GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
18 August 2005

18 August 2005

Proposed agenda and related documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.
Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.
Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

15 Council Members

ICANN Staff
John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat


GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison

Michael Palage - ICANN Board member

Invited guests:
Whois task force
Jordyn Buchanan - Chair WHOIS Task Force
Tim Ruiz
Kathy Kleiman
Registrar Constituency
Bhavin Turakhia - Chair Registrars Constituency
Jonathon Nevett - Chair Dot Net RAA Comments working group within the registrars constituency

MP3 Recording

Quorum present at 14:05 CET.

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Lucy Nichols requested an update on WIPO II under item 2
Marilyn Cade requested an item under any other business on the ICANN Strategic Planning process

Agenda approved

Item 2: Approval of the
Minutes of 12 July 2005
Minutes of 28 July 2005

Ken Stubbs
moved that the adoption of the minutes of 12 July 2005 and 28 July 2005.
Motion unanimously approved

Marilyn Cade
suggested there be level of detail in the minutes that fully documented the discussions particularly when there was a vote.

Decision 1: The minutes of 12 July 2005 and 28 July 2005 were adopted

Item 3: Staff action items
- list of current GNSO work items
Kurt Pritz suggested that improving the minutes and the current GNSO work items report should be taken off line with Maria, Glen and Olof.
Lucy Nichols clarified that the intent of raising the WIPO II issue was to have a status report from staff.
Marilyn Cade requested an update from staff in the next 7 days.
- legal text for WHOIS recommendation.
Dan Halloran, Deputy General Counsel, responded on the Whois recommendation and confirmed and approved the terminology "clear and conspicuous."
- Updated paper on past decisions and documents relating to new gtlds
Olof Nordling updated the paper on New TLDs past decisions and documents.
- timeline for developing GNSO review terms of reference
Liz Williams referred to the GNSO Review proposed Terms of reference phase one paper and outlined the time lines in section F.

Bruce Tonkin suggested 2 phases in the process:
a. internal discussion between the council and the constituency officers
b. follow up discussion with members of the Board, that is those elected by the supporting organisations and the Governance committee.

Item 4: Consideration of revised consensus recommendation with respect
to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the
Whois system
(current version posted to Council on 27 July 2005)

http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01159.html

Proposed recommendation:

"1) Registrars must provide notice in the registration agreement with
the Registered Name Holder that is easy to find, clear, and conspicuous
within the registration agreement stating:

(a) The purposes of the WHOIS service, which consists of the provision
of an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free
public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily)
data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by the Registrar.
In addition the WHOIS service includes the provision of third-party bulk
access to the data.

(b) The purposes of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and
administrative contacts

(c) Which of the contact data in (b) will be made public via the WHOIS
service in (a).

(2) ICANN must provide on its website information on industry best
practice to meet the obligation in (1) above."

Bruce Tonkin referred to a posting from the Whois task force chair, Jordyn Buchanan, expressing concerns raised by the task force on the recommendation.
Jordyn Buchanan in addressing the topic, clarified that the task force had not discussed the issue in detail, but wanted to make the Council aware and consider the issue before it took any decision on the matter.
The issue raised was that there was some concern that the recommendation to improve notice constituted a waiver, on behalf of the registrant, with regard to their privacy rights. It was not an issue raised during task force discussions nor was it the intent of the task force. There were however divided views in the task force on whether it constituted a waiver. Marc Rotenberg, Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, at the request of a member of the non-commercial users constituency, gave the opinion, but the task force had not sought its own legal advice. Some task force members suggested that council may want to defer voting on the issue until it became part of other recommendations under development within the WHOIS task force.

Bruce Tonkin noted that even if the recommendation were approved at present it could not be implemented until the task force had completed its work on purposes of the Whois and the contacts.
Phil Colebrook commented that the registry constituency would like a deferral on the issue.
Ross Rader clarified that were perhaps 3 schools of thought on the recommendation:
- those who thought it constituted a waiver
- those who did not think that it constituted a waiver
- those who did not know what the recommendation constituted
thus recommended to council to understand the implications of the recommendation and be comfortable with them.
Bruce Tonkin suggested that a council member formulate a question that could be presented to General Counsel for a response.
Marilyn Cade commented that not being on the call, from discussions with task force members, there appeared to be a procedural issue within the task force which should be dealt with in the task force. When topics had been thoroughly discussed, submitted for public comment and had gotten issues raised, at some point responsibility should be taken to move forward. Having made that statement, on the particular issue at hand, as a councillor, Marilyn could support deferring a decision but it should be noted that the level of the discussion as it took place in the task force was not a substantive discussion and there had been earlier substantive discussions on what the RAA implied in terms of notice that should be informative to the task force and the council. Marilyn was in favour of posing a question to General Counsel but emphasised the need to have a procedural clarification for future similar issues in the task force.
Bruce Tonkin commented that the "problem" should be clearly stated and then solutions could be sought, but currently it was not clear how it constituted a problem for privacy rights.
Kathy Kleiman summarised the issue on whether the recommendation could be interpreted as a waiver. In discussions with task force 1 members, the intent of the task force was to inform registrants, many who did not know their personal data was being published in the global WHOIS, and clearly the intent was not to waive privacy rights. She also discussed the ongoing work of the WHOIS task force to reform the WHOIS, and the fact that the task force did not want to bypass this process by waiving privacy rights via notice provisions.

Then Kathy outlined the opinion that for her raised concerns about waiver. Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Information Privacy Center (an oral opinion, now issued as a written opinion) stated that the Notice and Consent might be construed as a waiver of privacy rights without additional protections.
Avri Doria, was of the opinion that the Council should defer approval of the recommendation and Council should deal with the issue before sending it back to the task force.
Marilyn Cade noted for the record and the minutes that in fact the task force did not seek an opinion from Marc Rotenberg but a constituency, who was represented on the task force had sought the opinion. Care should be taken in recording the minutes accurately.
Secondly, the earlier comment that the task force, under the leadership and guidance of the chair needed to address procedural issues so that the situation did not arise of constituencies meeting to say "let me explain what my statement means in public" but that was what governed the task force, so Marilyn reiterated the suggestion that, working with the chair, procedures should be agreed upon to enable the task force to work effectively when such a difference of opinion arose.
Tony Harris stated that he did not agree with Kathy Kleiman's appraisal of the ISP comment. The ISP Constituency did not come to the same conclusion reading it. The comment did not form part of the recommendation.
Robin Gross agreed that the vote should be deferred until there was a chance to look at the privacy implications more clearly and that Marc Rotenberg was right to be concerned by a possible waiver of privacy rights, but that was never the intent of the task force. Robin offered to send a formal question via email to the council to be put to the ICANN legal Counsel to obtain an opinion on privacy rights and waiver.
Bruce Tonkin encouraged a well formulated description of the concern so that external advice from the General Counsel could be sought.
Ross Rader commenting on process and as the person who opened up the issue in the task force, emphasised the need to move the issue forward with simple clear clarifications ..
Bret Fausett commented that ALAC had discussed the recommendation, were in favour of disclosure but would not be in favour of it reducing privacy rights and proposed a statement at the end of the disclosure that this was not intended to waive any privacy rights that existed under national law.
Ken Stubbs supported Robin Gross that there be a legal interpretation and added that if Bret Fausett's suggestion were adopted it should be displayed in a prominent section of the RAA, that could not be missed by a registrant.
Jordyn Buchanan clarified that the task force was no longer chartered to work on the issue under the current terms of reference.
Bruce Tonkin recommended
that the recommendation be kept at the Council level, but further advice be sought on the implications of the recommendation.
Bruce Tonkin seconded by Ross Rader proposed a procedural motion:

To defer voting on the revised consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system at the present council meeting and that the council seeks legal advice on the implications that have been raised with respect to privacy.

Marilyn Cade expressed support of the motion

The procedural motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 2: To defer voting on the revised consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system at the present council meeting and that the council seeks legal advice on the implications that have been raised with respect to privacy.

Bruce Tonkin thanked the Whois task force chair and members for their participation.

Item 5: Discussion of proposed changes to ICANN bylaws to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals
- see
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01224.html
- presentation from chair of registrars constituency and chair of registrar constituency subcommittee reviewing bylaws


Marilyn Cade introduced the item on the agenda as author of an amendment to the proposed changes to the ICANN bylaws to improve transparency by the registrar constituency and proposed that a registrar address the topic.
Jonathon Nevett, chair of the registrar constituency working group for comments on the .net RAA (Registry-Registrar Agreements) stated that for the past year the registrar community had concerns about the contracting process, in particular relating to the community's right to have an opportunity of notice and to be heard with regard to ICANN related contracts. The issue first arose in November 2004 when Verisign had an amendment to the .net and the .com Registry-Registrar agreements with the registrars approved without registrars' input, knowledge or an opportunity to be heard. This was followed by the recent . net agreement where material changes were made to the dot net agreement, these were signed by ICANN and the registry, again without knowledge, input or comment from the community. In order to address those concerns, an amendment to the ICANN bylaws was drafted to support one of ICANN's core values which is to operate in an open and transparent manner, consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The suggested changes were made to article 3, Transparency, section 6 , which relates to a "notice and comment on policy actions" and "contract approvals" were added. It should be noted that it does not apply to all contracts but is limited to specific contracts that are material or that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, thus the major material contracts that impact the community. What is currently in place for policy actions, a 21 day advance notice and opportunity to be heard, would apply to contracts before the board approves the contracts. Before the ICANN Board approved the contracts and they were signed by ICANN there should be an opportunity to be heard and to review the agreements.
Changes were also suggested in article 15, section 1 Contracts.

Jonathon Nevett
concluded by stating that registrars were supportive of Marilyn Cade's added section d:
d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects public policy concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization’s policy council and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its own initiative or at the Board’s request.

and was looking for the GNSO to support the amendments to the bylaws to ensure openness and transparency in the contracting process.

ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY

Section 6. NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS AND CONTRACT APPROVALS

1. With respect to any policies or contracts that are being considered by the Board for adoption or approval that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges, ICANN shall:

a. provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies or contracts are being considered for adoption or approval and why, at least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by the Board;

b. provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies or approval of the proposed contracts, to see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments, prior to any action by the Board; and

c. in those cases where the policy action or contract affects public policy concerns, to request the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee and take duly in to account any advice timely presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee on its own initiative or at the Board's request.

d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects public policy concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization’s policy council and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its its own initiative or at the Board’s request.

2. Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant policy development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held for discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section 6(1)(b) of this Article, prior to any final Board action.

3. After taking action on any policy or contract subject to this Section, the Board shall publish in the meeting minutes the reasons for any action taken, the vote of each Director to r voting on the action, and the separate statement of any Director to r desiring publication of such a statement.

 ARTICLE XV: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. CONTRACTS

Consistent with ICANN’s transparency principles in Article III, the Board must approve all of ICANN’s material contracts in advance of execution.
The Board may authorize any Officer or Officers, agent or agents, to enter in to any contract or execute or deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of ICANN, and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances. In the absence of a contrary Board authorization, contracts and instruments may only be executed by the following Officers: President, any Vice President, or the CFO. Unless authorized or ratified by the Board, no other Officer, agent, or employee shall have any power or authority to bind ICANN or to render it liable for any debts or obligations. Before ICANN enters in to or approves a contract that may have a material impact on a third party member of the Internet community, such contract must be published for public comment in final form and in its entirety (only information constituting trade secrets may be excluded when necessary) for at least 21 days before the Board can approve the contract for execution.

Suggested changes in Italics

Marilyn Cade in addressing "section d" clarified that
" section d was added as, from the changes proposed by the registrars, which she personally supported, it was quite clear that ICANN was required in section c, to consult with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) on public policy, and considered that it was clear that ICANN should consult with the relevant Supporting Organizations. In the dot net negotiation, changes were made in the contracts which affected the standing of consensus policy in the definition of security and stability and also in the definition of new registry services which is at variance, even if minimally so, from the consensus policy that Council had underway. A consultation, even closed, with Council could have been expected on those issues as they involved consensus policy. Having observed behaviorally that consultation was not guaranteed by the bylaws, the section was added requiring a consultation with the relevant Supporting Organizations. A friendly amendment is offered to the proposal and that is striking the word "public" in d in relation to public policy, as that may be a sensitive topic to the GAC and the intention was to capture the policy obligations and the responsibilities of the Council.
see amended text:
d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects policy concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization’s policy council and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its its own initiative or at the Board’s request.

Bruce Tonkin commented that the intent was to make sure that major agreements such as registry agreements that could affect many parties went through a public review before ICANN finally signed them, but that there appeared to be concerns with the current drafting that other types of contracts might be included.
John Jeffrey commented from a staff perspective it was understood that the recommendation concerned issues that were raised in Luxembourg and were being presently articulated. Marilyn Cade's proposed change to the language was important and there was also some question regarding whether the scope of the language on which contracts would be included in such process was concise enough.
John Jeffrey went on to say that clearly input from the Council was appreciated and that the Board should consider the recommendation but passing on specific language would not be appropriate at this early stage given that the Board would need to consider the input, and any Bylaw change would require a public comment period before it could be approved.
Bruce Tonkin asked whether it would be a reasonable action for the Council to support the changes, forward them to the Board and then the Board would be seeking advice from General Counsel on how best to meet the intent of the GNSO ?
John Jeffrey assumed that the Board would seek the General Counsel's office advice and then the board would either request additional information from the Council or submit the recommendation to a public comment process and take the comments into account.
Bhavin Turakhia, the Registrar constituency chair reiterated what Jon Nevett mentioned and stated clearly that the intention was not to micro manage the contract approval process. Among registrars and in the community there had been a high level of support in the direction to get the changes in the recommendation incorporated to ensure that such situations would not be repeated.
Avri Doria emphasized the importance of and supported passing on the recommendation to the Board.
Phil Colebrook commented on a procedural matter that the current holiday season made consultation in the constituency difficult and it was an important issue for registries.
Bruce Tonkin responded that if the Council did consider sending the recommendation to the Board there would still be an opportunity for public comment as part of the Board's normal processes for considering a bylaw change.

Marilyn Cade seconded by Avri Doria proposed a motion
That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board the proposed bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board undertaking the proper review process in order to consider approval of the bylaw changes.

Cary Karp seconded by Philip Colebrook proposed a procedural motion:
To defer the vote on the motion proposed by Marilyn Cade and Avri Doria on the suggested bylaw changes to the middle of September.

Marilyn Cade responded referring to her posting on the council list and asked for the comment to be minuted, that the need for these changes arose out of actions that occurred that affected the council's role and affected the broader community in Luxembourg. Extensive discussion took place in public forums, in the Council itself and in the constituencies. The outcome of what happened in the dot net agreement was what had led to a proposal for the bylaw changes.
It was not a new topic and there had been extensive discussion inspite of the holidays.
If the motion carried, the Board would put forward a public comment process and further comments could be provided by any one in the community at that time.

Bruce Tonkin put the procedural motion to the vote.

Ken Stubbs commenting before the vote said that it was confusing as it appeared that the voting was on language rather than a concept which was an issue that the constituency would like to discuss in greater depth and there had been no time to do this since the motion had been put before the Council.

The procedural motion received 7 votes in favour, Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs and Philip Colebrook 2 votes each and Robin Gross, 16 votes against out of a total of 26 votes. (Niklas Lagergren, Alick Wilson absent without proxy, Kiyoshi Tsuru dropped off call without proxy)
The motion failed.

Bruce Tonkin put the motion to the vote.
Marilyn Cade seconded by Avri Doria proposed a motion
That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board the proposed bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board undertaking the proper review process in order to consider approval of the bylaw changes.

The motion received 17 voted in favour, Philip Colebrook, 2 votes, against, Cary Karp and Ken Stubbs, 4 votes, abstained out of a total of 26 votes.
(Niklas Lagergren, Alick Wilson absent without proxy, Kiyoshi Tsuru dropped off call without proxy)
The motion carried.

Decision 3: That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board the proposed bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board undertaking the proper review process in order to consider approval of the bylaw changes.

Bruce Tonkin will submit the resolution to the ICANN Secretary for consideration by the ICANN Board.

Bruce Tonkin thanked Jonathon Nevett and Bhavin Turakhia for their participation.

Marilyn Cade asked whether a councillor was required to describe the reason for abstaining from voting.
Bruce Tonkin stated that rules applied to policy votes, and the reason for abstaining from voting on a consensus policy would have to be declared.

Item 6 : IDNs
- Cary Karp to provide update on discussions at the IETF

Cary Karp reported that during the IETF meeting there were a number of non public discussions and a public meeting attended by 3 council members who were mentioned at the public microphone as being involved in overseeing of ICANN policies. The Internet Research task force would probably consider the medium term issues but there would be no immediate action from the IETF, the IAB, Unicode consortium and the browser development community which were still considering the issue.
ICANN had agreed upon the constitution of a task force for the revision of ICANN IDN guidelines with representatives of gTLD and ccTLD registries early in September and Cary Karp suggested that the motion to encourage staff to establish a working group was unnecessary it the current form.

Proposed motion:
The GNSO requests the ICANN staff to establish a working group to revise the IDN Guidelines (version 1.0, 20 June 2003) http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-20jun03.htm . The working group should comprise representatives from gtld registries, cctld registries, application developers (e.g WWW browsers, email clients), and other interested members of the ICANN community

Marilyn Cade enquired how the user side of the Internet, such as the business community would be able to participate and comment along the way if not involved at the beginning of the process?
Cary Karp stated that a review of the task force document was foreseen and all contributions would be incorporated in the document put forward for decision. The terms of the IDN Guidelines stated specifically that it was the IDN registries with ICANN staff that was responsible for the maintenance of the document and consistent with that the task force had been constituted.

Bret Fausett commented that the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) had discussed the particular resolution proposed revising the motion to suggest that the working group comprise representatives from the gTLD and ccTLD registries, application developers and persons appointed by the At Large Advisory Committee.

Bret Fausett
agreed with Marilyn Cade and added that concerning the technical issues, for transparency purposes, there should be end-users participation and a regular reporting back to the At Large Group.
Cary Karp drew attention to the comment forum opened in February 2004 where interested parties could submit comments.
Marilyn Cade commented that business users often watched and were interested in on going work and choose a productive time to make useful contributions. They typically counted on advanced technical discussions to make their intervention as business and individual users had to bear the consequences of technical decisions. A friendly amendment was being offered to keep users informed of the technical work.

Bruce Tonkin proposed redrafting the original motion requesting that ICANN invites participants from the GNSO, the At large Advisory Committee and the broader community to participate in the task force.

Item 7: Support for new gtlds in Internet applications

Ken Stubbs seconded by Avri Doria proposed voting on the motion before Council:
The GNSO requests that the ICANN staff create an information area on the ICANN website for developers of software applications that directly use domain names and IP addresses (e.g DNS resolvers etc). This area would contain contributions from the ICANN community on how best to support new TLDs, and IDNs in applications. Press releases for new TLDs should contain a direct link to this information area.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 4: The GNSO requests that the ICANN staff create an information area on the ICANN website for developers of software applications that directly use domain names and IP addresses (e.g DNS resolvers etc). This area would contain contributions from the ICANN community on how best to support new TLDs, and IDNs in applications. Press releases for new TLDs should contain a direct link to this information area.

Item 8: Review compliance of registrars with current WHOIS accuracy requirements

Marilyn Cade, seconded by Ross Rader and Ken Stubbs proposed Motion:
The GNSO agrees to create a working group, with a representative group of volunteers, Councillors or non councillors, to work with the ICANN staff to review the effectiveness and compliance of the current contractual requirements with respect to WHOIS accuracy. The group will take as input
(1) the WDPRS report released on March 31st 2004,
(2) the WDRP report released on November 20th 2004, and
(3) the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.
The working group will be chaired by Niklas Lagergren.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 5: The GNSO agrees to create a working group, with a representative group of volunteers, Councillors or non councillors, to work with the ICANN staff to review the effectiveness and compliance of the current contractual requirements with respect to WHOIS accuracy. The group will take as input
(1) the WDPRS report released on March 31st 2004,
(2) the WDRP report released on November 20th 2004, and
(3) the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.
The working group will be chaired by Niklas Lagergren.


Item 9: Next steps on new gtlds
- review of updated paper from Olof Nordling
- recommend next steps

Bruce Tonkin commented that after reviewing the updated paper from Olof Nordling, in his analysis there were 2 main threads:
The first thread was
- the Names Council/GNSO supported introducing new TLDs, the ICANN Board authorised a proof-of-concept round and there was the evaluation of the first phase of the proof-of-concept.
A report from Miriam Sapiro was presented in the public forum and neither the council nor the board have said yes based on that report that there should be new TLDs. The first concept round should be brought to closure.

The second thread assumed that new TLDS would be created and the GNSO should focus first on developing an objective criteria for new applications. In parallel the council should work with the staff to look at the question of how many new TLDs (and whether to introduce them in phases). If the outcome was that only a limited number of new TLDs can be introduced at a time - then we need to consider how they will be allocated (e.g ballot, auction, first-come first served).
With recent discussions on triple x, would there be a need for restrictions on what type of tlds?

Bruce Tonkin
suggested a separate Council call to discuss next steps on new gTLDs and develop a GNSO plan to present to the ICANN Board for endorsement.

Item 10: Issues report on single letter second level and top level gtld domain names
- http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01220.html


Marilyn Cade
informed Council that she had contacted the ICANN staff at the request of an interested party, so declaring that she had an interest in the eventual determination of the policy.
Marilyn Cade further requested an issues report from staff addressing how to make single letter domain names at the second level, that were currently on reserve status, available for registration in the generic TLD space.

Ross Rader
commented that there should first be discussion of whether or not the issue warranted the Council's attention.
Avri Doria commented that it fell within the discussions on gTLDs in general.
Marilyn Cade clarified that the gTLD policy being considered was about the organisation of top level domains, while the request was specific to the release of reserving second levels and while it has been suggested that the issue should be further discussed, ICANN had received a number of requests from interested parties and requested a response from ICANN staff.
Kurt Pritz stated that ICANN had been approached by more than one firm requesting the exploration of single letter domains.
Bruce Tonkin expressed concern that the terminology, "issues report" was part of the formal policy development process, and instead proposed a request to staff for a status report on single letter second level and top level gtld domain names in Item 2 for the next meeting.
John Jeffrey noted that ICANN had received a number of requests, between 3 and 5 in the last year and that they had been referred to the GNSO as the appropriate place to discuss the issue as a policy.

Item 11 AOB

a. Future meeting planning
Bruce Tonkin
proposed planning further meetings on particular topics:
- 2 meetings on the Terms of Reference for the GNSO Review
- Focused meeting on new TLD topic

b. ICANN Strategic Plan

Olof Nordling proposed that the Strategic Planning email from Dr Twomey be dealt with by email

Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.
The meeting ended: 16: 28 CET.

  • Next GNSO Council Teleconference Thursday 1 September 2005 at 12:00 UTC.
    see: Calendar