GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
17 April 2008
17 April 2008

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - part attendance due to network issues
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC - absent, excused
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC - absent
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent excused
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

18 Council Members
(24 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff

Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies

Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies

MP3 Recording

Avri Doria chaired the meeting.

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No statements of interest were updated.

Item 2: Review/amend the agenda

Tabled Item 12
Single character 2 letter domain names until 8 May 2008 at the request of Patrick Jones.

Philip Sheppard
proposed moving Items 4, 5, 6, 7, concerning updates, to the end of the agenda to allow for early departures .

Avri Doria proposed starting with Item 8 after Item 3

Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of March 6, 2008.

Adrian Kinderis seconded by Tom Keller moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of March 6, 2008.

The motion passed unanimously.

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of March 6, 2008.

Item 8: Discussion on how to complete deliberations on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Policy Development Process (IRTP PDP) – Denial Definitions

Olof Nordling
reported that the Final Report had been delivered before the due date and proposed a drafting group be formed to review the suggestions from constituency reports and public comments to make recommendations on final language that the Council could consider.

Chuck Gomes supported Olof Nordling's suggestion and believed that good registrar as well as registry participation was important, but that the drafting group membership should be open.

Avri Doria drew attention to the difference, as has been the custom to date, between the notion of a drafting team, a short term, ad hoc group with no formal charter and open participation, and a working group with a formal charter and procedures.

The ultimate goal of the drafting group will be to propose policy changes that would remove the current ambiguity for the reasons for the denial of transfers among registrars.

Avri Doria moved a motion to:

Create a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4
provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers.
Drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the creation of a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers.
Drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council.


Action Item:

Avri Doria proposed:

- working with Olof Nordling, the drafting group's staff support, to develop a time line that will allow for a public comment period and the issue to be voted on during the June 2008 ICANN meetings in Paris.
- a Wiki will be set up and the group will use the mailing list archived at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-trans-pdp/ with a modified set of subscribers
- the drafting group should elect a chair from among the participants

Item 9: Proposed Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) PDP recommendations

Mike Rodenbaugh enquired why the work required separate policy development processes.

Chuck Gomes responded that for some years it has been a principle in the GNSO Council to develop short-term, compact policy development processes (PDPs) to make the work load more realistic and attract the necessary volunteer participation. However, if there were enough volunteers some of the work could be done in parallel rather than serially.

Tim Ruiz added that sufficient time and deliberation was needed for the complicated and contentious nature of the issues, as well as adequate representation from all stakeholder groups which included the contracting parties, businesses and registrants whose portability of domain names would be affected.

Avri Doria suggested that:
- each constituency gauge their available resources
- a Wiki be used for Issues reports
- that staff be requested to examine the groupings pragmatically
- a motion be crafted for the Council to vote on for the next meeting on 8 May 2008.

Chuck Gomes suggested that the Council could act as policy manager, by overseeing the various working groups with open participation, rather than the task force model which had bylaw restrictions.

Item 10: Domain Tasting Policy Development Process (PDP) discussion/vote
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tasting-04apr08.pdf

Avri Doria read the motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh and seconded by Bilal Beiram and Kristina Rosette

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator").
Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or
(ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

Adrian Kinderis, on behalf of the Registrar constituency, proposed a friendly amendment, to the motion,
adding :

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period;

Whereas, the Board resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP;

1. The Staff continue the budgetary process towards approval with the inclusion of fees for all domains added, including domains added during AGP as directed in the Board resolution of 23 January 2008;
2. An allowance for a reasonable number of deletes as quantified in 4.a.i below be included against which the fees would not apply;
3. Upon approval of the budget including said fees and reasonable allowance, the deletes activity within the AGP shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically:
a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO within three months as to how effectively and to what extent the fees have reduced AGP delete activity;
b. Whether or not further policy work should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the monitoring stage.
4. Upon conclusion of the monitoring stage, if Staff reports and the GNSO confirms that the fees have not been sufficiently effective in reducing AGP delete activity, the Staff will immediately begin implementation of the following recommendation as Consensus Policy;

which essentially suggested that the ICANN Board proposal

"...encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee. "

be allowed to run for the proposed period, after which there should be a review of the performance, and if it was not deemed satisfactory, the measures proposed in the existing motion could be applied.

Adrian added that to overlay further solutions without seeing the effect of the Board proposal could potentially be either:
a) a waste of time or
b) unhelpful as far as determining which was the effective result.

Avri Doria proposed taking a vote on the proposal which Kristina Rosette did not accept as a friendly amendment to the motion.
Avri Doria pointed out that the pending budget measure was not part of the policy development process and could be discussed at a future meeting contingent on the results of the vote.

Denise Michel clarified that the ICANN Board proposal was initiated by the GNSO council (decision 1). The current status on the pending budget proposal to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period (AGP) was part of ICANN’s proposed budget, the next iteration of which will be posted for further public comment, and the Board will take formal action on the overall budget, including the Council's proposal, at the June, 2008 ICANN meetings in Paris.

Tim Ruiz commented that the Registrars were aware of the status.

Kurt Pritz clarified that, as written in the current preliminary ICANN budget, every deletion within the five day add grace period would be charged the 20 cent fee. Public comments and especially those heard from the Registrars in Delhi indicated that there should be a limited carve out of names. Although ICANN has not yet posted a revised Budget, the current thinking is along the lines of the carve out in the Afilias and NeuStar proposals.
"So while no changes are suggested yet on the ICANN side, I feel sure that such a change will be part of the budget when it moves from the preliminary phase to the proposed phase."

Philip Sheppard expressed concern about the delay and putting off action, when there was known harm in the marketplace. Philip posed the question whether it was the sole objective of the Board’s proposal for putting this fee on a solution for tasting or were there other objectives?

Kurt Pritz responded that it was the sole objective.

Kristina Rosette supported Philip Sheppard's concerns.

Tim Ruiz added that the Registrars were concerned that if both the budget proposal and the Council motion were approved there would potentially be multiple tasks to implement and track, while the proposed budget fee alone may resolve the problem.

Chuck Gomes reminded Council that a fee change could only occur when the ICANN Board approved the Budget.

Mike Rodenbaugh supported the concern expressed by Kristina Rosette and Philip Sheppard about delaying action. He reiterated that for those who wanted the AGP eliminated altogether, the motion represented diligent work and serious compromise. The drafting team was aware of the budget issue, constituency statements and public comments, and there was the assumption that both the budget implementation and the motion would be approved, so, in conjunction, the two remedies would address domain tasting.

Tony Holmes supported this view.

Kristina Rosette commented that the ICANN Board passed the motion in full knowledge that the PDP was ongoing and thus disagreed with the premise of the amendment being put forward. In terms of the implementation issues Tim Ruiz raised, Kristina commented that since the Afilias and NeuStar proposals had already been approved, registrars would be working towards system implementation and tracking without further delay.

Adrian Kinderis cautioned about swaying the Council votes by believing there was popular consensus on the existing motion. He reiterated that the Board proposal should be given a chance and that there were no guarantees that the timelines would be different if the existing motion was approved.

Chuck Gomes commented that the budget approach would lead to more rapid results because the fee change would be implemented on July 1, 2008 if the Board approved the original motion on the table during the ICANN meetings in Paris in June 2008.
The registry constituency representatives on the Council would have to receive input from the entire constituency prior to voting on the amendment.

Chuck Gomes complimented the Registrars on the amendment's wording that minimized delays.

Avri Doria commented that she was one of those in favour of eliminating the AGP and appreciated that the motion on the table was a considerable compromise.

Tim Ruiz clarified that the amended motion stated "ICANN staff shall analyze the report to the GNSO within three months" and during that time period the registrars would know whether the measure was effective or not.

Avri Doria clarified that the amendment would need a majority of the Council votes to become a motion to be voted on.

Adrian Kinderis, seconded by Tim Ruiz proposed:

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period;

Whereas, the Board resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1. The Staff continue the budgetary process towards approval with the inclusion of fees for all domains added, including domains added during AGP as directed in the Board resolution of 23 January 2008;

2. An allowance for a reasonable number of deletes as quantified in 4.a.i below be included against which the fees would not apply;

3. Upon approval of the budget including said fees and reasonable allowance, the deletes activity within the AGP shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically:

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO within three months as to how effectively and to what extent the fees have reduced AGP delete activity;

b. Whether or not further policy work should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the monitoring stage.

4. Upon conclusion of the monitoring stage, if Staff reports and the GNSO confirms that the fees have not been sufficiently effective in reducing AGP delete activity, the Staff will immediately begin implementation of the following recommendation as Consensus Policy;

a. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

i. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

ii. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

iii. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

b. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

i. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

1. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

2. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,

ii. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

The motion failed.

7 Votes in favour: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Tom Keller (two votes each) Olga Cavalli (one vote)

10 Votes against: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Norbert Klein, Avri Doria, (one vote each)

6 Abstentions: Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each)

Ute Decker had bad network connectivity and was cut off the call for the vote.
Absent: Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Jon Bing

The Registry Constituency representatives abstained because they were required to get direction from the entire Registry constituency before voting.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh and seconded by Bilal Beiram and Kristina Rosette.

The motion passed by a supermajority.

19 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Norbert Klein, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each)

Tom Keller, Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each)

4 Votes against: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (two votes each)

Ute Decker - had bad network connectivity and was cut off the call for the vote.
Absent: Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Jon Bing

Decision 3:

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month
(defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on
the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

Kristina Rosette asked for confirmation that the motion voted on by Council would be submitted to the Board in time for the ICANN Board meeting in June 2008 in Paris and staff confirmed that was the intention.

Item 11: Fast Flux Issues Report discussion
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf

The proposed motion on Fast Flux was tabled until the next Council meeting on 8 May 2008.

Item 13: ALAC Letter to Board on "front-running" and Board referral to GNSO council

- ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html >
- Preliminary Board Minutes
Discussion under item 11, Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm > Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action."

Avri Doria noted that the ALAC had submitted a letter to the ICANN Board requesting a temporary narrow-tailored policy as a stopgap for front-running. The ICANN Board reviewed the issue and determined that emergency action was not required, but that the matter should be referred to the GNSO. The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) commented on a request sent by the GNSO chair for further information and it appeared as though an Issues Report could be considered.

Avri Doria suggested:

- that further discussion should take place on the Council mailing list and the Wiki
- that a motion be crafted for Council's consideration at its next meeting on 8 May 2008.

Tim Ruiz cautioned that Council should be specific in what it was asking for in the Issues Report.

Chuck Gomes commented that since concern had been expressed about doing additional fact finding during the stage between an Issues Report and initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP), there should be more fact finding before requesting an Issues Report to be sure that it was a GNSO policy issue.

Philip Sheppard supported referring the discussion on Issues Reports in general to the Planning Team engaged in GNSO Reform issues.

Philip further proposed, given front-running was recognized as an issue in the community and that Council required more time to decide on a formal process, that the GNSO chair request staff to immediately commence informal fact finding on the issue.

Avri Doria proposed initiating a discussion on the mailing list and on the Council Wiki and amending Philip Sheppard's request to ask the staff to participate in a focused discussion.

Item 4: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities

Denise Michel gave an overview of the issues addressed at the ICANN Board meeting on 27 March 2008.

The Department of Commerce, and the President's Strategy Committee intend to outline a consultation process and seek public comment on ICANN’s next steps regarding the Joint Partnership Agreement (JPA).

The Board approved the Afilias and NeuStar request to modify their contracts with regard to the add grace period provision in .biz and .info.

Staff gave updates on the new gTLDs implementation work and the Council's work on GNSO improvement implementation.

Updates were also given on the various independent reviews, ICANN meetings and budget issues. Paul Levins is preparing a paper for Board consideration and later for public comment, proposing two ICANN meetings a year, one of which would be at a hub location.

The Riga board workshop agenda will include discussions on new gTLDs and implementation.

During the Board meeting there were also discussions of a strategic nature, and items relating to the Board’s internal workings and processes for committees.

Under "Any Other Business", Wendy Seltzer raised the issue of front-running and asked for the Board to take an emergency action.

The Board formally thanked Johan Ihren, leaving the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and added Warren Kumari and Matt Larson to the committee.

Item 5: Update from Edmon Chung on IDNC

Edmon Chung noted that there had been little activity in the IDNC and during the regional meeting in Dubai, discussions focused on responding to questions from the communities that attended the forum.
An IDNC conference call is scheduled for 22 April 2008. Edmon volunteered to take the lead in drafting a response from the GNSO Council for the Council to consider at the next meeting on 8 May 2008.

Avri Doria suggested reactivating the existing group for this purpose. The group consists of Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Charles Sha'ban, Cary Karp, Olof Nordling, Tina Dam and Liz Gasster.
Avri also suggested considering Jon Bing’s contributions and adding him to the group, along with anyone else who wished to join.


Item 14: Action Items
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf

14.1 GNSO improvements

Avri Doria reported that the constituency members who volunteered had been included on the planning team. A Planning team meeting was scheduled to update the Board during the Riga retreat. It is expected that the draft procedure will be available to the Council for the meeting on 8 May 2008.

14.2 New gTLDs

Avri Doria thanked Karen Lentz for the briefing notes on new gTLD implementation that were previously provided to the Board and now available to the Council.

Chuck Gomes asked for confirmation that the GNSO Council would have the opportunity to review the criteria for the dispute resolution processes for the four areas before any public comment period was opened. Staff confirmed this request.

14.3 WHOIS Study Group

Liz Gasser reported that an update would be provided following the study group's teleconference on 22 April 2008, but it was unlikely that there would be a report from the group for the next Council meeting on 8 May 2008.

Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting ended at 14:13 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 8 May 2008 at 12:00 UTC.
see: Calendar