[alac] [fwd] [council] Request for GNSO to consider processes for introducing new registry services (from: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au)
- To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [alac] [fwd] [council] Request for GNSO to consider processes for introducing new registry services (from: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au)
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:51:33 +0200
FYI. We should probably start thinking about this question early.
Maybe it's a topic to take up in Carthage?
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
----- Forwarded message from Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:55:37 +1000
Subject: [council] Request for GNSO to consider processes for introducing new
There are a couple of paragraphs in recent announcements from ICANN that
relate to the GNSO.
Advisory Concerning Demand to Remove VeriSign's Wildcard
"ICANN is sympathetic to concerns that have been expressed by VeriSign
and others about the process by which proposed changes in the operation
of a top-level domain registry are evaluated and approved by ICANN. To
deal with these concerns, ICANN's President and CEO Paul Twomey is
asking the Generic Names Supporting Organization to formulate a proposal
for a timely, transparent and predictable procedure for the introduction
of new registry services, including as to how a reasonable determination
of the likelihood that a proposed change will have adverse effects. This
process, to be conducted under the GNSO's new streamlined policy
development process, should be completed by 15 January 2004."
Letter From Paul Twomey to Russell Lewis
"Various press reports have quoted VeriSign representatives as being
concerned about the processes by which changes in the operation of
top-level domains are evaluated and approved by ICANN. I share those
concerns. The introduction by registry operators of new products or
services that do not threaten adverse effects to the Internet, the DNS
or the top-level domains which they operate should not be impeded by
unnecessary or prolonged processes. On the other hand, VeriSign, like
other operators of top level domains, occupies a critical position of
public trust, made even more important given the fact that it is the
steward for the two largest generic top level domains. This means that
VeriSign has both a legal and a practical obligation to be responsible
in its actions in operating those top level domains.
To ensure that this obligation is carried out, there must be a timely,
transparent and predictable process for the determination of the
likelihood that a proposed change in the operation of a generic
top-level domain under contract with ICANN will have significant adverse
effects. To this end, I will be asking the GNSO to begin to create such
a procedure, taking into particular account any comments submitted by
other ICANN advisory bodies, liaisons, and constituencies. I will
request the GNSO to make its recommendations no later than 15 January
I assume we will be hearing more from the ICANN President on the request
to the GNSO, but we should start considering how to manage this request.
Note especially the deadline of 15 Jan 2003.
I will place the issue on the agenda for the meeting in Carthage, but it
may be worthwhile having a short 1 hour teleconference in the next 14
days to discuss the agenda for Carthage in more detail and possibly
schedule some targeted meetings in advance to deal with specific items
of the GNSO agenda prior to the formal meeting (which will be the last
meeting of the Counsel with its present membership).
----- End forwarded message -----