GNSO Council Update Wellington New Zealand March 2006

GNSO Council Update Wellington, New Zealand March 2006

Topics • • • Whois Task Force Recommendations & Next Steps Transfers Implementation Review Whois Accuracy Working Group PDP-Dec 05 (New g. TLDs) PDP-Feb 06 (Contractual Policy Requirements) Proposed RGP-PDP GNSO Review Update on Council Progress since VCR Update on Council work in Wellington Open Forum/QA

Whois • Constituency Representatives – Jordyn Buchanan (TF chair) – Paul Stahura – Tim Ruiz – Tom Keller – Ross Rader

Whois (cont’) • So far… – TF completed Final Report outlining policy and advice for handling conflicts between a registry/registrars legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN (19 Oct. 2005) • Report has been adopted as a consensus policy recommendation, and forwarded to the ICANN Bo. D for ratification as consensus policy (28 Nov. 2005) • Board has not yet voted on this recommendation.

Whois (cont’) • Task Force has completed Final Report on defining Purpose of Whois – Vote recently held, report forwarded to GNSO Council (18? Mar. 2006) – GNSO Council has not yet acted on this report. – Registrar Council reps require input concerning “Formulation 1” and “Formulation 2”

Whois (cont’) Formulation 1 • "The purpose of the g. TLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular g. TLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. "

Whois (cont’) Formulation 2 • "The purpose of the g. TLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party or parties for a particular g. TLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name. "

Whois (cont’) "The purpose of the g. TLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular g. TLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. " "The purpose of the g. TLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party or parties for a particular g. TLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or use of a domain name. "

Whois (cont’) • Formulation 1 was advocated by the RC reps in the TF – Consistent with RC position paper – Consistent with ICANN mission and mandate – Support by other key constituencies (Registry, Noncommercial) • Formulation 2 was advocated by the BC/ISP/IPC – Inconsistent with ICANN mission and mandate – Therefore, inconsistent with RC position paper – Not supported by Registry or Non-commercial constituency

Whois (cont’) The scope of 2 Formulation 1 Legal Issues -Criminal and civil Other? investigation - Unspecified catch-all - IP proceedings Limited technical issues related – DNS Record configuration Technical -Hosting - Mail service - DNS configuration

Whois (cont’) • Next steps – Board to vote on Local exemptions policy – Council to vote on Purpose of Whois policy – Task Force to start development of statement of purpose of Whois contacts. Registrar input will be required • Do we keep all of the existing contact? • What data should be associated with each? • Data and contacts published must be consistent with purpose of Whois.

Transfers Implementation Review • A council subcommittee tasked with evaluating the implementation of the Transfers Consensus Policy and making recommendations regarding how the policy and current implementation can be reviewed

Transfers Implementation Review (cont’) • Constituency Representatives – Ross Rader (chair) – Tim Ruiz – Jon Nevett

Transfers Implementation Review (cont’) • In process of compiling preliminary recommendations • Next steps are: – Complete preliminary recommendations – Circulate for constituency feedback • WG will vote on recommendations and forward to Council for implementation by ICANN Staff, or consideration as new consensus policy.

Whois Accuracy Working Group • A council subcommittee made up of a representative group of volunteers that are reviewing the effectiveness and compliance of the current contractual requirements with respect to WHOIS accuracy. • The group will take as input (1) the WDPRS report released on March 31 st 2004, (2) the WDRP report released on November 20 th 2004, and (3) the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.

Whois Accuracy Working Group (cont’) • • • David Fares (BC) Ken Stubbs (Registry) Ross Rader (Registrar) Bruce Tonkin (Registrar) Niklas Lagergren (IPC, Chair)

Whois Accuracy Working Group (cont’) • So far, has discussed – the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS) – the Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) – the ongoing attempt put a compliance policy into place within ICANN.

Whois Accuracy Working Group (cont’) • two meetings have crystallized three topics for Council to examine; – the need for an overall statistical assessment of Whois accuracy – the need to streamline the current process for reporting and addressing Whois problems, and; – the need to put theory into practice when it comes to compliance.

Whois Accuracy Working Group (cont’) • report to the GNSO) should be completed by the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh – limited in scope – not intended (and is not mandated) to engage in a policy-development effort

PDP-Dec 05 (New g. TLDs) • Constituency representatives – Task Force was created as a Committee-of -the-Whole (i. e. as a GNSO Council Subcommittee – Bruce Tonkin (c’ttee chair) – Tom Keller – Ross Rader

New g. TLDs (cont’) • So far… – Constituency and public comments have been solicited and received – C’ttee also requested, and received, white papers from interested parties

New g. TLDs (cont’) • Meeting of c’ttee held in Washington D. C. on Feb. 24 -25, 2006 – 9 White papers were presented – Participants presented Constituency positions – Explored initial basis for consensus

New g. TLDs (cont’) • Draft initial report has been prepared by ICANN staff – Presents initial statements and findings of rough consensus, and recommends areas that require further discussion.

New g. TLDs (cont’) • Recommendations from Report – Note: Report is an evolving draft, recommendations are still fluid – Support for introduction of new g. TLDs • Disagreement on how many, how fast and what kind – i. e. ISPC/IPC/BC would like to see *only* s. TLDs introduced and would prefer at this time to focus exclusively on introducing IDN new g. TLDs – General agreement on standardized registry contracts and improved compliance program

New g. TLDs (cont’) • Recommendations from report – Further analysis of operational impact of implementation on ICANN staff is required. • Used to enable better understanding of actual costs. – Fact based market analysis could be used to inform decisions about desirability of new g. TLDs from an end-user perspective. – Further consideration of specific ideas and input that have been addressed as part of the consensus building exercise • i. e. proposal to reclassify g. TLDs into “chartered” and “unchartered” – Consider WIPO-2 recommendations as separate track PDP.

New g. TLDs (cont’) • Specific Registrar input requested; • • Should the minimum technical criteria for registry operations be set according to the current registry operations of, for example, . NET requirements? Should the minimum technical criteria make some reference to the proposed size of a new registry [to enable appropriate adjustments to be made based on the number of names under management]? Should a separate registry operator’s accreditation scheme be established and, if so, what should that scheme look like. For example, could compliance with existing RFCs and IETF standards be used as objective measures of technical capacity? Should other business operations criteria continue to be included in a registry operator’s application to ensure that any registry operator is adequately funded and professionally managed?

PDP-Feb 06 (Contractual Policy Conditions) • Constituency Representatives – Jon Nevett (nominated as chair) – Jeff Eckhaus – Ross Rader

Contractual Policy Conditions (cont’) • So far… – Issues report has been prepared by ICANN staff and accepted by Council – Terms of Reference has been determined • Includes examination of the issues surrounding presumptive renewal, limitations on consensus policy, pricing controls, ICANN fees, uses of registry data (and metadata) and investments in development and infrastructure

Contractual Policy Conditions (cont’) • Next steps – TF meeting in Wellington – Constituency must prepare and vote on position statement prior to April 30. – Public comment period is now open

Contractual Policy Conditions (cont’) • Discussion of issues for Constituency Statement

Proposed RGP-PDP • Goal: Implement Redemption Grace Period as a mandatory offering (as opposed to optional registry service) – Narrow scope/terms of reference for TF/WG – Not intending to look at “expiry-transfer” etc. or modify of RGP practices. – Council has not yet discussed • Proposed in response to recent public criticism of Registrar practices – Some level of self-regulation is “desirable”

GNSO Review • Requirement of ICANN Bylaws • Being conducted by representatives of the London School of Economics • Main areas of focus; – Representativeness • i. e. is the GNSO reflective of the community? – Effectiveness • i. e. does the GNSO work well? – Transparency • i. e. are we accessible? Can the basis for our decisions be demonstrated? – Compliance • i. e. do we follow our own rules?

GNSO Review • Analysis and observation is ongoing • Should hear from the constituency • More information: http: //www. icann. org/gnso/reviewreference-terms-27 oct 05. htm

Update on Council Progress since VCR

Update on Council Work in Wellington • Admin Planning Session topics – Council’s Operational Plan, Council’s Strategic Plan, proposal for improved Administrative function, Council funding, new rules of council procedure • New g. TLD Working Group Meeting – Review and discussion of proposed selection criteria, allocation methods, – Discussion with GAC working group on g. TLDs • GNSO Public forum (agenda? ) • GNSO Council Meeting (agenda? )

Open Forum/QA