12 July 2005. Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 13 Council Members Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Avri Doria - Observer as Nominating Committee proposed appointee Michael Palage - ICANN Board Real Time Captioning Bruce Tonkin chaired the meeting. Item 1: Approval of agenda Item 2: Approve the minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 23 June 2005. The motion was carried. Decision 1: Minutes of the GNSO Council Teleconference held on 23 June 2005 were adopted. Item 3: Staff report John Jeffrey responded that with regard to the new registry services funnel with the consensus policy restriction, the negotiations were intended to give certainty to what the funnel would look like as of the time of negotiation and ICANN believed, as they were in litigation with that party, that it was essential to entering into a fair agreement that the provision was locked down and able to reflect a non moving position, that reflected the policy development to that point , but also provided a specific dispute resolution mechanism for the very issue that was the dispute. Item 4: Consideration of revised consensus recommendation with respect Bruce Tonkin proposed updating the recommendation based on recent input and requested the ICANN legal team to review the recommendation in its current draft form and add appropriate legal language which could be included in the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Item 5: Consideration of Final report on the process for use by ICANN in Bruce Tonkin commented that there were specific questions raised by the registrars concerning the changes that could happen in a registry agreement that could impact the competition in the registrar industry, namely, had ICANN spoken to any of the potential regulators and did ICANN have a degree of confidence that they would be able to respond in a timely manner to a concern raised by members of the registrar industry? Bruce Tonkin summarised: - The process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry was at the final report stage. Item 6: Approval of voting rules for combined WHOIS task force When a task force provides a final report to the council there is a formal requirement that it includes information on voting and there was a general level of agreement that the voting methodology be prefaced and a distinction made between procedural and policy related issues where in the former the people present vote and in the latter a more formal procedure is undertaken to collect all the votes. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed a procedural motion: The voting rules of the Whois task force will consist of three votes per constituency to be voted as each constituency wishes. The motion carried unanimously by show of hands. Decision 2: The voting rules of the Whois task force will consist of three votes per constituency to be voted as each constituency wishes. Item 7: new gtlds Bruce Tonkin commenting on "New TLD questions" the ICANN staff published said the proposed next step forward should be a meeting between the GNSO and ccNSO Councils and the ICANN Board to collaborate in the joint management of the policy area. In clarifying whether TLDS, gTLDs or ccTLDs were the issue, Ross Rader referred to prior Names Council statement, 4 April 2000 mentioned at an ICANN Board meeting on 16 July 2000 which specified new gTLDS. ACTION - The ICANN staff collect the historical information needed to inform Council as to current ICANN policy regarding the matter of new TLDs. Item 8: Discussion of ICANN operational/budget plan Bruce Tonkin commented that parts of the operating plan that related to policy, including what additional resources were going to be applied to policy were discussed at the GNSO Council administrative meeting held on Sunday 10 July 2005. Note: The following discussion was with respect to providing guidance to the chair of the GNSO Council in providing feedback to the ICANN Board on the views that were widely shared within the meetings of the GNSO community earlier in the week. The motions thus did not have the benefit of discussion within the constituencies, prior to the meeting of the GNSO Council The GNSO Council does not currently believe that there is a consensus of the ICANN community in the support of the strategic plan. The Council encourages the development of a consensus-based strategic plan. The motion carried with 3 abstentions. The abstentions were from the GNSO Council members that felt they could not vote without first consulting with their constituencies. Guidance to the Chair for presentation to the ICANN Board: The GNSO Council does not currently believe that there is a consensus of the ICANN community in the support of the strategic plan. The Council encourages the development of a consensus-based strategic plan. Item 9: Any other business 1. Appointment of the Vice President for policy development support 2. Motion on dot NET agreement The GNSO Council expresses its concern to the Board that the final .net agreement was not posted for public comment prior to approval, given the significant changes made to the agreement from the previously posted draft. The motion carried with 16 in favour and 9 abstentions. The abstentions were from the GNSO Council members that felt they could not vote without first consulting with their constituencies. Guidance to the Chair for presentation to the ICANN Board: The GNSO Council expresses its concern to the Board that the final .net agreement was not posted for public comment prior to approval, given the significant changes made to the agreement from the previously posted draft. Cary Karp, supported by Ken Stubbs and Lucy Nichols expressed concern about the fact that he represented a constituency, was bound to vote in accordance with the constituency's wishes and there had been no time for consultation with the constituency on the motion before it was put to the vote. Bruce Tonkin clarified that the vote did not concern a binding policy but served rather as guidance in making a report for the Public Forum on the activities of the GNSO. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending, those councillors on the phone and the audience for their participation. The meeting ended: 18 :55 ( local time CET)
|