www.itu.int/wsis
Document WSIS-II/PC-3/CONTR/92-E 21 September 2005
Original: English
Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN (GAC-ICANN)
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
Governmental Advisory Committee Chairman
THE ICANN GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1999 – 2004
GAC CHAIRMAN’S REPORT FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS’
WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE (WGIG)
GENEVA, FEBRUARY 2005
Kuala Lumpur, February 2005
ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)GAC Secretariat, 41 avenue de Tervuren, (CSM2, 09/30) 1049 Brussels
Web : http://www.gac.icann.org Email : [email protected]
February 2005 1
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
THE ICANN GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 1999 – 2004
I. PREAMBLE
The GAC Chair is privileged and pleased to submit the present report to the Members of theUnited Nations’ Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and to the internationalcommunity as a whole.
The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN comprises more than 100 nationalgovernments and international entities. It represents the platform by which governmentsprovide advice and guidance to ICANN regarding the public policy issues associated with theInternet naming and addressing system. This report describes the origins, mandate,membership and working methods of the GAC, the schedule of meetings undertaken and therelated documentation generated during the past six years.
The GAC has grown and evolved considerably since its inception in 1999. Its membershiphas increased from 23 in 1999 to over 100 in 2005, is drawn from all regions of the world, andrepresents a variety of government entities in national administrations, as well as severalintergovernmental organizations. The Governmental Advisory Committee interacts withdifferent elements within the ICANN community primarily during ICANN meetings, as wellas through its working group liaisons with the respective ICANN supporting organizations.The principal liaison is performed by the GAC Chair’s participation on the ICANN Board as anonvoting member.
The GAC’s working methods are governed by its members’ mutual interest to ensuring thatthe management of the domain name system is effective and takes into consideration nationaland, as appropriate, intergovernmental, policy objectives that have a bearing on ICANN’sactivities. The relationships between ICANN and GAC and their respective constituenciesand memberships the Internet community on the one hand and the governments and otherpublic authorities on the other hand – reflects an international multistakeholder collaborationin the management of the Internet domain name system.
* * * *
February 2005 2
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
II. SCOPE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE GAC
2.1 Origins and mandate
The question of public policy input to Internet management is not new. Although the Internethad evolved during the 1980’s almost entirely in a research and defencebased environment,essentially among private parties, by the mid1990’s international organisations wereparticipating, with the Internet Society, in the International AdHoc Committee (IAHC) thatwas the first instance to address thoroughly the issues arising from the creation of new genericTop Level Domains (gTLDs).
The US government then initiated a public consultation in 1997 that resulted in the USDepartment of Commerce’s Green Paper. By 199798 a number of governments were activelynegotiating with the United States about the outcome of the consultation process based on theUS Department of Commerce’s Green Paper and White Paper1.
These early inputs to the process of internationalisation are reflected in several texts from thatperiod, qualifying in several respects the leading role of the private sector in Internetmanagement. Thus in the conclusions to the 1998 US DOC White Paper we find:
“The U.S. Government believes that the Internet is a global medium and that its technicalmanagement should fully reflect the global diversity of Internet users. We recognize the need for andfully support mechanisms that would ensure international input into the management of the domainname system. In withdrawing the U.S. Government from DNS management and promoting theestablishment of a new, nongovernmental entity to manage Internet names and addresses, a key U.S.Government objective has been to ensure that the increasingly global Internet user community has avoice in decisions affecting the Internet's technical management.”
Consequently, the initial ICANN Bylaws (1998) provided for the Governmental AdvisoryCommittee, stating that “The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provideadvice on the activities of the Corporation as they relate to concerns of governments,particularly matters where there may be an interaction between the Corporation’s policiesand various laws, and international agreements. The Board will notify the chairman of theGovernmental Advisory Committee of any proposal for which it seeks comments UnderArticle II, Section 3(b) and will consider any response to that notification prior to takingaction.”
This provision was amended in 2002 following the ICANN reform process, and explicitlyincludes a reference to “public policy” issues. The amended bylaws, among other things, alsorecognize the unique nature of the relationship between the GAC and ICANN, in noting that“the Governmental Advisory Committee may put issues to the Board directly, either by way ofcomment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policydevelopment or revision to existing policies.”
1 . Statement of Policy on "Management of Internet Names and Addresses" (Docket Number 980212036814602), U. S. Department of Commerce, June 5, 1998.
February 2005 3
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
In 1999, the GAC adopted its own Operating Principles, which state that:
“The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on theactivities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments and where they mayaffect public policy issues.
The Advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shallbe duly taken into account by ICANN, both in the formulation and adoption ofpolicies.”
The GAC Operating Principles also identify the range of public policy objectives thatshould be taken into account in ICANN’s decision making, including:
• secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, including uninterruptedservice and universal connectivity;
• the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the public good, forgovernment, private, educational, and commercial purposes, world wide;
• transparency and nondiscriminatory practices in ICANN’s role in the allocation ofInternet names and address;
• effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and conditions for faircompetition, which will bring benefits to all categories of users including, greaterchoice, lower prices, and better services;
• fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy and issues ofconsumer concern; and
• freedom of expression.
2.2 GAC Membership
Members’ representation in the GAC is determined by the respective participatinggovernments themselves and due to the unique nature of the Internet is drawn from severalbranches of their governments. This results in a very rich and diverse membershiprepresentation in the GAC unlike any other intergovernmental forum to date. GAC memberscome from the Offices of the President or Prime Minister, Foreign Ministries, Ministries orDepartments for Science and Technology, Research, Economic Affairs, Industry/Commerce,Telecommunications, Communications Regulatory agencies and/or specially created nationalentities dedicated to the promotion of the Information Society or Information economy.
Each GAC member designates an Accredited Representative, an Alternate Representative andone or more Advisers. The list of Members’ representatives is published on the GAC web site.The diversity in national representation ensures that different points of view are brought to
February 2005 4
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
Each new member submits a formal request for membership which is processed by the GACSecretariat and the designation of official representatives is acknowledged formally by theChairman of GAC.
The charts below reflect the steady increase of members since the GAC’s inception. The firstmeeting in Singapore was attended by 23 delegations. By 2002, membership had increased toabout 60 and, as of early 2005, GAC membership comprises 100 Members and 9 internationalorganisations as Observers. During 20032004, 29 new governments or internationalobservers joined the GAC and 29 other members changed their representative. Currently,several governments are considering GAC membership.
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Africa 2 3 3 7 13 17
Middle East & North Africa 3 4 4 5 6 8Asia/Pacific 14 18 19 19 21 24
Europe 23 26 30 30 31 37Latin America & the Caribbean 5 7 9 10 11 11
North America 2 2 2 2 2 2Members 49 60 67 73 84 99
Observers5 5 5 6 6 9
Total 54 65 72 79 90 108
∗
GAC Distribution of Members, 2004
Europe; 37; 35%
Africa; 17; 16%
Latin America & the Carribean;
11; 10%
North America; 2; 2%
Middle East & North Africa; 8;
7%
Observers; 9; 8%
Asia/Pacif ic; 24; 22%
5
50
5
61
5
67
6
73
6
84
9
99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
GAC Members & Observers
Members
Observers
∗ Intergovernmental organisations and other regional entities acquired Observer status in 2004. Previously they were classified as Members.
February 2005 6
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
2.3 GAC Meetings
The GAC usually meets just before and in parallel with ICANN meetings, which are held indifferent geographical regions of the world, and has done so twenty times since 1999. TheGAC has also met separately on three occasions, once in 2000 to initiate what became theWIPO II process and twice in 2002, in the context of the ICANN Reform process. Theagendas for GAC meetings are jointly organised by the Secretariat, the Chair, Vice Chairs andmembership.
During 19992002, the 14 GAC meetings were organised by the initial Secretariat based in theAustralian National Office for Information Economy (NOIE). The meetings during 20032004(6 meetings) have been organised by the successor GAC Secretariat currently based in theEuropean Commission’s Directorate General for Information Society and the Media, (DGINFSO). The Agenda, Executive Minutes and meeting Communiqués are published on theGAC Website.2
Since Carthage, October 2003, GAC meetings have included a Regional Forum, a onedayevent in open session with other members of the ICANN community, including Boardmembers and staff from ICANN, ICANN supporting organizations, and civil society. TheRegional Forums are intended to addresses Internet issues of particular relevance toparticipants from the local region and have become a useful means of introducing new GACmembers to the ICANN community. Preparations are underway for Regional Forums in Mardel Plata, Argentina and Luxembourg in 2005.
2.4 Structure and working methods
The GAC bylaws contain provisions for elections of a Chair and Vice Chairs, which jointlyassist in the planning and preparation for GAC meetings and, more generally, themanagement of the GAC work program in consultation with the convenors of GAC WorkingGroups and the GAC liaisons to different ICANN Supporting Organizations. The GAC Chairand Vice Chairs typically represent different regions of the world. While consensusdeliberations and Communiqués are developed in plenary session, the GAC conducts detailedanalyses and discussions on specific issues through its Working Groups. There are currentlysix Working Groups, covering the following issues:
• Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)
• Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs)
• Country Code Registries (ccTLDs)
• Domain Name System Security and Root Server operation
• Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
2 . http://www.gac.icann.org
February 2005 7
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
• The future structure and organization of GAC and its Secretariat.
Individual GAC members also serve as Liaisons with ICANN and its SupportingOrganisations and other Committees, as provided for by the ICANN Bylaws. The principalliaison function is carried out by the GAC Chair, who sits on the ICANN Board as a nonvoting member. Other GAC representatives serve as Liaisons to the Security and StabilityCommittee, the Root Server Operator Community, the Generic Names SupportingOrganisation (GNSO), and the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). The GAC has alsocreated regional Liaison groups with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization(ccNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). The GAC Liaisons engage inroutine outreach and dialogue with their respective ICANN counterparts and provide the GACmembership with information and status reports on pending ICANN developments that havepublic policy implications for consideration and potential action by the GAC as a whole.
Apart from meeting physically in plenary and working group sessions, much of the work ofthe GAC takes place throughout the year online. The on line work in GAC is supported by theMembers’ Area of the Website, email lists, discussion fora and monthly conference calls.The archive of all previous GAC meetings, the Communiqués that constitute the conclusionsand the advice to ICANN, the minutes of proceedings and the lists of participants are readilyavailable, in the public domain, from the GAC Website.
2.5 GAC Advice to ICANN
2.5.1 GAC contribution to ICANN Reform 20022003
In late 2001, ICANN determined that a substantial reform of its organisation and procedureswas necessary. The GAC focused on providing government input to the ICANN reformprocess during its meeting in Accra in March, 2002, followed by two adhoc meetings inBrussels and Canberra in April and May, 2002. The GAC meeting in Bucharest in June 2002resulted in agreement on a substantive opinion emphasizing the responsibility of governmentsfor public policy issues related to ICANN’s management of the domain name system. TheBucharest Communiqué was followed up in Shanghai (October 2002) with more specificadvice to ICANN regarding the drafting of revised Bylaws pertaining to the GAC andrecourse to External Advice, notably from InterGovernmental Organisations. Many of thechanges in GAC’s working methods during the past two years can be attributed to theadditional responsibilities and powers assumed by the GAC during the ICANN reformprocess.
2.5.2 Public Policy Issues
The GAC endeavours to provide advice to ICANN on discrete issues with public policyimplications that reflect a consensus among its members, while recognizing that national lawsand policies may not be entirely comparable.
Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs):
February 2005 8
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
The GAC developed guidelines to apply to the relationship between the Government, countrycode Registries and ICANN in 2000, with the GAC Principles for Delegation andAdministration of ccTLD Registries. A substantive statement, the document is based on atriangular relationship of formal communications between the three parties. Although inprinciple voluntary, the GAC ccTLD Principles have been used by some governments as aguideline for national legislation and also have been applied in a number of instances of redelegation of ccTLD Registries by ICANN. More recently, the GAC undertook a revision ofthe original ccTLD Principles and the new text retains the voluntary character of theprinciples, maintains the importance of local decision making and provides a framework foraddressing cases of disputed redelegation.
In addition, the GAC has promoted an exchange of information among members about theoperation of their ccTLD Registries both by publishing casestudies on the Website and bydiscussing ccTLD issues in the Regional Fora. The GAC has also supported the constitutionof the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), by participating in thepreparatory steering committee, issuing detailed advice and subsequently, by holdingmeetings with the ccNSO and establishing a Liaison group of GAC members from eachregion.
The updated GAC Principles also encourage the continued growth in membership of theccNSO as the ICANN forum for participation by countrycode registry managers. The GAChas also participated in two joint ICANNITU open meetings on ccTLD policies, held inGeneva, March 2003 and Kuala Lumpur, in July 2004.
Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs):
The initial concerns of GAC members in the 19992001 time period regarding gTLDsrevolved around ensuring increased competition and consumer choice. In addition to issuinga commentary on the process of introducing new generic and sponsored TLDs in November,2000, the GAC provided advice that the use of country names as second level domains in newTLDs3 should be avoided, and proposed the reservation of country names in the .infoRegistry. This was done by reserving the names falling into the ISO 3166/1 list in Englishand in the official languages of the countries concerned, in Latin script. A number of thesenames have meanwhile been registered by the governments concerned for their use and nearlyall the others remain protected through the ICANN reservation.
More recently, the GAC has identified the WHOIS policy development process, undertakenby the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) at the request of the Board, as anactivity involving important public policy considerations (e.g. access to WHOIS data by lawenforcement, protection of personal privacy, consumer protection, etc.). Equally important isICANN’s proposed strategy for the introduction of new gTLDs, which raises competition,consumer choice, network stability and security, and internationalization issues. With regard3 . An exception was made for the codes for airports and airlines in .aero, as these overlap with
country codes to a certain extent. It was considered that the risks of confusion were minimal in thiscase.
February 2005 9
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
to the latter, the GAC has consistently urged ICANN to both support and further advance therealization of internationalized domain names.
February 2005 10
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
Intellectual Property: Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP)
After the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) developed the UDRP, it wasadopted by ICANN in 1999 as the basis for future trademark protection in the generic TopLevel Domains, and endorsed by the GAC in several meetings and Communiqués.
Following the informal Sydney meeting, February 2000, a number of GAC members invitedWIPO to extend the UDRP to ccTLD registries, and to extend protection to other categories ofdomain names. WIPO has made recommendations for UDRP for ccTLD Registries and,through the WIPO II process, has also recommended that a UDRP should apply to the namesof countries and the names and acronyms of the InterGovernmental Organisations (IGOs).The GAC has participated in a group composed of a variety of ICANN stakeholders to assesshow the WIPO II recommendations can be implemented, and has consistently supported theprotection of trademark rights in several Communiqués.
Access to, and use of, Whois data
The Domain Name System (DNS) generates and uses databases derived primarily from theoriginal registration of domain names. The primary set of data is that registered with theRegistrars and the TLD Registry concerned. A limited subset of such registration data isnormally made available as a publicly accessible database by using the Whois protocol. Thus‘Whois’ provides a publicly available tool to inspect various pieces of information aboutDomain Names and their Registrants. It can also provide information on a given InternetProtocol (IP) address.
Publicly available Whois data includes information, such as the identity and coordinates ofthe Administrative and Technical contacts for each domain name on the Internet. However,legal availability of such data may vary among different jurisdictions.
In this context, ICANN’s constituent groups including the GAC are addressing the question asto which categories of registration data should be publicly available through Whois, and forwhat purposes.
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Introducing IPv6 in parallel with continued widespread use of IPv4 requires significantplanning, organisation and investment to maintain interoperability throughout the process,The fact that IPv6 will permit a vastly greater number of endpoints on the Internet in thefuture has generated considerable interest among GAC members, and has been discussedduring the Regional Forums in Kuala Lumpur and Cape Town in 2004.
GAC has encouraged the deployment of IPv6 on several occasions and ICANN and theoperators have responded, notably by facilitating IPv6 deployment in the Root Server systemand in DNS nameservers since the Kuala Lumpur meeting in July 2004. In most otherrespects the implementation of IPv6 falls outside the scope of ICANN’s directresponsibilities. Consequently, since ICANN has already introduced IPv6 into the Root ServerSystem, most other aspects of the implementation of IPv6 will fall to other operators and
February 2005 11
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
stakeholders.
Internationalised Domain Names (IDN)
Due to the rapid growth of the Internet globally, there has been much increased attention inrecent times to IDN i.e. the possibility of using the scripts of written languages in the domainname system other than the more familiar ASCII characters. Much of the challenge inintroducing IDN is the extension to the use of other nonASCII scripts such as Arabic script,Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Cyrillic and the various scripts of the Indian subContinent. Someof these scripts are used in some of the major world languages such as the Arabic script forthe Arabic language, and in other cases the same Arabic script is used in a completelydifferent language such as Malay. The written form of the Malay language utilising the Arabicscript is called Jawi.
Working in a multistakeholder environment, ICANN has taken steps to increase the profile ofIDN within the DNS and worked towards implementing IDN within the current Internetinfrastructure. However, implementing IDN cannot be achieved through ICANN and GACalone. For each script group, there is a significant ‘local’ effort required to develop andidentify the necessary technical code points for a given script and to ensure that there are noconflicts within a given script that may be in use in different parts of the world.
DNS Security and the Root Server System
Both ICANN and the GAC focused on the security aspects of the domain name system afterthe 9/11 events. Shortly thereafter, ICANN constituted the Stability and Security AdvisoryCommittee (SSAC). GAC created a specific working group for security aspects in 2003 andsince then has maintained a close liaison with the SSAC. At the GAC’s request, the Chair ofthe SSAC has provided periodic reports on the work of the SSAC, and the GAC has also beenbriefed in detail about the geographical diversification of the Root Server System throughanycasting to multiple “mirror” servers.
________________________
Report by:Mohamed Sharil TarmiziChairman,Government Advisory Committee (GAC), ICANN
February 2005 12
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
Attachment: Summary of GAC advice to ICANN, 19992004.
February 2005 13
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
SUMMARY OF GAC ADVICE TO ICANN, 19992004
This table highlights the main topics that were addressed by GAC in 20 plenary meetings,1999 – 2004, as reported in the corresponding GAC Communiqués and related documents.For more complete information please refer to the published text of the GAC Communiquéswhich can be found on the GAC website at www.gac.icann.org.
GAC Meetings – March 1999 to July 2000
GAC MEETING SingaporeMarch 1999
BerlinMay 1999
SantiagoAugust 1999
Los AngelesNov. 1999
CairoMarch 2000
YokohamaJuly 2000
RELATIONS WITH
ICANNGACMembershipCriteria:amend theBylaws
Supportsgeographicaldiversity andinternationalrepresentation
Takes note ofICANN/DOC/NSIagreements
Comments onthe electionprocess for AtLargemembership
Detailedcommentaryon ICANNBudget issues.ccTLDsshould paytheircontributionsto ICANN
GAC WORKING
METHODS
Commits toimplementefficientprocedures
GAC adoptsthe OperatingPrinciples
Identifiedpriorities forfutureworkplans
GTLD POLICIES New TLDsshould avoidISO codes.
Will discussfurther
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
EndorsesWIPOIReport ontrademarksand UDRP
CCTLDPOLICIES
Requestspromptredelegationon request ofpublicauthority
ReStatementof basicprinciplesincluded inthe preambleto theOperatingPrinciples
Continueddiscussions
Adopts theccTLDPrinciples.
Confirmssupport forGAC ccTLDPrinciples.Recommendsthat ICANNwrite togovernmentsto confirmcurrentdelegations.
WHOIS Supportstransparencyand reliabilityof registrationdata
GEOGRAPHICAL
DIVERSITY
Considersthat thecriterion foreligibility forelectionshould be“Citizenship”
For geographicalregions,ICANN shouldrefer toexistinginternationalnorms.
February 2005 14
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
GAC MEETING SingaporeMarch 1999
BerlinMay 1999
SantiagoAugust 1999
Los AngelesNov. 1999
CairoMarch 2000
YokohamaJuly 2000
OTHER MATTERS Reference todomains containingregistration restrictions.
Support for aneffectiveprocess forelection of AtLargerepresentatives
February 2005 15
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
GAC Meetings – November 2000 to March 2002
GAC MEETING Marina delRey Nov.2000
MelbourneMarch 2001
StockholmJune 2001
MontevideoSept. 2001
Marina delRey Nov.2001
AccraMarch 2002
RELATIONS WITH
ICANNDetailedcommentary onthe desirablepreconditionsfor “testbedenvironments”.
Cooperationwith ICANNon Securityand Stabilityissues.Takes noteof At LargeMembershipissues
Extendeddiscussion ofICANNReform
GAC WORKING
METHODS
Reelection ofFirst Chair.GAC establishesthree workinggroups
Outreachactivitiesprioritised.Creation ofViceChairpositions
Priority forOutreachactivities
GTLD POLICIES DetailedOpinion togiven to theICANNBoard
RequestsICANN publishinformationabout thepolicies of thenew TLDs.
Encouragesevaluation ofnew gTLDs(not done yet).Authorises useof alpha2codes in .aeroto representairlines.
Envisagescreation of anew TLD forthe use ofgovernments.(Not followedup)
CCTLD POLICIES Confirmssupport forGAC ccTLDPrinciples.RequestsICANNadvise on theexecution ofredelegationrequests.
Reaffirmssupport for theGAC ccTLDPrinciples andfor trilateralcommunications
Recalls requestto ICANN towrite togovernments toconfirmdesignation ofcurrent ccTLDmanagers.
Appreciatesthat ICANN isusing the GACccTLDPrinciples.
First referenceto ccNSO.
GEOGRAPHICAL
TERMS
Recommendsreservation ofcountry namesin .info
Continueddiscussionson Dot Infoissues.
IDNS Detailedcommentary onthe preconditions forsuccessfulintroduction ofIDNs
See test bedenvironments.
Reaffirms preconditions forsuccessfulintroduction ofIDNs
IPV6 IPV6Firstreference.
EncouragesICANN topromoteIPV6
Supportsdeployment ofIPv6
OTHER MATTERS
February 2005 16
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
GAC Meetings – June 2002 to October 2003
GAC MEETING BucharestJune 2002
ShanghaiOctober 2002
Rio de JaneiroMarch 2003
MontrealJune 2003
Carthage Oct.20031st RegionalForum
RELATIONS WITH
ICANNContinueddiscussion ofICANN Reform Issues detailedopinion .Recommendsimprovements inprocedures forconsultationbetween ICANNand GAC
Reaffirms decisionsin Bucharest.Adopts detailedamendments toICANN Bylawsregarding GACresponsibilities and“external advice”. Agreed to nonvoting GACLiaison to ICANNNominatingCommittee.
Continues tofocus on ICANNReform.AppointedLiaisons
New RegistryServices – GACnotes that GNSOwill formulate aproposal.Takes note ofAnycast for RootServers.Encourages Rootserver operators tomake moreinformationavailable andincreaseawareness.
GAC WORKING
METHODS
Discussion of GACpriorities.Secretariattransition.Priority of outreachconfirmed.
Confirmed CVCelection Constituted newWorking groups.ReinforcingOutreachactivities.
Outreachconfirmed witha view toCarthagemeeting.Reinforcecommunicationsamong GACmembers on aregional basis.
GAC debatesStructure andFinance.
Regional Forumconcept to beextended toencourageOutreach.
ADDRESSING
POLICIES
Took note ofconsultations withthe RIRs
WHOIS Whois: furtherconsideration atfuture meetings
Refers to GACefforts to compileinformation onWhois.
CCTLD POLICIES
Joint workinggroup withICANN andccTLDs toimproveinteractions,including out ofcountryregistries.
Requests ICANNto be more efficientin updating theIANA database forccTLDs.
Supports creationof the ccNSO
Comments ontrademarking ofISO ccTLDCodes
Restated adviceon ccNSO andconcurs with therevised ICANNBylaws.
Pending redelegationscontinue to causeconcern.Recalls advice onccNSO
GEOGRAPHICAL
TERMS
Agrees procedurefor the release ofcountry names inDot Info.
Agrees to put theWIPO II report onGAC workprogram. Continuesto monitor countrynames in Dot Info.
Recommendsimplementationof WIPO IIrecommendations. Creation of ajoint workinggroup
Recalls adviceon WIPO II andrequestsprogress fromthe jointworking group
Regrets delays inthe WIPO IIworking group
IDNS Welcomes progressin IETF; recallsadvice to exercisecare in introducingIDNs.
Comments onIDN andexpectations forthe IDN workinggroup (notfulfilled yet.)
Took good noteof ICANNdecisions toimplement IDN
IPV6 Further supportfor IPV6.
Encourages activityon IPv6
February 2005 17
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
GAC MEETING BucharestJune 2002
ShanghaiOctober 2002
Rio de JaneiroMarch 2003
MontrealJune 2003
Carthage Oct.20031st RegionalForum
OTHER MATTERS
GAC Meetings – March 2004 to December 2004
GAC MEETING Rome March 20042nd Regional Forum
Kuala LumpurJuly 20043rd Regional Forum
Cape Town Dec. 20044th Regional Forum
RELATIONS WITH
ICANNWelcomes the intention of theICANN board to prioritise andschedule principle actions.
Welcomes ICANN’srecognition of value ofpublic policy input. NotesICANN’s contingencyplan. Continues to attachimportance to timelyrequests for GAC advice.
ICANN Letter to GAC of 1December2004.Takes note of publication of ICANNStrategic Plan.
GAC WORKING
METHODS
Reelection of a Vice Chair. Creates GNSO Working Group(WG1)Appreciation for the RegionalForum. Need to communicateeffectively with non membercountries.
Affirmed election of twonew Vice Chairs.
Decided to elect Chair andVice Chairs before end2004.
ADDRESSING
POLICIES
Encourages ICANN ASOMOU; Calls for effectiveliaison with ASO. ASO tobroaden its membership.
Consulted with ASO membersWelcomed MOU between ICANN andNRO/ASO.Constituted GAC/ASO Liaison group.Welcomed constitution of Afrinic.
GTLD POLICIES Extended liaison withGNSO; focus on newTLDs.
Restates support for increasedcompetition and for security andstability.
WHOIS GAC will focus on Whoispolicy
Recognises public policy dimension ofWhois; consulting with members andwith GNSO
CCTLD POLICIES
Welcomes formation of ccNSO.
Took note of WG 4 report.Further discussion in KL
Creates CCNSOGACLiaison Group.Welcomes inclusiveCCNSO.Further work on GACccTLD Principles updateby Cape Town.
Endorses Final Public Draft of the updated principles, for publication.Intends to adopt the text at Mar delPlata.Members of joint liaison group withappointed by ccNSO.
GEOGRAPHICAL
TERMS
Urges the working group to turnto implementation issues.
Recalls previous advice on WIPO IIrecommendations.
Recalls advice on WIPO II, encouragesall parities resolve the matter withoutdelay.
IDNS Takes note of theproceedings of theRegional Forum.Encourages ICANN toensure that IDN tables andstandards include inputfrom local communities
February 2005 18
GAC Chairman’s report to WGIG
GAC MEETING Rome March 20042nd Regional Forum
Kuala LumpurJuly 20043rd Regional Forum
Cape Town Dec. 20044th Regional Forum
IPV6 Asks the ICANN Board to keepdue attention to IPV6
Takes note of theproceedings of theRegional Forum.Welcomes addition ofIPv6 addresses of nameservers in the root zone.
Takes note of the proceedings of theRegional Forum.
INTERNET
GOVERNANCE
Welcomed ICANN WSISworkshop
Members participated in WSISworkshop. Exchange of views withChair and Executive Coordinator ofWGIG. Agrees to submit a factualreport to WGIG through the Chair.
OTHER MATTERS Takes note of Anycast mirror roots policies.
Briefing from SSAC onredirection of domainsand adoption of DNSSEC.
February 2005 19