Hello Folks: The GNSO Council meeting in Washington is over. Here are the outlines of the discussions that took place, followed by a compilation of the main results. Good reading, mawaKi. --- o Friday 24, morning: Review of ICANN mission and core values, and identification of which ones are relevant to introducing new gTLDs. Review of the papers submitted with telephone presentation by a few authors. Questions from the floor o Friday 24, afternoon: . Should we have new gTLDs? Discussion of past experience, including constituencies’ position over time, the public comments and other external factors (e.g. alternative roots, IDN, etc.) . Should we have new gTLDs, yes or no? The answer was YES from all participants (constituencies), from a strong and bold yes to a “pragmatic” yes (Business). Then various conditions were made explicit and discussed for the introduction of new gTLDs to take place in an efficient manner. This session was followed by the Council meeting (open to non councilors), from 6pm to past 8pm, where we discussed and updated the PDP terms of reference (see below). Those will be voted by the Council on a conference call, March 2. o Saturday 25, morning & afternoon: . Review of the selection criteria from the first (Aug 2000) and second (Dec 2003) rounds of new gTLDs introduction . Review and discussion of proposed selection criteria by the various constituencies for the current PDP (see below). This discussion dragged out over lunch and till early afternoon. Then we learned that the allocation criteria that the meeting wanted to discuss could not be covered. At that point (3:30pm) we left the meeting for about 7 hr drive back home. ==== Terms of Reference for PDP-Feb06 Context The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs, and if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and contractual conditions. During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of the GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated 29 June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005 and 29 January 2006). As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that issues such as renewal could be considered as part of the broader issue of contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more appropriate to have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of the matters raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters to negotiate on a contract by contract basis. Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies." This issues report is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html . Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the proposed revisions to the .com agreement. In the issues report the ICANN General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to consider a policy development process that specifically targets the .com registry agreement. At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council clarified that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek an issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate to the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO constituencies on the proposed .com agreement. At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that while the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its terms of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome of that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus the Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by the GNSO community. Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP [PDP-Feb06] to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing gTLDs. The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context of the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a single gTLD policy. Goal The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of ICANN's mission, that relate to the issues identified in the specific terms of reference below. Terms of Reference 1. Registry agreement renewal 1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether or not these conditions should be standardized across all future agreements. 2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies 2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry agreements are appropriate and how these limitations should be determined. 2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so, what if any changes are needed. 3. Policy for price controls for registry services 3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. (note examples of price controls include price caps, and the same pricing for all registrars) 3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price increase when a price cap exists. 4. ICANN fees 4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the negotiation of ICANN fees. 5. Uses of registry data 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. 5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. 5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to third parties. 6. Investments in development and infrastructure 6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. ======= Selection criteria Business constituency: - sound business plan o to minimise risk failure and impact on registrants - sound technical plan o meet standards interoperability o to minimise risk failure and impact on registrants - sound operational plan o to minimise impact on registrants - will comply with ICANN policies - eligibility criteria for the registrant is limited to a defined category o to preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. Registry: Criteria for the selection criteria: - consistent with ICANN's limited technical coordination mission - provide objectivity that will encourage members of the private sector to participate in a new selection round o to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the registration of domain names o that are capable of enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. - allow market forces to work freely in contrast to pre-determine Internet user demands o to promote and sustain a competitive environment. - should encourage TLD operators/sponsors to differentiate TLD from other TLDs by offering users differentiated options beyond the obvious choice of TLD e.g customer service levels, registry policies etc. o to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the registration of domain names o Respecting the creativity, innovation - should allow for policy decisions to made in the best interests and with participation of relevant user communities in contrast to centrally pre-determining all applicable policies for all TLDs o by limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination. o So that To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties - ensure the technical security and stability of the Internet - TLD application criteria should require compliance with ICANN guidelines for IDNs o To ensure global interoperability of the Internet. - applicants that seek to launch a TLD with a primary purpose being to serve needs within a defined geographic territory (or territories) should be asked to identify the specific market of users applicable TLD - and where the territory is a developing country - describe measures that will encourage use of the Internet within that country - no applicant should be allowed to propose a TLD that is either a transliteration of an existing TLD or a lexical or semantic equivalent of an existing TLD. Registrars: - applicants must meet minimum technical requirements - registry operators accredited: o minimum technical requirements o minimum operational requirements o minimum financial requirements - cash on hand o must have insurance - maintain the requirement that registries use ICANN accredited registrars o to promote security and stability o to promoting competition in the registration of domain names Non-commercial: - criteria for the selection criteria o neutral, objective and predictable selection process § to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the registration of domain names § Respecting the creativity, innovation § Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness. - minimal technical and operational criteria o to promote interoperability ISPs: - a representative from a well defined Community must be an applicant for a new TLD, and registrants are limited to members of that Community o to preserve security and stability - The applicant must show that the new TLD has support in the Community o As there is a concern that the TLD will fail and this may impact the existing registrants of that TLD - this in turn relates to the core value of stability and reliability. - TLD application criteria should require compliance with ICANN guidelines for IDNs, - The applicant must use technology and have operations that can implement IDNs at the second level o To ensure global interoperability of the Internet. - The string chosen by the applicant must be differentiated from other TLD strings o To avoid strings that look the same and may cause a security issue - The string chosen must not infringe the intellectual property rights of others - No applicant should be allowed to propose a TLD that is either a transliteration of an existing TLD or a lexical or semantic equivalent of an existing TLD. Intellectual Property: - criteria for the selection criteria o predictable, straight forward transparent and objective procedures § Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness. § Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. § Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest. - State in what way the new TLD maximizes benefits for the public interest o Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest. - the applicant must show added value, which will bring user demand, which in turn will enhance competition o minimize risk of failure with respect to stability, reliability o maximize competition - must be a clearly differentiated space and satisfy needs that cannot reasonably be met by existing TLDs o minimize risk of failure with respect to stability, reliability - registrants are limited to members of a well-defined Community o to preserve security and stability - The applicant must show that the new TLD has support in the Community o As there is a concern that the TLD will fail and this may impact the existing registrants of that TLD - this in turn relates to the core value of stability and reliability. - The applicant must have mechanisms to ensure compliance with the charter of the TLD, and addressing violations - Accurate verification of registrant eligibility - Technical, financial, business, compliance policies - Maintenance of UDRP and robust database publicly accessible in real-time and without cost to those query it (compliance ICANN policy)