Peter de Blanc has passed away.

Elisabeth Porteneuve broke the sad news on the Names Council list: It is with great sorrow that I write to inform you that our colleague and friend of several years, Peter de Blanc, .VI (US Virgin Islands Registry), passed away yesterday morning, …

Elisabeth Porteneuve broke the sad news on the Names Council list: It is with great sorrow that I write to inform you that our colleague and friend of several years, Peter de Blanc, .VI (US Virgin Islands Registry), passed away yesterday morning, 26 June 2002, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Peter brought his resources and energy, smile and wisedom, to the ccTLD Constituency, Names Council and ICANN. Our condoleances go out to his family and close friends.

GAC discussion.

Some of the GAC discussion following the reading of the communiqu?? was actually quite interesting. You could, for instance, watch a contribution from James Love (including shouting at Vint and Alejandro [or was it Amadeu?]), and Esther Dyson “disa…

Some of the GAC discussion following the reading of the communiqué was actually quite interesting. You could, for instance, watch a contribution from James Love (including shouting at Vint and Alejandro [or was it Amadeu?]), and Esther Dyson “disassociating” herself from this kind of behaviour. James tried to ask for a public input channel into the GAC’s discussions (Twomey seemed to refer him to individual governments’ outreach processes, if I understood him correctly). Esther asked about whether an at-large approach had been considered by the GAC. I didn’t understand all of the answer, and from Esther’s follow-up question, it wasn’t too clear to those in the room, it seems. Marilyn Cade then tried several times to get a clear statement on “private sector leadership” out of Twomey, who wasn’t overly clear once again.

GAC report and communiqu??.

Note: Alexander has also scribed the communiqu?? part of the session; his notes are available here. Paul Twomey begins with communiqu??. Extensive dialogue of GAC. Dedicated much time to developing a statement on ICANN reform. Attached in appendix t…

Note: Alexander has also scribed the communiqué part of the session; his notes are available here.

Paul Twomey begins with communiqué. Extensive dialogue of GAC. Dedicated much time to developing a statement on ICANN reform. Attached in appendix to Communique. Dialogue with ccTLD community and ICANN. Joint working groups with ccTLD. Improve interaction between ICANN, local government, ccTLDs. Dot-info country names: Discussed implementation aspects. IPv6: GAC wants ICANN session on this. Consultation process: GAC needs to receive important documents in a timely fashion. Precise language in documents: Internet terms may not be understandable and subject to interpretation.

Statement on ICANN evolution and reform. GAC endorses principles behind ICANN’s foundation. Observations on blueprint and previous document. Note: Some members of GAC don’t support this; annexes to written statement. GAC satisfied with mission statement and core values. (Twomey then reads the mission and core value bullet points from the blueprint in full length.) Suggest revised core value 11; US govt disagrees with change suggestion. (…) Proposal for private-public partnership: Essential to ICANN’s future success. ccTLD principles. Majority of GAC members (except Germany, France) agrees that GAC is principal public policy body for discussion of ICANN. Relation to govts, public authorities crucial for ICANN’s success. Don’t want to fund ICANN, with exception of GAC secretariat. Beneficaries should pay. Funding crucial. Sufficient staffing important for policy-making and technical functions. (…) Board composition: Majority of GAC members supports non-voting liaison function for GAC chair. DE, FR, ES, CH don’t support participation of GAC liaison on board. DE: Smaller board. GAC encourages board to discuss better multi-way communication channels. No strong opinion on nominating committee. Internal corporate governance. FR, DE: Discomfort with nominating committee. DE: Evaluating individuals by blueprint criteria subjective. (…) Structure of nominating committee would mean to replace bottom-up by top-down. ES: Discomfort at having GAC delegate on nominating committee. (…) No view by intl. treaty organizations. GAC does not support public authority employees on board. Transparency, fairness, diversity, representation. Number of regions should be reexamined. Liaison to SOs and adv. committees. Most support voting (?) ex-officio liaison position of organisations on board. (…) Liaison with IANA. Majority support establishment of contact point. Policy-development and process: GAC expects that all proposals are circulated to constituencies, including GAC. Timely notice!! DE, ES: Disassociate from wording. Alternative language in annex. Mechanism for GAC to put issues to board directly. Consultation process should ensure that advice of GAC on public policy is taken into account in the policy-making. Inform GAC on how advice has been taken into account. In case of conflicting views between GAC and board, try to find consensus. Best judgement of board in case of no consensus. DE: Alternative language. GAC supports external advice, in particular: Public policy. Competition, consumer protection, IP protection. Constructive participation by intl. treaty organizations. WIPO’s beneficial contribution to UDRP. Institutionalize ability of board to reach external expertise. Relevant inter-governmental organizations have significant contribution to make. Accountability. Transition: GAC expects close involvement. Contiune to operate registry and root server? Progress on ccTLD delegations needs continued action.

Annexes. Alternative wording suggested by some delegations, in particular DE, ES, FR.

Bucharest: The agenda has changed, it seems.

The agenda has slightly changed, it seems: Right now, the IDN committee’s report (originally schedule for 11:20 Bucharest time) is only beginning now. The GAC report is supposed to be the next item on the agenda, followed by the evolution and refo…

The agenda has slightly changed, it seems: Right now, the IDN committee’s report (originally schedule for 11:20 Bucharest time) is only beginning now. The GAC report is supposed to be the next item on the agenda, followed by the evolution and reform discussion, and the WLS proposal.

Public Forum: ccTLDs on evolution and reform.

E&R committee has taken some things into account, other things to be desired. Discussion in the afternoon. Will publish response to blueprint. Considered functions and service level required from IANA. Establish differentiated processes for differ…

E&R committee has taken some things into account, other things to be desired. Discussion in the afternoon. Will publish response to blueprint. Considered functions and service level required from IANA. Establish differentiated processes for different types of database update requests which can be made by ccTLD managers. Expedite routine requests. Automatically process all requests from ccTLD manager which don’t relate to change of manager. Devise authentication mechanism. Formal change control system, so changes to database can be tracked. Maintain audit trail available to ccTLD managers. Procedure for emergency or urgent technical changes. Time zone differences! KPNQwest failure has underlined need, highlights stability risks in absence of procedure. Reports that ICANN has refused or delayed urgent technical changes for procedural reasons; requested zone transfer. Regret that Internet stability was impacted as a result. RFC 1591 sole guidance. ccTLD managers committed to funding of necessary IANA services. Contribution to more general community services, like coming to ICANN meetings. Joint WGs with GAC on certain topics. Useful and constructive discussions.

Cerf, Andy MM: Issue to be addressed, problem to be solved. Amadeu: Technical changes most frequently mentioned problem. Wants table of different situations which can arise around change requests.

For more on the problems related to the KPNQest failure, you may also wish to look at this draft, which was linked earlier from ICANNwatch. The ccTLD managers’ communiqué (which is essentially what was read in the public forum, see above) is also available online.

ICANN and its Contracted Parties

Elliot Noss, Tim Denton, and Ross Rader from Tucows have published a public discussion draft concerning “ICANN’s role in relation to contracted parties.” In that document, they call for the establishment of a process by which registrars and regist…

Elliot Noss, Tim Denton, and Ross Rader from Tucows have published a public discussion draft concerning “ICANN’s role in relation to contracted parties.” In that document, they call for the establishment of a process by which registrars and registries could resolve commercial disputes arising out of the respective ICANN agreement: We are talking about creating an adjudication process for commercial disputes, and a process of confirmation, referral, amendment, or denial of these adjudications by the Board of ICANN. The document does not push for a “contracted parties SO” separate from the DNSO.