GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
21 December 2005

21 December 2005

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
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth (if necessary)
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - Cary Karp
June Seo - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - proxy to Lucy Nichols (if necessary)
Robin Gross - NCUC.
Norbert Klein - NCUC.- absent - apologies - proxy to Mawaki Chango
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

17 Council Members

ICANN Staff
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat


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

Michael Palage - ICANN Board member
Quorum present at 19 : 07 UTC.

MP3 recording

Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference.

Approval of agenda

Bruce Tonkin welcomed the new councillors, Sophia Bekele Nominating Committee Appointee, Mawaki Chango - NCUC representative and June Seo - gTLD registries representative.

Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard.

Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006
- nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005
- election to be held during the meeting

Philip Sheppard stated that Bruce Tonkin, the only nominee at close of nominations on Friday 16 December 2005, accepted his nomination by Lucy Nichols, seconded Ken Stubbs, to be the GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006.

Philip Sheppard proposed a roll call vote of affirmation to elect Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006.

The motion carried. Unanimous vote of acclamation

25 votes in favour, one abstention Bruce Tonkin (2 votes) Ross Rader's vote and proxy held for Maureen Cubberley were votes recorded on line due to telephonic connectivity issues.

Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair for the period 4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006.

Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin.

Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process
- public comment period opened on 6 December 2005

Bruce Tonkin stated that each constituency needed to identify a person to collect input to the policy development process on new gTLDs and notify the GNSO Secretariat accordingly.
In addition Council members should reflect on proactive means of obtaining input from members of the communities not directly involved in the GNSO and input from the Council.
It was important to gather input on the terms of reference to open questions and then seek the commonalities.

Marilyn Cade referred to her proposal on the Council mailing list setting out a process, previously used in task forces and public meetings, where a request was posted for interested individuals, organizations, (could be a constituency) to submit an outline, sign up for a specific time to address their responses to a particular set of questions, take clarifying questions, and have the material transcribed and posted on the website. This allowed for input from people with expertise in particular areas in contrast to the input from the public comment process. The proposal further suggested 2 such events before the end of January 2006 and an extension of the current public comment period to the end of January 2006.

<Finally, I offer the following proposal for fellow Councilors to consider regarding the gTLDS policy process: The Council should invite all constituencies to prepare their statements for contribution, BUT in
ADDITION, and in parallel, other mechanism should be used to inform the policy development process. I describe a recommendation below that I've previously mentioned in less detail.

1) Given that we are losing about two weeks due to holiday, I propose that Council formally announce an extension in the initial comment process to extend it to the end of January. This would give more time to the
Constituency statements, and also allow the following process to take place for more input into the policy development process.
2) I propose that Council direct the staff director, Olof Nordling, to manage a process on behalf of Council that would be structured consultation and input into the process. All of our constituencies and the broader community could undoubtedly benefit from the opportunity to hear from experts, rather than just gather opinions or make statements.

Thus, I would suggest that the following guidelines be followed [or some modified version developed]

3) The Council should host two phone conferences with the following structure/format.

a) Organizations, individuals, and interested parties should be invited to make presentations related to the questions that are contained in the ToR, and provide any other statements that they consider relevant.
20 minute slots would be reserved for anyone who submits a "white paper/PowerPoint" to the Staff Director.
NOTE: This would NOT be a place for the Constituency Statements, since those will come into the process anyway, but offers a way to get unique contributions. For instance, outreach to the SSAC, to OECD, etc. might be useful to suggest that they may want to make a "presentation".
b) the calls should be transcribed via a conference call transcription service and the transcripts would be posted
c) all white papers or PowerPoint presentations would be made available and posted
d) Do others think that there should also be 3 - 4 three minute slots at the end of each of the conference calls for "open mike" statements from those who don't bother to submit a white paper/PowerPoint?

I would suggest that the presentations be limited to 15 minutes and a 5 minute clarification q and a be allowed.

Given the time between here and Wellington, I would suggest that two calls be held, broken into two segments of 2 hours each.

It is important to remember the constituencies and the ALAC will have their own consultation process to undertake as well, and thus, if we can do these calls in the early part of January, that would be most helpful.

Again, I am proposing that we also recognize that the PDP time frames do not work, especially taking into account the holiday period and we formally extend the time frame now for the preparation of the initial submission of information to the Staff Manager.

I also think that Council needs to be very realistic about the need to take extensive input; we may find that we need to have more than one round of input and discussion of the inputs to the questions, for instance.

Finally, we need to discuss how best to establish a mechanism to have consultation with the other SOs, and with the GAC and SSAC. As I recall, that is part of our responsibility. We may want to schedule discussion sessions of 1-2 hours in Wellington, for instance. >

There was general agreement among the Councillors for a call for papers with clearly formulated expectations, moderated conference calls with a web based forum, allowing people to identify, if they wished, to address their responses, an acknowledgement that all requests for presentation may not be possible to accommodate, but that all material would be posted on the website for the public, read by the Councillors and summarised by the staff who would produce a Staff Manager's report. The Council as whole would undertake the work and would benefit from all the input during the proposed face to face March meeting in Wellington.

Ross Rader proposed that agreement on details should be referred to the planning committee.

Proposed time line:
31 January 2006
- extension for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs
- constituency statements due and conference call
1st week February
- conference call

The Initial report should be considered as an evolving draft until Wellington.

Suzanne Sene remarked that it would be difficult to produce a document by a government organization even by the end of January 2006.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard proposed a procedural motion:
Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process.
Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 2:
Council agrees to extend the time for public comments on the Terms of Reference for new gTLDs until 31 January 2006 in order to receive substantive papers addressing the terms of reference on the policy development process.
Council will also formally issue a "Call for Papers" and the potential presentation of the papers as soon as a text for that call for papers has been developed in the days following.

Bruce Tonkin noted that each constituency should be thinking about what process the constituency should use to inform the constituency statements such as, teleconferences and different ways within the constituencies to get broad coverage. The constituencies were encouraged to try methods that they have not used in the past to make sure the statements were as broad and representative of all views as possible and focused on substantive and reasoned comments on the issue areas in the Terms of Reference on new gTLDs.

.Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard proposed a procedural motion:
The due date for constituency statements be extended until 31 January 2006.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 3: The due date for constituency statements be extended until 31 January 2006.

Action Item: Each constituency needs to identify a person to collect input to the policy development process on new gTLDs and notify the GNSO Secretariat accordingly.

Item 4: Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) issues report

Olof Nordling stated that Maria Farrell was the person identified to focus on developing the IDN Issues Report.

Tina Dam reported that the version 2.0 of the IDN Guidelines approved in November 2005, were discussed in Vancouver and the working group would reconvene to consider the Vancouver input and whether there should be further revisions to the IDN Guidelines. In parallel, the Best Current Practice track for the IDN Guidelines would move forward and there would be opportunity for public input. The working group and the President's Advisory Committee would provide feedback and updates to the ICANN Board.
The community had made enquiries about the functionality of the IANA registry. Based on the previous IDN committee consultations, a briefing paper had been developed for the President's Advisory Committee where positive changes had been recommended.
Initial discussions have taken place amongst technical experts regarding IDNs at the top level and the relation to the Issues Report requested by the GNSO council in Vancouver. The plan is to move forward the experiment on IDNs at the top level, but a framework is needed around how it would happen and what issues should be solved.
The experiment could possibly show whether d name or a records in the root, or neither would be a good technical solution. The evaluation of the report was as important as the initial framework and the result would feed back into the ccNSO, GNSO and the GAC policy processes. There was no current timeline for the Issues Report as it was to some extent dependent on the experiment. In the mean time, while waiting for the technical results, Tina suggested identifying initial issues and start work on process.

Cary Karp commented that currently, before the policy development process started the suitability of candidate technologies for that purpose were being tested and referred to the recent Internet Architectural Board (IAB) report "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names".

Bruce Tonkin, supported by most of the councillors, proposed that staff should be encouraged to start identifying and documenting policy questions and issues related to IDNs.

Bruce Tonkin proposed further discussion on IDNs as an agenda item on the next council call, 17 January 2006, and suggested inviting the authors, John Klensin and Patrick Falstrom, of the "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names" to participate in the discussion.

Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting

The Secretariat read out the email from Diane Schroeder with the broad outline of the meeting schedule for Wellington New Zealand.

31 March, Friday Board Meeting
30 March, Thursday Public Forum (am)
29 March, Wednesday GNSO & CCNSO Council meetings & Public Forum (pm)
28 March, Tuesday Workshops, GAC, GNSO Public Forum - potential Board/GNSO Council dinner
27 March, Monday Constituency Day, CCNSO & GAC
26 March, Sunday GAC, GNSO Council Prep
25 March, Saturday GAC, GNSO Council Prep

Item 6 Any other business

a. Follow up on .com settlement GNSO resolution

Bruce Tonkin commented that as GNSO Council chair he would formally send the resolution of 2 December 2005 to Dr. Vint Cerf, ICANN Board chair.

Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.

The meeting ended: 20:40 UTC.

  • Next GNSO Council teleconference 17 January 2006 at 19:00 UTC
    see: Calendar