PDP-Feb06 Task force on Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs
Proposed agenda and documents
Task force members
Maureen Cubberley - Task Force Chair - Nominating Committee appointee
Marilyn Cade - CBUC
Mike Roberts - CBUC
Philip Sheppard - CBUC
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Jon Nevett - Registrars (Network Solutions)
Jeff Eckhaus - Registrars (Registrar .com)
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
David Maher - gTLD registries (PIR)
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
Norbert Klein - NCUC - apologies could not connect
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Denise Michel - Vice President Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Maria Farrell - Policy Officer
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison - absent
Alistair Dixon- CBUC - apologies
Ross Rader - Registrars - apologies
Milton Mueller - NCUC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - apologies
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - apologies
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Antonio Harris - ISPC - apologies
Tony Holmes - ISPC - apologies
Paula Breuning - NCUC
Approval of the Agenda:
Under any other business:
Maureen Cubberley requested:
- adding a discussion on the posting of the .biz .org and .info registry agreements and their relationship to the current task force work.
- Approval of the minutes PDPFeb06 Task Force draft minutes of the Marrakech meeting 24 June 2006.
Marilyn Cade requested:
- to move the discussion on the task force report and prioritise a discussion on timelines and work programme.
- discussion of independent experts and additional supporting resources.
Maureen Cubberley requested approval of minutes of the:
PDPFeb06 Task Force draft minutes of the Marrakech meeting 24 June 2006
Approval of the minutes deferred to the next meeting.
Item 1: Update on Statements of Interest
No updates recorded
Item 2: Preliminary Task force Report: Discussion
Maureen Cubberley commented on the Preliminary Task Force Report on Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing Top Level Domains in general, that moving forward and determining expert advice was inherent in the way the report was structured and constituency input was recorded. Maureen suggested that staff add an analysis at the end of each section, which would indicate the diversity amongst the constituency positions. The report would be more transparent and it would be easier to identify the issues to be considered, if the impact of the positions, and whether or not there was consensus, were elaborated.
Liz Williams pointed to the ICANN bylaws–section A 7 (e) (iv)
"An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;
stating that no constituency statement received included such impact statements but the preliminary task force report would include such an analysis."
Maureen Cubberley clarified that staff was expected to do the analysis and enumerate what was missing, otherwise soliciting expert opinion, in a general sense, without specifying which areas require expert opinion could result in some questions remaining unanswered.
Marilyn Cade commented that changes in timelines should be documented and the ICANN Board should be advised of any such adaptations. Managing a policy development process was the responsibility of the Council supported by staff.
Marilyn Cade suggested 3 changes in the report:
- in editing the document, it should be noted that the identification and retention of independent experts was discussed at the initial task force meeting and the subsequent task force meetings.
- substance should be in the body of the report, not in footnotes. References to minutes should summarise the contents of the minutes and link to the minutes.
- the 'category commentary' is better labeled as 'staff commentary'. There should be an analysis of the comments that have been received as opposed to the commentary. Commentary and analysis are different; for example, a category "analysis" is missing on page 21, 1a under (e). The staff commentary should identify what else needs to be done to deliver the material discussion about a sub-element.
Send marked up versions of the draft GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report – Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing Top Level Domains
to Liz Williams by COB 16 August 2006
Jon Nevett referred to an issue raised on the mailing list, with regard to how the PDPFeb06 Task Force work related to the renewal process of the three gTLD Registry agreements .biz, .info and .org as announced by ICANN staff on July 28, 2006 which was concurrent with the Task Force’s work to determine the policy issues around renewal of existing agreements.
Marilyn Cade asked whether it was appropriate for the Task Force to discuss the question, and the respective roles of the Task Force and the GNSO Council should be clarified.
Maureen Cubberley referred to the response from John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel
Ken Stubbs quoted John Jeffrey
"I assume that there will continue to be pdp's in the GNSO that will impact the various gTLD agreements (like those that have been approved and those that have been pending for some time), and we cannot wait until all potential policy or advice from such pdp's is concluded on all possible issues before we negotiate agreements."
Ken went on to note that there were presumptive renewal clauses in several approved agreements, such as .net, .mobi and there had never been any community comment.
Philip Sheppard commented that:
- either ICANN would suspend all contract negotiation, in which case the task force needed to continue with its efforts, the timeline and programme
- or, ICANN would carry on regardless with the contract negotiation, in which case there would be residual benefits to future contracts and the task force should continue with its work.
Simultaneously, Council should be informed that the Task Force was concerned with the current situation.
Jon Nevett proposed a middle ground, third option, proceeding with the gTLD contracts with a provision in the contract that required the registries to be bound by any consensus policies adopted.
David Maher appreciated the compromise but stated that it was unacceptable the registry constituency and PIR supported Ken Stubb's previous statement.
Maureen Cubberley, as Task Force chair, proposed formally addressing the GNSO Council chair and seeking clarification on how the Task Force work related to the renewal process of the three gTLD Registry agreements .biz, .info and .org as announced by ICANN staff on July 28, 2006 which was concurrent with the Task Force’s work to determine the policy issues around renewal of existing agreements and whether there would be retroactive application of the task force decisions on the renewals.
It was agreed that the Task Force continue with its work in parallel with seeking clarification rapidly.
Mawaki Chango agreed with the chair's approach.
Item 3: Discussion of Expert Materials
Draft GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report – Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing Top Level Domains
Liz Williams referred the Task Force to the ICANN bylaws
Section 7 d. Collection of information
Mawaki Chango, due poor call quality, commented by email:
"I don't think the dialogue with the experts should be directly on the
TORs, or on each TOR. We do need subquestions - more specific
questions under the relevant TOR we think we need that consultation
on. I might post later on one or two of those possible sub-question"
Marilyn Cade commented on the labelling of the Task Force Report after August 16, 2006, when the final comments on the draft and input on areas where expert advice was required, would be gathered and suggested the title "Draft Final Task Force Report". In parallel the expert material should be reviewed and incorporated into the report.
Philip Sheppard commented that in the policy development process were two reports, Preliminary and Final. In the existing guidelines, the timing between those two reports was one meeting of the task force, a vote, and then the report was completed. The intention of the the guidelines was that 90% of all the work done, including outside advisers, would be included in the Preliminary Task Force report. It was meant to contain all the materials, the conclusions and analysis before the task force moved forward. It was not the task force's first thinking, but the outcome and essence of the entire work.
Maureen Cubberley commented that the current report had not identified the specific questions for the experts and suggested that the Task Force clearly enunciate its position and recommendations, before expert advice is sought.
Marilyn Cade was of the view that dialogue with experts could inform the Task Force members at various stages of their consideration.
Marilyn Cade referred to Alistair Dixon's posting who considered he was an expert but believed that he should not be acting as an one on the Task Force since he was a Business Constituency representative and supported the need for retaining experts. Marilyn went on to comment that the Task Force terms of reference should be discussed with experts.
Item 4. Agreement on the Task Force timeline and work program
Marilyn Cade expressed concern about how the lack of focus on the policy development work on the GNSO Policies for contractual conditions, existing gTLDs, would be perceived by the community. Secondly the Task Force should be prepared to discuss the outcome of an eventual dialogue between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board and senior staff.
Maureen Cubberley disagreed with the term 'lack of focus' from the perspective of the task force. The task force undertook the work at a difficult time of year when the council had other work, and during a holiday period. Task force members, to be productive, should be prepared for meetings, rather than adhering to a schedule that demonstrated a time flow.
Maureen Cubberley proposed a revised timeline:
August 16, 2006 – Final comments on the draft and input on areas where expert advice is required.
August 23, 2006 – Expert materials available
September teleconference meeting
– determine date
- purpose to look at expert opinion in print, determine where expert opinion in person
- length of call 2 hours
Glen to circulate dates for a teleconference early in September.
Request whether there is a budget to support for a F2F meeting
Kurt Pritz commented that ICANN was in the process of analysing the budget requests, and discretionary meetings could not yet be determined.
F2F meeting facilities have been proposed by AT&T in Washington DC and Tucows in Toronto, Canada.
If no F2F meeting, another teleconference will be scheduled.
Aim: timeline will lead to a Final Report release date.
Liz Williams will propose a Final Report date by email.
The Chair made a formal request to staff to seek alternate telephone bridge services for future calls.
David Maher proposed a motion of adjournment.
Maureen Cubberley adjourned the meeting and thanked the participants.
Meeting adjourned at 15:40 UTC