GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
6 May 2004

06 May 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
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to 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 - absent - apologies
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies, proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Lucy Nichols
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - ( joined after roll call)
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.- absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk Woo
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk Woo
Alick Wilson - absent
Demi Getschko - absent
Amadeu Abril I Abril

11 Council Members

Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager

Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison

The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.

Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies
Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2 - absent
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair


Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 Recording
Quorum present at 12:10 UTC,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Item 1: Approval of Agenda

Agenda approved

Item 2: Summary of the April 1, 2004 minutes
Deferred until GNSO Council teleconference, June 10, 2004.

Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Brian Darville
- status of constituency statements
- next steps
- possible recommendations

Jeff Neuman, task force 1 chair's apologies for being absent were noted and a report was provided in which an extension in time was requested for the preliminary report.
Tom Keller, in Jordyn Buchanan's, absence reported that the Whois task force 2 was making good progress but that at least another week was needed to complete the preliminary report.
Brian Darville, task force 3 chair supported an extension and a deadline where all 3 task forces would produce reports at the same time. A substantive section of the report deals with recommendations addressing best practices and further work required on the issue.

Bruce Tonkin had consulted with John Jeffrey and reported that if final recommendations were to be made before the ICANN meetings in Kuala Lumpur, the report would have to be submitted to the ICANN Board 45 days before the Board meeting.
He proposed extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to the end of May , followed by the prescribed public comment period so that in early July the reports could be updated in response to the public comments and presented to the GNSO Council for consideration at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed:
That the Whois task forces' timing for producing their first reports be extended to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting be scheduled for 2 weeks time.

The motion carried unanimously

Decision 1: The deadline for the submission of preliminary reports for the three Whois task forces be extended to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting take place before the deadline.

Item 3: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes
Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin)

Bruce Tonkin
gave a high level summary of questions he had discussed with John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel.

1. The approval process:

In the approval process did the ICANN Board need to approve a change or could the ICANN staff approve the change directly?
The key question for ICANN staff would be "is the contractual change a material change?" A material change would require ICANN Board approval.
In most of the instances involving a Quick Look Process or Detailed Review Process, where competition or technical advice is required, a contractual change is likely to require the ICANN Board's approval. The staff would be able to give approval to a proposal which was consistent with a clear existing ICANN policy or consistent with a previous Board decision.

What sort of notice did the ICANN Board require to make a decision?

Notice of a motion would be put out 45 days prior to the Board meeting, with 30 Days for public comment. The public comment would be summarized and included with the Board motion and presented to the Board members at least two weeks before the Board meeting.


2. The criteria for evaluation:

It was Counsel's opinion that all the criteria could be framed under the headings:
a. Technical - would the change affect the stability, interoperability or security of the Internet
b. Competition - would the change have an impact on competition in the general sense.
The criteria discussed by the Council in Rome could all be included as guidelines of issues for ICANN staff to consider when reviewing technical or competition aspects of the proposed change.

3. Appeals process

Counsel felt that the reconsideration process in the existing bylaws would apply.
There were already several processes in place, such as the dispute resolution provisions in the registry agreements, the reconsideration process in the ICANN bylaws, and the court of law under which the jurisdiction for the contracts fell and other mechanisms. Adding yet another appeal process would not add much value.

Bruce Tonkin proposed updating the diagrams of 5 May, 2004, to explicitly include the ICANN Board approval step as well as the timing factor and inviting General Counsel to participate in a GNSO Council committee teleconference on the Policy Development Process for the approval process for gTLD registry changes.

Item 5: Re-assignment of .net
Receive an update from the .net Council subcommittee

Philip Sheppard,
.net Council subcommittee chair, reported that there had been a few teleconferences and mailing list exchanges in which all
the subcommittee members had participated,
Commercial and Business Users Constituency: Philip Sheppard
Noncommercial Users Constituency: Marc Schneiders
Registrars Constituency: Ross Rader
gTLD Registries Constituency: Cary Karp
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: Lucy Nichols
The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency: Tony Holmes
ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council: Thomas Roessler

The first draft report listed the criteria to be considered under 6 headings:

1. Criteria related to the targeting of the domain
Dot net should remain un-sponsored.
Dot net should remain un-chartered.

2. Criteria relating to stability: technical and financial competence
The current .net registry agreement; efficiency and reliability, a baseline for the functional capabilities and performance specifications to handle potential migration issues, name service resolution time should not exceed the current time for existing .net name service resolution and the minimum financial stability should be required.

3. Criteria related to promotion of competition
Maximization of consumer choice, pricing, innovation and new services should be considered.

4. Criteria related to existing registry services such as the pending Verisign wait list service, the redemption grace period and the migration of the test-bed internationalised domain names. Applicants should be asked "Does the applicant wish to maintain all existing registry services?" If yes, please provide specifics and demonstrate the technical and legal ability of the registry to maintain existing services. If no, please expand on any issues relating to the withdrawal of such services.

5.Continuity
Grand fathering where existing registrants should not be penalised by changes in policy as a result of this process and should be entitled to maintain their registrations on terms materially consistent with their existing contracts under current policy, including the right to transfer a .net domain to another party.

6. Policy compliance
Consensus policies of ICANN, both existing (UDRP, WHOIS, Deletes, Transfers etc), and any which are developed via the ICANN process in the future should be complied with by the registry operator. Policy development Policy development for .net should continue to take place in an open bottom-up process and all registrars that have qualified to operate as .net registrars, must be treated equitably by the registry operator.

Bruce Tonkin
cautioned that transparency was important and Cary Karp and Ken Stubbs suggested adding a disclaimer:
"DRAFT report from the .net sub-committee in preparation for submission to the GNSO Council" on each page of the draft report .
For the next meeting, Bruce Tonkin requested an audio record.
The aim is to present the Final .net report to the GNSO Council at the June 6, 2004 teleconference.

Item 6: Any Other Business

1. Update on ICANN staff support for the GNSO Council

Bruce Tonkin reported on his conversation with Paul Verhoef on staff support who indicated that further GNSO staff support is under active consideration. The Brucenoted that with the current level of staff support, the amount of policy development work underway, and the necessary reliance on voluntary participation by members of the ICANN community, it will be difficult to meet the ICANN bylaws' timelines and this should be made clear to the ICANN Board and the community. The Council once more underlined the importance of the GNSO policy development processes and the need for adequate staffing.

Bruce Tonkin proposed giving immediate feedback to Paul Verhoef that the GNSO Council felt that they could not wait till August for further GNSO staff support, and called for a small group of volunteers to seek a solution with senior ICANN staff.

NOTE: after the meeting, ICANN management informed that additional staff resources for the GNSO are under consideration, that the recruitment processes - including job descriptions - are being drawn up, and that it is hoped that the appropriate resources will be put in place as soon as the budget approvals allow.

Marilyn Cade mentioned that a WSIS update was being planned for Kuala Lumpur in a timeframe allowing everyone, including the GAC to attend.

Bruce Tonkin reported discussions with a ccTLD representative about joint meetings in Kuala Lumpur to discuss internationalised domain names and Tuesday morning of the GNSO Council meeting was proposed as an initial schedule.

Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.
The meeting ended: 12:54 UTC

  • Next GNSO Council teleconference on June 10, 2004, at 12:00 UTC
    see: Calendar