Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated:
Date
4 September 2008

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:

Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C

Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.

Zahid Jamil - Commercial & Business Users C.

Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent, apologies

Antonio Harris - ISCPC

Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies

Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies

Tim Ruiz - Registrars

Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent

Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries

Edmon Chung - gTLD registries - absent

Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries

Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C

Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C

Cyril Chua - Intellectual Property Interests

Robin Gross - NCUC

Norbert Klein - NCUC

Carlos Souza - NCUC - absent, apologies

Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee

Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee

Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

15 Council Members

(18 Votes - quorum)



ICANN Staff



Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development

Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director

Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer

Olof Nordling - Director Services Relations

Marika Konings - Policy Director

Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison

Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager

Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President Services - absent, apologies



GNSO Council Liaisons

Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent

Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison

Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent

Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies



Guest:

Tricia Drakes - ALAC Review

MP3 Recording

Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes chaired the meeting.

Avri Doria welcomed Zahid Jamil, the new CBUC representative.



Roll Call.



Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Zahid Jamil's statements of interest was noted .

Item 2: Review/amend the agenda

Item 4
added

-- DoC letter and

-- AGP status reports

Any Other Business
added:

-- Trans-silo meeting and

-- Motion for issues report

Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008 .


Chuck Gomes, seconded by Tony Harris moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008.



Motion passed unanimously.

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008.


Item 4: Status Update

4.1 ICANN Board

Hold Issue of GNSO Restructuring for Item 9

Denise Michel
noted that the ICANN Board meeting on 28 August 2008 was dominated by the GNSO Council restructuring and highlighted the other issues addressed such as the redelegation of .MS, the approval of the Ombudsman budget, the Nominating Committee’s recommendation for ICANN Bylaws change regarding the criteria for Board Member Selection and the election of Trisha Drakes as the 2009 Nominating Committee Chair.



4.2 Fast Flux PDP WG

Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the group, though slightly off track, hoped to have a final report for the Council to review at least two weeks before the Cairo meeting. Some questions in the charter have been challenging to answer and it is expected that the final report will have specific charter recommendations for another group to continue work.



4.3 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A PDP

Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the group met regularly, and was currently calling for constituency statements to be provided according to the template it developed. An initial report was expected for the Cairo meetings and the proposed time line would be circulated to the Council.

Chuck Gomes complimented the group on the template for constituency input and suggested that the idea could be carried forward in the Policy Development Process (PDP) revision.



4.4 New GTLDs

Denise Michel reported that in the fourth quarter of the calendar year ICANN was expecting to post for public comment, the draft Request for Proposals (RFP), the new gTLD budget, the economic study commissioned by ICANN as part of the consultations on new gTLDs in the Registry/Registrar model, and the use of auctions as a tie-breaking mechanism in the new gTLD process. ICANN Staff and SWORD held a workshop on algorithms designed as a tool for confusingly similar strings.

Clarification by Craig Schwartz indicated that in the current design, if there was a string scored highly as confusingly similar, the application would be denied and there was no provision for changing strings in that round. More information will be available when the draft RFP and the other documents are posted.

It was suggested that a status report be posted for the community as the quality of the line was poor.



4.5 Fast Track

Denise Michel
reported that there were a number of issues that the Board directed staff to work with the community to implement such as a request for information to obtain a concrete indication which countries are interested in using the fast track to submit applications for an IDN cc gTLD. Comments received from the GNSO and other bodies are being factored into the implementation work and are being considered by the Board. Staff will soon be posting an update on the process.



4.6 DoC Letter to ICANN

Denise Michel noted that a letter from the Department of Commerce was posted on the Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA) amendment public comment forum. The customary procedure is for Dr. Paul Twomey to acknowledge a letter from a Government representative, and the input will be summarized as part of the complete public comment input.



4.7 Add Grace Period (AGP)

Craig Schwartz reported that the AGP Limits Policy (domain tasting consensus policy) implementation plan continues and staff's commitment is to post the plan for public comment prior to the Cairo meeting.



A. ICANN registry and registrar staff reached out to their respective constituencies on 27 August with the following questions and requested responses by 10 September 2008. The purpose of the outreach was to better understand circumstances and requirements around exemption requests since under the Policy it is at the registry's sole discretion to approve a request.

1. What scenarios are adequate to determine extraordinary circumstances?

2. What is adequate to define recurring regularly?

3. Is the following phrase from the Policy sufficient guidance for you to respond to a request? “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.”

4. How might differences in how extraordinary circumstances are defined across registries be resolved?

5. What, if anything, might be missing from the following list of questions for registrars, seeking an exemption, for your registry to make a decision?

--a. Registrar Name and GURID (IANA ID or registrar ID) number

--b. Date of request

--c. Date names were deleted

--d. Number of domain names affected



B. NeuStar implementation of its AGP Modification Service (effectively the same as the approved consensus policy)

- Since NeuStar implemented its AGP modification service on 1 June 2008, the .BIZ registry has experienced two consecutive months of an approximate 97% decrease in the number of AGP deletes compared to their experience in May. NeuStar authorized the sharing of this information.

C. Afilias implementation of its AGP Modification Service (effectively the same as the approved consensus policy)

- Afilias has not yet implemented the policy and has not made a commitment about when it will do so.

D. AGP Budget Provision

- Due to the 90-day confidentiality period for registry operator monthly reports which contain AGP deletes information, ICANN cannot at this time provide statistics about the level of AGP deletes in July. However, the reports have been received and ICANN is analyzing the information. An update to the GNSO Council will be provided when the confidentiality period expires and this is expected to be in November 2008.

Avri Doria, noted that the Bylaws had been updated to include absentee voting. An email sent to the Council list explained that Issues Reports and policy decisions forwarded to the Board as well as any elections during meetings, as opposed to those using ballots, could now be voted on by absent councilors.The General Counsel has approved two possible implementation means.



1. A variance of the email voting procedure used for Board seat and Council chair elections which is a fairly heavyweight procedure with anonymity.

2 . a. After the meeting, the Secretariat will send out a message to the Council list that there is a motion qualifying for an absentee vote and invite councilors who were absent to request a ballot.

b. An individual ballot is sent to the 'absentee' that includes the message with a request to mark 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. Abstaining from a motion being submitted to the Board, will need an explanation as is the practice for those present at Council meetings.

c. The absentee ballot is sent to the Council list within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, the secretariat tabulates the votes and announces the results on the Council list. The Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote.

Avri Doria clarified that a request for a ballot was a directed ballot to a known email address and thus a validation that it was the specific person who voted.



The Council accepted the Chair's proposal for implementing the second method and following the process for the vote in Item 5.

Item 5: Discussion/Decision Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions

Olof Nordling recapitulated the background to the motion.

Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP)

Whereas:

On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;

and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008;

and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed;

and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP

Resolved:

1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads:

A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period

Be amended to read:

The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name.

2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).

Be amended to read:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads:

No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.

Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads:

A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

14 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, Jon Bing, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)

1 vote against: Ute Decker (one vote)

2 Abstentions: Kristina Rosette: (one vote) gave as reason that she had not had an opportunity to discuss fully with the IPC constituency

Cyril Chua (one vote) reason not recorded due to connectivity issue, dropped off line.

The motion passed.

The final voting result will be published when the absentee votes are registered. Norbert Klein will be included among the absentee votes due to connectivity issues.



Item 6: Discussion on Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Amendments

The agenda item arose because the particular response to the public comment forum on the RAA Amendments was sent to the Council mailing list.

Denise Michel reported that Kurt Pritz would like to provide a substantive update to the Council on the (RAA) Amendments at the next Council meeting.

Item 7: Whois Hypotheses Study Group

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-…

The motion on Whois Hypotheses was moved by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross with Mike Rodenbaugh's friendly amendment accepted.

Whereas:

On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )

Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted

Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ )

ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008

On 28 March 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a group of volunteers (Whois Study Group) to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council

There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted, on 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (Whois Hypotheses WG) to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits and to deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council.

The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26 August 2008

(https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whoi…).

Resolve:

The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG. Council representatives including liaisons are asked to:

1) forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable;

2) be prepared in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion; and

3) in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 to start development of a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance to justify having ICANN staff prepare cost estimates.

ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible.

Passed unanimously by voice vote



Item 8: Discussion on GNSO Response concerning Geographical Regions

ICANN Geographic Regions - GNSO Comments re. Geographic Regions Community-Wide WG

Olga Cavalli, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed:

Whereas:

In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions"

In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate"

In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions

The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008



Resolve:

The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the following members of the drafting team: Olga Cavalli (NomCom appointee & chair), Clint Crosby (IPC), Glen de Saint Gery (ICANN Staff), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Tony H arris (ISPCPC), Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Staff), Marika Konings (ICANN Staff), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tim Ruiz (RC), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), and Ken Stubbs (RyC)



Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.



Item 9: Discussion/Decision GNSO Restructuring and Plan

Denise Michel referred to the Board resolution and the key decisions taken at the ICANN Board meeting on 28 August 2008. The Board's consideration and discussion of the GNSO Working Group's proposal is ongoing and closure on the remaining issues is expected during the next scheduled Board meeting on 30 September 2008.There was a significant amount of discussion about the stakeholder groups and the appropriate number of Councilors that should be seated for each group.

There was an extensive discussion regarding the nominating committee appointees (NCA) in particular the third NCA, it's voting/non-voting status,

the voting thresholds proposed by the Working Group, the proposal for selecting Board Directors and a Council Chair, and existing constituencies renewing their certification during the transition period and the specific issues noted in the resolution.

Resolved. On balance the Working Group report addresses many challenges facing the community in a way that is consistent with the overarching goals of the GNSO improvements package and the BGC GNSO review Working Group that developed it.

Resolved. The Board endorses the direction of the Working Group report and supports the bicameral voting structure of the new Council. The Board supports the establishment of one house described as the contracted party house in the report and directs that this house initially will have three representatives from each stakeholder group, registrars and registries plus one voting Nominating Committee appointee.

The second house described in the report as the non-contracted party house will be composed of six representatives from each stakeholder group, commercial and non-commercial plus one voting Nominating Committee appointee.

Resolved. The Board accepts the Working Group proposal to seat one voting NCA representative in each of the two houses as noted. The Board also directs that a third independent nom-com appointee representative continue to serve on the Council.

Resolved. The Board directs the GNSO Council to work with ICANN staff on an implementation plan for Board approval that creates a transition to this new structure by the beginning of calendar year 2009.

The Board requests that existing constituencies confirm their status with the Board during the intervening time period and requires constituencies to formerly confirm their status every three years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article 10 Section 5 Subsection 3 of the ICANN bylaws.

This will be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principals of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness set forth in the ICANN bylaws. The Board also encourages new constituencies to submit requests for certification especially during this transition period.

Resolved. The Board appreciates the significant amount of work performed by the Working Group and extends its sincere appreciation to Working Group members and then it lists all of the Working Group members for their efforts in this matter.



Denise Michel, responding to questions, clarified that the Board has initially seated six representatives in the contracted party house, three from the registrars and three from the registries and 12 representatives, six from commercial and six from non-commercial, in the non-contracted party house plus one voting Nominating Committee appointee in each house and a third independent Nominating Committee appointee representative on the Council. The status of the third Nominating Committee Appointee representative is still being discussed by the Board.

The Consensus Group proposal, which was one Director per house was not addressed in the resolution and is still being discussed by the Board.

Philip Shepherd commented that the Consensus Working Group recommended that each house chose its representation in terms of the number of people based on certain brackets specified in the report and asked why this recommendation had been rejected.

Avri Doria queried whether the recommendation had proposed a range and left the decision to the Board and asked Rob Hoggarth, the author of the report, to clarify.



Rob Hoggarth confirmed the recommendation for representation to the contracted party house, "that the number of registry and registrar stakeholder representatives will be determined by the ICANN Board based on input from the stakeholder groups" and said that there was similar language for the composition of the non-contracted party house.

Denise Michel commented that the Board was mindful of the implementation challenges the Council numbers presented and wanted a smooth, quick transition, possibly coinciding with the natural election process of many constituencies at the end of the calendar year.

Kristina Rosette noted for the record that it was the view of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) that its support of the virtual consensus proposal was very heavily dependent on the Board seat allocation criteria and to the extent that it may have been represented to the board that the decision to not accept that recommendation at this point would be an acceptable exception; the IPC vigorously disputes that characterization.



Denise Michel noted that the Nominating Committee appointees and the selection of Board Directors are connected to other ongoing review and improvement efforts that may extend beyond the September Board meeting.

Chuck Gomes emphasised the importance of the threshold issue that was interrelated in the decisions of the Working Group's total package.

Denise Michel further clarified that the resolution referred to a 'focused implementation plan' that will address the Council's transition, restructuring and other elements contained in the Board Governance Committee set of GNSO improvements, rather than the Council's High Level Plan under discussion. Constituency compliance with the principals of representativeness, openness and transparency will also be addressed in the focused implementation plan mentioned above.



Avri Doria proposed deferring a motion

Action Items:

Avri Doria recommended scheduling a meeting of the GNSO Planning team for the week 8 - 12 September 2008

to examine the GNSO Improvements Plan in light of the Board resolution.

Avri Doria proposed contacting the Registrar Constituency Chair about registrar participation in the GNSO Planning team.



Tim Ruiz volunteered to be the registrar representative until the constituency had decided on a participant.

Item 10: Travel Policy

Confirm List of Cairo travelers and expenditure from DNSO/GNSO budget

Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Tony Harris


https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_sept_2008_motions

Tim Ruiz proposed an amendment to the motion "to approve the person designated as the number one party to fund for each constituency."

Avri Doria did not accept the amendment as friendly and called for a vote on the amendment.

The amendment was not seconded, so there was no vote.

Concern was expressed regarding: the insufficient time to discuss the issue, that need as a criteria was not clearly defined, and the conflict of interests of councilors who were being funded being allowed to vote on the motion.

The Registry constituency, did not support the motion as presented because the constituency believed that financial need should be demonstrated for anyone other than the constituency's first choice, but approved support for the Nominating Committee appointees and the Council chair.

However raising the ethical issues with the ICANN General Counsel was suggested, subsequent to taking a vote on the motion.

Avri Doria, seconded by Tony Harris proposed:

Whereas:

On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance, and That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway.

Resolved:

1. The names in the following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008:

Name Constituency/NCA - Reason - Class of travel

Bing, Jon - NCA - NCA - Economy

Cavalli, Olga - NCA - NCA - Economy

Doria, Avri - NCA - Council chair - Business

Gross, Robin - NCUC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy

Harris, Tony - ISPC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy
Hoover, Carolyn - RyC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy

Jamil,Zahid - BC Financial Need - Economy

Klein, Norbert - NCUC - Financial Need - Economy

Rossette, Kristina - IPC - Financial Need - Expenses Only

Rodenbaugh, Mike - BC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy

Sheppard, Philip - BC - Complies with ICANN policy - Economy

Walton, Clarke - RrC - Constituency 1st choice - Economy

2. The level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GNSO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and exceptions may be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive on time for meetings on 1 November 2008.

3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thursday of ICANN week as members of the NomCom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds. The GNSO Secretariat is authorized to cover those expenses from the old DNSO/GNSO budget.

The motion passed.

8 votes in favour:

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, Avri Doria (one vote each)

6 votes against:

Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)

1 Abstention: Jon Bing (one vote)

Avri Doria left the call and handed the Chair to the vice- chair, Chuck Gomes

Item 10: Discussion with Patrick Sharry about ALAC Review



Tricia Drakes, standing in for Patrick Sharry, explained that the reviewers were proactively gathering input on the ALAC Review, which public comment period closed on 12 September 2008, in order to have an initial report for the Cairo meeting, with the final report in Mexico.

Discussion on recommendation 12, page 71



"That the ALAC should explore ways to differentiate between organizations that genuinely represent individual Internet users and are therefore ALS candidates, as opposed to those which may be a better fit with the NCUC."

The ICANN bylaws are very explicit in that no one is prohibited from being part of a GNSO constituency because they belong to another constituency.

All constituencies should have the opportunity to engage in an Advisory group and as ICANN grows, there is more of this overlap with the same individuals being in different groups, thus the necessity to take a closer look at the structures.

The recommendation is pertinent but should be viewed in a different light given the acceptance of the bicameral proposal, which is predicated on the concept of a Non Commercial group that is going to be a radically reformed with the NCUC as a central starting point and some part of the At Large as yet unspecified.

However, the ALAC made it quite clear that it, as a body, was not looking for any indirect participation in the GNSO but wanted the opportunity for individual users to participate in the GNSO in their own capacity.

Councilors were encouraged to submit comments to the ALAC Review public comment forum.



Any Other Business was deferred to the next Council meeting on 25 September 2008.



Chuck Gomes requested the Secretariat to send out a list of action items based on the motions passed for the constituencies immediate notice.



Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.



The meeting ended at 14:33 UTC.

Next GNSO Council Teleconference will be on 25 September 2008 at 12:00 UTC.

see: Calendar