[gnso-rn-wg] Resolution passed at the GNSO Council meeting 18 January 2007

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

[To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]

Dear RN Working Group Members,

Please find an extract from the draft minutes of the GNSO Council 
meeting held on 18 January 2007.
Resolution passed at the GNSO Council meeting held on 18 January 2007.

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.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org