12 April 2006Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: 21 Council Members ICANN Staff GNSO Council Liaisons Quorum present at 14:07 UTC. To access Net Replays, all parties may join at: To access Self Service Reports, please go to: Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Approval of agenda Item 3: Briefing by General Counsel's office on implications of Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property: This convention dates back to 1883 and was last amended in 1979. Note that the States that are signatories of this convention are: Bruce Tonkin reported that Dr. Paul Twomey had suggested that a small group of representatives from the General Counsel's office, WIPO and the Intellectual Property (IP) constituency review the implications of article 6 and bring forward a suggestion to the GNSO Council on how to proceed with the issue. As background see the correspondence from Francis Gurry to Vint Cerf: Marilyn Cade suggested a two part approach: 1. Was there sufficient basis under international law for the protection of IGO names? Philip Sheppard commented that as part of the President's working group on WIPO he would strongly advise against a group of council members who are not experts to look at the Paris Convention and make conclusions. The President's working group concluded that the Paris convention does provide a hook in international law but would need a separate dispute resolution process from the existing UDRP. It was generally agreed that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency schedule a separate conference call with representatives from the General Counsel's office and WIPO, reach agreement on the implication of the Paris Treaty on the protection of IGOs and propose an approach to a dispute resolutions process with certain key elements, such as the current number of organisations affected, then make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required. At that point the GNSO Council would vote on whether or not to initiate such a process. ACTION ITEM Item 2: WHOIS statement of purposeFormulation 1: Formulation 2: Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Tom Keller proposed a motion to use the first formulation for discussion as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) BEGIN "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) (see: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html ) A straw pole vote taken during the GNSO Council meeting in Wellington on 29 March 2006 on the 2 formulations proposed in the Final task force report on the purpose of WHOIS and WHOIS contacts, indicated that Formulation 1 received the most support. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Alistair Dixon, proposed an amendment to the substantive motion. Compromise definition on WHOIS purpose Note: This definition is explicitly silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data publication. It also removes the overly wide “or other uses” phrase in a previous definition. The amendment addressed the topic from a different direction, looking at the purpose of collecting WHOIS data, and stimulated discussion on the council mailing list which was worth considering. The background to the compromise was stated as follows: Various council members expressed that they were against the amendment because: Concern was expressed about moving to a vote without a response from the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), which had indicated that they wanted to provide input during the joint GNSO Council/ GAC meeting in Wellington and in the GAC communiqué . It was brought to Council's attention that notification of the intended vote on the policy matters arising from the meeting in Wellington was recorded in the public archives, when the agenda for the Council meeting in Wellington was published. see: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02252.html [NOTE: The Task Force report was published for public comment in January 2006, and the final report was presented to the Council on 18 March 2006. As per the PDP process, the Council would normally vote on the report 10 days later] Suzanne Sene, the GAC representative, recalled that the Wellington meeting was the first opportunity the GAC had had to discuss the final WHOIS task force report that contained the 2 formulations. A considerable time was needed for the GAC to respond and Suzanne reminded the council that in 2004 the Whois task force 2 attempted to survey the GAC, but the GAC had to inform the Whois task force that the timetables were not workable and the GAC was not able to respond in time. There is work in progress to establish a GAC principles concept paper that would be shared with the Council to inform their work. While the GAC understood that there was a timing issue, it should be noted that the GAC was not aware that the vote on the 2 formulations would be so soon after the Wellington meeting and had the GAC realised this, the discussion in Wellington would have been different. Bruce Tonkin commented procedurally on the process of the WHOIS task force: Ken Stubbs called the question to vote on the amendment proposed by Philip Sheppard and seconded by Alistair Dixon. The purpose for which the data that populates the gTLD Whois service is collected and processed is to provide information sufficient to be able: A roll call vote was taken. 9 votes in favour (Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Alistair Dixon (CBUC) Avri Doria and Ken Stubbs called the question to proceed on the original motion proposed by Bruce Tonkin and seconded by Tom Keller. A roll call vote was taken. 18 votes in favour: Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein (NCUC), Cary Tony Holmes asked that the in the light of the GAC comments, that the GNSO Council chair's remarks be recorded and the Council vote conveyed to the GAC with the message that the vote would be used as a basis for the WHOIS task force moving ahead with its work. Bruce Tonkin recommended that the input from the outstanding request with the GAC to identify the public policy issues surrounding WHOIS be used to guide the further work of the WHOIS task force. Topics that required attention were ongoing interactions with the GAC and more timely input from the GAC. Suzanne Sene requested that there should be a particular agreed approach of procedure between the GAC and the GNSO. Further it would be informative for the GAC to know that the GNSO Council had voted on the formulations but the GAC would need additional clarification and information on how it would guide subsequent task force work in setting parameters for the next steps. Bruce Tonkin commented that the outcome of the terms of reference 2 or 3 could not be prejudged and the work in progress would indicate how the definition would be used. Bruce Tonkin emphasised that the WHOIS task force Terms of Reference do not affect data being collected, only the public display of data via the WHOIS service. Bruce Tonkin encouraged council members to document their reasons for the way they voted on the council mailing list. Decision 1: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on terms of reference (2), (3), and (4) (see: http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html ) Item 4: Process to fill vacancy of ICANN Board seat 14 In accordance with section 12, Article VI: And Article X, Section 3, paragraph 6: Bruce Tonkin commented that the vacancy of ICANN Board seat 14 had not been anticipated, thus the nomination period may need to be longer to give council members sufficient time to consult with their constituencies. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Ross Rader proposed a procedural motion that: "The GNSO Council proposes opening nominations for candidates for ICANN Board seat #14 for a period of 28 days from Sunday 16 April to Saturday 13 May 2006." Bruce Tonkin proposed that the Council schedule a teleconference after the nominations closed to interview the candidates. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Avri Doria proposed an amendment to the procedural motion that: "The GNSO Council proposes opening nominations for candidates for ICANN Board seat #14 for a period of 21 days from Sunday 16 April to Saturday 6 May 2006." A roll call vote was taken Decision 3: Bruce Tonkin seconded by Ross Rader proposed a vote of thanks to Michael Palage, outgoing ICANN Board member. The GNSO Council thanked Michael Palage for his time on the ICANN Board and his willingness to communicate and work close to the GNSO Council during that period. Unanimously acclaimed by voice vote. Decision 3: Item 4: Any other business 4.1. Updated GNSO operational plan 4.2. Policy development face to face meetings 4.3. WHOIS task force 4.4. Marilyn Cade reminded Council that General Counsel's advice was still needed with respect to the decision made during the GNSO Council meeting of 18 August 2005, ie 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. [Note a formal request has not yet been made to the General Counsel's office as a well formulated description of the concern has yet to be provided by members of the Council] Bruce Tonkin asked councillors for feed back on the Verizon NET Conferencing used during the teleconference and for feedback on the transcript. Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members for their participation. The meeting ended at 15:36 CET Next GNSO Council teleconference 18 May 2006 at 12:00 UTC |