geographical strings could be allowed in the gTLD space 
if in
agreement with the relevant government or public authority.

2. The GAC believes the proposed objection mechanisms should be improved, 
including to
ensure that objection fees are cost-based rather than set at a high deterrence 
level; and that
objections to individual applications submitted by individual governments are 
not subject
to payment of a fee. It is also important that GAC members can provide advice 
directly
to the ICANN Board as foreseen in the by-laws, and not be required to subject 
objections
to an independent third party service provider.

3. The GAC urges that mechanisms be established for the resolution of 
post-delegation
deviation from conditions for government approval of or non-objection to the 
use of a
geographical name. The GAC is of the view that this could be achieved with the 
inclusion
of a clause in the registry agreement requiring that in the case of a dispute 
between a
relevant Government and the registry operator, ICANN must comply with a legally
binding decision in the relevant jurisdiction. However, in case of the need for 
approval or
non-objection from multiple governments, proper mechanisms for resolving post
delegation disputes must be detailed.

4. The GAC supports the proposal to allow two character strings for most 
scripts used for
IDN TLDs and advises that further analysis be undertaken of the one character 
issue.

5. The GAC draws attention to the need to explore further the regime applicable 
to single
registrant TLDs should they be authorised.

The GAC urges that ICANN ensure that the resolution of competing string 
applications does
not give rise to auction-derived surpluses, but is decided on the respective 
value of the
applications for end users.

6. The GAC is of the view that the definition of geographical strings continues 
to be
insufficient and is not in line with GAC gTLD principles paras 2.2 and 2.7. For 
example,
commonly used abbreviations or regions not listed in ISO 3166-2 should also be
considered as geographical names.

Finally, the GAC reiterates the importance of fully exploring the potential 
benefits of further
categories (or track differentiation) that could simplify rather than add 
complexity to the
management of the new TLD program and in that way help to accelerate the new 
gTLD
program. In particular, the GAC believes that:

i) this could create greater flexibility in the application procedures to 
address the needs of a
diversity of categories or types of string - including common nouns (e.g., 
"music"),
cultural/linguistic communities, brand names and geographical strings4 - would 
likely make
application processes more predictable and create greater efficiencies for 
ICANN, both in
ASCII and IDN spaces;

ii.) Taking into account that applicants and users of new TLDs of a high public 
interest for a
specific community, such as city TLDs or country-region and other geographical 
TLDs5, may
expect the legal framework of the territory in which the community is located 
to be
applicable to the TLD, ICANN should allow for ways to respect the specific 
legal framework
under which the respective community is operating in the TLD regime. This will 
also help
ICANN, the applicants and national or local public authorities to avoid the 
risk of large scale
legal challenges.

iii) instead of the currently proposed single-fee requirement, a cost-based 
structure of fees
appropriate to each category of TLD would a) prevent cross subsidisation and b) 
better
reflect the project scale, logistical requirements and financial position of 
local community
and developing country stakeholders who should not be disenfranchised from the 
new TLD
round.
The GAC trusts that the above considerations will be fully taken into account 
by the ICANN
Board and the community and is looking forward to further dialogue.


Annex C
=======

ARTICLE IX - ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIRS

Principle 31

Elections for the GAC Chair shall take place during the final meeting of every 
second year
(even years) unless the Chair can no longer perform the functions of the 
office. If Chair can
no longer perform the functions during the first year in the office, the 
elections shall be
organized for the remaining term in the office during the next GAC meeting. If 
Chair can no
longer perform the functions during the second year in the office, the GAC 
shall decide
which of the Vice Chairs should replace the Chair until the regular elections 
are held.
Elections for the three Vice Chairs shall normally take place during the final 
meeting of the
year. If Vice Chair can no longer perform the functions before the full term 
has finished, new
elections shall be organized for the remaining term in the office during the 
next GAC
meeting.
The results of each election shall formally be announced at the end of any 
meeting in which
an election has taken place, and shall take effect at the end of the next GAC 
meeting.


Principle 32
=============

In the event of a single candidate he or she shall be elected by acclamation. 
If there is more
than one candidate for the position of Chair, or more than 3 candidates for the 
positions of
Vice Chairs, an election will be held. For elections, the candidate or 
candidates with the most
votes shall be elected to the position(s) that he or she has stood for.

In case of a tie ballot for two leading candidates, an additional ballot shall 
be held restricted
to these candidates after an interval of at least one hour.

Elections shall be valid if more than 1/3 of the GAC members participate in the 
voting in
person and by electronic mail. In case of the second round of voting, only 
present at the
meeting GAC members participate.


Principle 33
============

Nominations for candidates to the official position of Chair and/or Vice Chair 
of the GAC
shall normally start during the GAC meeting which precedes the meeting in which 
the
confirmation is due to take place. In any event, the nomination procedure will 
close 45 days
before the start of the meeting at which the confirmation of appointment is due 
to take place
and a list of candidates should be posted on the GAC website within 14 days. In 
the event
that there are more candidates than positions available, the GAC Chair will 
notify members
that an election will be organized in accordance with principles 34 to 36 of 
this document.


Principle 34
=============

For elections, votes shall be taken by secret ballot. It will be a matter for 
each voting Member
to decide if they wish to make his or her choice public. This includes the 
taking of votes in
person, or ballots transmitted by electronic mail. The GAC Secretariat will 
organize the
voting procedure and count the votes under the supervision of the Chair or Vice 
Chairs who
do not stand for re-election.


Principle 35
============

For votes to be taken in person, the GAC Secretariat will distribute ballot 
papers to Members'
accredited representatives at that meeting, and arrange for a ballot box to be 
placed in the
conference room.

Principle 36
============

Members unable to attend in person, should notify the Secretariat no less than 
7 days before
the beginning of the meeting in which the election is due to take place. They 
will then be
provided with the opportunity to cast their votes by electronic mail addressed 
to the
Secretariat, which shall then be added to the votes cast by other members 
during the meeting.
Any Member from whom a vote has not been received within such a time-limit 
shall be
regarded as not voting.