[council]

[Ross Rader]

I didn't want to drag down the call making a statement regarding my vote 
on this item, but I do think its important to have a note of explanation 
on the 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.

Thanks all,

-ross

Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Dear colleagues
> 
> With apologies for the 'just in time substitution' for tomorrow's Council
> call agenda item on the Statement of Work for Reserved Names,  Chuck Gomes
> and Marilyn Cade ask that you accept this document as a replacement to the
> earlier draft which we posted now about 7 days ago. 
> 
>  
> 
> We have received some comments and tried to address them. In addition, we
> have improved the document and reorganized and streamlined some sections. We
> make a special effort to note that we believe that the work initiatives can
> be broken into sub-elements and addressed in even sequential tracks, so that
> not all work has to be done at the same time. We have discussed in the
> preparation of this version that we believe that some work will have a
> higher priority than other. 
> 
>  
> 
> We will work from the document attached above in the discussion on the
> Statement of Work.  In the event that you have trouble with opening
> documents for any reason, it is pasted below, as well. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks to Liz Williams for her assistance. 
> 
>  
> 
> Submitted by Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes 
> 
> Draft Statement of Work - Version 2
> 
> for
> 
> Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN)
> 
>  
> 
> 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.              Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to
> the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN
> meetings
> 3.              Provide 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 [need link]
>  
> (3) IDN Working Group 
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm
>  
>  
>  
> 
> Submitted by:           Marilyn Cade and Chuck Gomes
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
>  
>