[council] Any (other) AoB issues for Melbourne???

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>]

Morning all,

A w/end is a "month" in internet time ;-) ..... In checking my email before
departing for Singapore I see two/three very important substantive issues before
us that should be addressed at the Melbourne, in addition to the Business
Plan....
i) The bigger picture of the  NSI/Verisign agreement modification (.ORG is just
one elment)
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm see "D" -
a significant change in direction IMHO
ii) http://www.icann.org/melbourne/new-tld-agreements-topic.htm - New registry
contracts....
[and possibly - I have five emails on this topic this morning but am unable to
judge the level of support
iii) http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42146,00.html - I hear there is
support from ISPs for this proposal ... do we need to try and encourage ISPs to
support the ICANN process, if so how??]

If there are any other AoB items emmerging can we indicate them now on the list
so Philip may consider the time management aspects and help avoid "surprises".

See you soon

</Paul>
out of email contact until Thursday.

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> to all:
>
> this issue is now VERY public. to insure a smooth and publically effective
> (read that media acceptance), I suggest that the NC and DNSO give some
> attention to it.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Erica Roberts
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 11:00 PM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Fw: [council] Facts about the status of ORG
>
> I note that this matter  (the proposed Verising contract and its
> implications) has been referred to the NC by Louis but is not included in
> our agenda for Melbourne.  Since this matter has been the subject of
> significant discussion on the GA list, I think we could be in some
> difficulty if we simply ignore the issue.  I suggest we consider what, if
> any, response we need to make - should we be facilitating the development of
> a consensus view - or other advice to ICANN?  Should we be content to leave
> the matter to be dealt with by the Board or should we be seeking to
> establish a timeframe for consultation/consensus building? etc.
> I'd be interested to hear comments from other NC members.
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Cc: "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [council] Facts about the status of ORG
>
> > Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >
> > > Louis:
> >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > > I have another important question for you. I am rather
> > > puzzled by your participation in this debate in a way
> > > that reveals a strong commitment to the policy that ORG
> > > should be run in a certain way. I am new to the Names Council,
> > > so forgive me if this is an uninformed question, but I was
> > > under the impression that domain name policies are supposed
> > > to be made by Board members, constituency members and their
> > > elected representatives. My understanding is that you are
> > > hired by ICANN as a staff lawyer to carry out the corporation's
> > > policies, not to make them. I certainly value and welcome your
> > > legal advice, but I don't think it is appropriate for you to
> > > be actively promoting a specific policy approach. Am I incorrect?
> > >
> >
> > Milton,
> >
> > I've looked over the note to which you are responding above (I've copied
> > it below for reference, omitting the quotations from earlier materials
> > to avoid any confusion about what I said), and I don't understand what
> > you are characterizing as my "participation in this debate in a way that
> > reveals a strong commitment to the policy that ORG should be run in a
> > certain way."  I have a variety or responsibilities at ICANN and my note
> > was intended to fulfill several of them:
> >
> >    1.  Correcting, as a factual matter, some assertions about historical
> > matters pertaining to RFC 1591 and operation of the domain name system,
> > which was and is coordinated by the IANA, the operations of which I am
> > responsible for overseeing.
> >
> >    2.  Confirming that the .org restrictions have not been actively
> > enforced since 1996 of the .org limitations and providing the council
> > with a copy of the Gomes memo as background.  As a member of ICANN
> > staff, I am responsible (as is Andrew) to provide information to the
> > Names Council in support of the DNSO's policy-development activities.
> >
> >    3.  Reminding the Names Council of my legal advice that the DNSO has
> > a role with regard to policy development concerning .org restrictions,
> > in the event that the VeriSign proposal is accepted.  As you know, I am
> > General Counsel and as such am responsible for advising the various
> > parts of ICANN on compliance with the bylaws and other legal issues.
> >
> >    4.  Noting that the Names Council should consider a "variety of
> > views" on the issue, in view of the DNSO's design to develop policy
> > recommendations through a consensus-based process and the presence of
> > many different views in the community.  This is, again, bylaw advice.
> >
> > I did give a less official piece of advice in the last sentence:  that a
> > change back to enforced restrictions should be done in a manner that
> > provides a reasonable transition to registrants.  This advice is based
> > on my personal experience from the IANA's administration of 100+
> > protocol spaces in which similar issues arise.
> >
> > Milton, I'm not personally committed to any particular approach to
> > restrictions in .org, but I do view it as entirely appropriate to do
> > what I can to promote an open discussion on the matter that considers
> > the views of all the affected participants and that is informed by
> > accurate factual underpinnings.
> >
> > Louis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] Facts about the status of ORG
> > Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:26:49 -0800
> > From: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>
> > To: council@dnso.org
> > CC: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> > References: <saa26017.015@gwia201.syr.edu>
> >
> > [omitting material copied from Milton's earlier posting]
> >
> > Milton,
> >
> > What you say is "indisputable" as a matter of history is directly
> > contrary to the authoritative RFC (1591) on the question, which you cite
> > only a few lines above your claim of indisputability.
> >
> > RFC 1591 says that .org "is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
> > organizations that didn't fit anywhere else."  Note the word
> > "organizations"--that's a lot different than all "registrants".  Note
> > also that it is intended only for those organizations that don't fit in
> > the other TLDs.  That includes .com, which RFC 1591 says "is intended
> > for commercial entities, that is companies."  In other words, the class
> > of registrants for which .org was intended, according to RFC 1591, is no
> > broader than non-commercial organizations (they weren't supposed to be
> > edu-qualified or net-qualified, either).  In my mind, that is quite
> > close to non-profit organizations (though admittedly there are a lot of
> > "non-profit" commercial organizations these days :]], so maybe the term
> > "non-profit organization" should be replaced with the narrower term
> > "non-commercial organization").
> >
> > [another omission of material copied from Milton's earlier posting]
> >
> > You are correct that the .org restrictions have not been enforced since
> > 1996.  For some background on why enforcement was stopped, see Chuck
> > Gomes' note from March 2000, copied at the bottom of this message.  In
> > the light of the lack of resources to enforce, it is gratifying that
> > many people in the Internet community have acted with restraint in
> > continuing to observe the stated restrictions on a voluntary basis.
> >
> > I have previously advised (see
> > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00899.html>) the Names
> > Council of my opinion, as ICANN General Counsel, that the future
> > restrictions (if any) on .org appear to involve a significant change in
> > substantive policy that should, under Article VI, Section 2(c) of the
> > ICANN bylaws, be referred to the DNSO in the event that the VeriSign
> > proposal is accepted.  If the matter is referred, the DNSO will likely
> > want to consider a variety of views, including those of many in the
> > non-commercial community who whould like to see .org decommercialized.
> > But (speaking personally here) I would hope that any move to once again
> > begin enforcing the .org restrictions is done in a manner that
> > reasonably protects the legitimate expectations of the existing
> > registrants.
> >
> > Louis