05 August 2004
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Harris
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Harris
Thomas Keller- Registrars - proxy to Alick Wilson for item 3 because of conflict of interests
Ross Rader - Registrars - proxy to Alick Wilson for item 3 because of conflict of interests
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars - proxy to Alick Wilson for item 3 because of conflict of interests
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - joined call late
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies- proxy to Marc Schneiders
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - joined call late
Amadeu Abril I Abril - proxy to Alick Wilson for item 3 because of conflict of interests
17 Council Members
GNSO Council Rule of Procedures do not limit the number of proxies one person may hold.
All Council members confirmed their willingness to exercise the proxy votes they held.
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Michael Palage - ICANN Board (GNSO seat 14) - observer
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support - absent - apologies
Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat - absent - apologies
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
Quorum present at 12:05 UTC,
Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference.
Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 16 June 2004 and Minutes of 12 July 2004
Bruce Tonkin seconded by Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the Minutes of 16 June 2004 and the Minutes of 12 July 2004
The motion carried unanimously
Decision 1: The Minutes of 16 June 2004 and the Minutes of 12 July 2004 were adopted
Item 3: For decision: Criteria for designating a successor for the .net registry Version 9 (revised)
Bruce Tonkin, in view of his conflict of interest declaration with respect to vote on .net criteria, handed the chair to Philip Sheppard.
Philip Sheppard asked whether there were other conflict of interest declarations.
Thomas Keller , Amadeu Abril lAbril, and Ross Rader declared conflict of interests and gave their proxies with undirected votes to Alick Wilson.
Ken Stubbs stated that he was a director of Afilias, but would be voting as directed by the gTLD registries constituency.
Philip Sheppard read the proposed resolution before Council:
"In response to the letter from Paul Verhoef on 31 March 2004 requesting that the GNSO provide advice with a consensus statement defining the criteria to be applied in the selection of a successor registry operator for .net, and in accordance with section 5.2 and 4.3 of the .net registry agreement, the GNSO recommends that the following criteria (as detailed in the Final report of the GNSO subcommittee) be applied:
- absolute criteria related to the targeting
- absolute criteria related to continuity
- absolute criteria related to policy compliance
- absolute criteria related to stability, security, technical and financial competence
- relative criteria related to promotion of competition - relative criteria relating to stability, security, technical and financial competence
- relative criteria related to existing registry services,
and provides the attached written report which includes all substantive submissions to the GNSO relating to this recommendation, as required in section 4.3.1 of the .net agreement. Absolute criteria are thresholds which an applicant is expected to meet, and relative criteria become relevant once absolute criteria are met and are recommended as a basis for comparison and evaluation of competing applications."
Alick Wilson commented that he had been entrusted with 4 proxies, that the report before Council had the unanimous supported of the GNSO Council .net subcommittee, that there had been comprehensive opportunity for outreach, that the report had been open to two public comment periods and that the GNSO Constituencies were all consulted.
Voting: 21 Votes in favour, 2 votes against (Ken Stubbs), 2 votes as abstentions (Philip Colebrook), 2 votes absent (Lucy Nichols, Niklas Lagergren).
The resolution was passed by the GNSO Council.
Decision 2: The resolution (as above) on Designating a successor operator for the .net registry was approved as a consensus statement, having a greater than two-thirds majority vote.
Ken Stubbs, supported by Marilyn Cade and Cary Karp proposed that the statement crafted at the suggestion of the gTLD registry constituency members at their constituency meeting on August 4 2004, be included as a covering letter to the report.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting by name on the text and proxy votes were reconfirmed.
"The GNSO believes that all material provisions of the new .net Agreement should be made known to the public in the draft and final RFPs. This includes, but is not limited to, any information regarding the proposed fee structure to be paid by the subsequent .net registry operator to ICANN. Only with such information can an applicant truly propose a realistic, viable, and appropriate business, technical and financial model. In addition, such information known in advance by the applicants will also help in ensuring a smooth negotiation process with the successor operator after its selection."
Voting: 24 votes in favour, 2 votes as abstentions (Marc Schneiders, Jisuk Woo), 1 vote absent (Carlos Afonso).
The motion was approved by the GNSO Council.
Decision 3: "The GNSO believes that all material provisions of the new .net Agreement should be made known to the public in the draft and final RFPs. This includes, but is not limited to, any information regarding the proposed fee structure to be paid by the subsequent .net registry operator to ICANN. Only with such information can an applicant truly propose a realistic, viable, and appropriate business, technical and financial model. In addition, such information known in advance by the applicants will also help in ensuring a smooth negotiation process with the successor operator after its selection."
Philip Sheppard seconded by Ken Stubbs moved a motion:
Whereas, the GNSO Council .net subcommittee had completed its work, the subcommittee be formally dissolved.
The motion was unanimously approved by the GNSO Council.
Decision 4: Whereas, the GNSO Council .net subcommittee had completed its work, the subcommittee be formally dissolved.
Philip Sheppard formally handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin.
Item 4: Any Other Business.
Bruce Tonkin reported that the draft initial report, on the Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD Registry, published on July 15 2004, brought to Council's attention during the GNSO Council meeting in Kuala Lumpur on July 20, 2004 had not received any comment. He proposed a GNSO Council teleconference on August 19, 2004 to discuss the report and approve putting the report out for a 20 day public comment period.
Marilyn Cade proposed adding to the next meeting agenda, the process as related to new gTLDs.
Grant Forsyth reminded Council that the ICANN Nominating Committee had extended the deadline for Statements of Interest to 25 August 2004 and urged councillors to participate in the NomCom process in actively seeking qualified candidates for key positions within ICANN.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.
The meeting ended: 13:05 UTC.