[council] GNSO Council draft minutes

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To:council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

Attached please find the draft minutes for the GNSO Council meeting held 
on 23 June 2005.
Please let me know what changes you would like made.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="23 June 2005"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference 
Minutes'"--><style type="text/css">
<!--
.style1 {font-size: 12pt}
.style2 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif}
.style3 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; }
-->
</style>
<p>&nbsp; </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">23 June  2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-02jun05.shtml";>agenda and 
related documents</a> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>List of attendees:</b><br>
  Philip Sheppard - Commercial &amp; Business Users C.<br>
  Marilyn Cade - Commercial &amp; Business Users C. <br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business Users C<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC   - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Greg 
Ruth <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars <br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars   <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries <br>
  Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries <br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD registries <br>
  Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent<br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.-  - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross 
Rader <br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy Robin 
Gross/Norbert Klein/Tom Keller/Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin <br>
 Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies  - proxy to Ross 
Rader <br>
  Alick Wilson   </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Nominating 
Committee appointee <br>
  Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee </font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">14 Council Members<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Dr. Paul Twomey - President and CEO
  <br>
  Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations<br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat <br>
  Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support - absent - 
apologies <br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination  - absent - 
apologies <br>
  <br>
  <b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><br>
 Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison<br>
 Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison <br>
 <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Michael Palage - ICANN Board 
member<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
  </font></p>
<p><a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050623.mp3%20";><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MP3 Recording </font></a></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 14:06 CET.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1:</b> Approval of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-23jun05.shtml";>Agenda </a><BR>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-23jun05.shtml";>Agenda 
</a>approved 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Approval of the </b><br>
  <b>Minutes of 2 June 2005 <br>
  Ken Stubbs </b> moved the adoption of the minutes of  2 June 2005. <br>
  Motion  approved. One abstention from Alick Wilson. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 1: The minutes of 2 June 2005 were adopted<br>
  <br>
  </b>Item 2: Staff Report<BR>
  - current areas of work - WHOIS, new gTLDs, transfers, IDNs<BR>
- update on strategic/operational planning process<BR>
- status on meeting agenda for Luxembourg<BR>
- update from Paul Twomey on WSIS/WGIG <BR>
<BR>
<strong>Update from Dr. Paul Twomey on WSIS/WGIG developments.</strong><br>
Dr. Paul Twomey  referred to the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/ICANN-WGIG-statement-14jun05.pdf";>presentation
 he made to the Working Group for Internet Governance  in Geneva on 14 June 
2005</a><b>. </b>ICANN staff, Board members, and  some GNSO council members 
have been actively participating in the WSIS process but it was the first  time 
ICANN had publicly commented on the working group process prior to its final 
deliberations. Detailed discussions were held with  Nitin Desai, chairman of 
the working group, and it was agreed to highlight the potential Government 
responsibilities  on the ICANN Board. <br>
The wording, the context and the future implications were given particular 
attention. <br>
The wording was carefully chosen &quot;It might be appropriate now to consider 
some change to the role of the governments on the ICANN Board especially in 
terms of  voting rights and it would seem appropriate for governments 
themselves to evaluate possible ways for further improvements of the 
GAC.&quot;<b><br>
</b>This statement was in answer to the growing discomfort of Governments in 
general with an Advisory Council.<br>
Stuart Lynn's 2002 Evolution and Reform Process,   explicitly called for  
governments to play a much larger role in the ICANN Board and in the funding of 
ICANN. Dr Twomey, as chair of the GAC at the time, stated that OECD governments 
and other government response was that they  could not support funding and with 
regard to representation they agreed that another government could not 
represent their interests, so  a non voting liaison was considered the better 
outcome. The French and the German governments in particular said that it was 
not a stable outcome and there may be an alternative model  in the future. <br>
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has been a continuation of 
that dialogue. Dr Twomey further commented that if ICANN had been situated 
outside of the United States it might not receive the same criticism and might 
not be having the same dialogue about the roles of government in ICANN. It 
would appear that it has become a proxy for the perceptions of the role that 
the United States plays in modern politics. <br>
ICANN was caught in a difficult bind, being a bottom up community based 
organization but having to deal with a diplomatic United Nation type conference 
where the two cultures work completely differently. A fairly consistent message 
heard from certain governments was that the ICANN bottom up process and the 
bylaws were being ignored. <br>
On the positive  side there are indications that the  ITU executive initiative  
to take over some of ICANN's roles has failed. The WSIS process has taken an 
enormous amount of time, money, staff and Board resources but has succeeded to 
shift  ICANN as the problem,  to focus on  government representation and  
defining  public interest. The result of the intense efforts has been that none 
of the regional blocks at the heart of the United Nations system has threatened 
ICANN's position or placed the ITU in a strong position.<br>
The WGIG was foreseen to move forward and the potential outcomes could focus on 
defining the role of public policy  and the role of governments. Looking ahead 
ICANN should expect a battle, as diplomats will insist on the models  they are 
used to, the Chinese and Brazilians will be calling for an intergovernmental 
treaty based body and council, there will be preoccupation with how the present 
role of the US government should be taken over, internationalised and made 
accountable to some sort of council. There was a discussion on a multi 
stakeholder forum for policy issues.  OECD countries  would like to focus not 
only on DNS issues but other types of internet governance which could be 
broadly defined. It is foreseen that in the next 2 or 3 years developing 
countries, the Middle East and China  are going to focus on the IP addressing 
system and DNS system. <b><br>
Marilyn Cade </b>commented that it was a continuum. The WSIS, in theory, was a 
summit of heads of State with no outside participation only the opportunity to 
comment, but there was a follow on mechanism and in some countries there are 
bodies that deal with spam, cyber security,  access to the backbone, and 
regulatory efforts. Three other Internet related events should be noted:<br> 
1. The World Development Telecommunications Assembly in March 2006 when the 
ITUD sector will meet which is   largely driven by the least developed 
countries, but not  China<br>
2. The ITU Plenipotentiary in the fall of 2007  <br>
3. A  Treaty conference in 2007/2008
<br>
In answer to a question from <strong>Alick Wilson, Dr Twomey </strong>stated 
that with the exception of the Geneva statement and the community statement in 
Mar del Plata   there has not been a formal ICANN statement, but it is 
envisioned that ICANN will formally comment on the Working Group (WGIG) 
outcome, available on July 18 and the responses will be part of the WSIS 
prepcom in Tunis.<b><br>
Philip Sheppard, </b>asked whether, given three options, greater Government 
participation in ICANN, doing nothing or an organisation with as yet undefined 
responsibility, if the last one would not be the most likely. <b><br>
</b><strong>Dr. Twomey </strong>responded that  what could be envisioned was an 
alternative  restructuring of  the GAC functions, which might include the GAC 
staying and there being another type of entity with broader and higher level  
political interest in the Internet or the same sort of organisation but that 
organisation taking up the GAC function. He was of the opinion that the latter 
type would be dangerous  because  peer equality was the core ICANN concept and 
cross constituencies, business, technical, At Large groups were not the natural 
thinking of political governments which were concerned about power and seizing 
power. Dr. Twomey expressed a personal  fear about models arising such as a 
Government Council to which ICANN would be subsidiary, or a Government  Council 
that would examine public policy issues and would freeze because of the 
different interpretations of public policy.<br>
Funding was mentioned but there was no definite answer.
<br>
<strong>Dr. Twomey's </strong>assessment of the United States Government  
position was one of watching and listening while in the European Union changes 
have been seen in the French position.<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> requested an update on Paul Verhoef's vacant 
position, to which <strong>Dr. Twomey</strong> responded that an advertisement 
for a replacement 
had been posted but it was far from conclusion. In the interim the policy 
support and the representational function in Europe had been split in two with 
Olof Nordling and Anne Rachel Inne taking on the respective leadership. Kurt 
Pritz is in the process of looking for someone  with experience of the 
community to become a counsellor or assistant to Olof Nordling who will be the 
key, full time contact point for policy work. The attributes of the applicants 
will guide how the structure should continue, if it should be incorporated back 
into one position or if it should be split. There was no time frame set. <br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin suggested </strong> that now was the appropriate time for 
the discussion as they  appeared to be two separate positions and should appear 
in the operating plan under separate budget items, particularly with the end of 
the financial year approaching.<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>thanked <strong>Dr. Paul Twomey</strong> for 
addressing the council.
<br>
<br>
<b>Defer the rest of staff report to Items 5, 6, 7<br> 
<br>
  </b><strong>Item 3: Consideration of the final report from the WHOIS task 
force with respect to improving notification and consent for the use of contact 
data in the Whois system. <BR>
  <A 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00963.html";>http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00963.html</A><br>
  </strong><br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong>, drew Council's attention to the structure of 
the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement</a> (RAA) where  the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01044.html";>terms
 and conditions  of each registrar were different</a>. In this way registrars 
differentiated themselves and competed. Some requirements were mandatory  such 
as the accurate and reliable registrant contact information and the registrars' 
statement as to how the collected data   would be used. The registrar was under 
obligation to make contact information available through the public WHOIS 
service.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested examining the difference between the 
<a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/docX17gewDTRW.doc";>Whois
 task force recommendation 
    1</a>  and the current <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>RAA</a> 
requirements. <br>
    <br>
    <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00963.html";>Text
 of Recommendation</a> </font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/docX17gewDTRW.doc";>Recommendations
 for improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the 
Whois system.<br>
  </a><br>
 1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding availability and 
third-party access to personal data associated with domain names actually be 
presented to registrants during the registration process. <br>
Linking to an external web page is not sufficient. <br>
2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set aside from other 
provisions of the registration agreement if they are presented to registrants 
together with that agreement. Alternatively, registrars may present data access 
disclosures separate from the registration agreement. The wording of the notice 
provided by registrars should, to the extent feasible, be uniform. <br>
3. 
 Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from registrants that they 
have read and understand these disclosures. This provision does not affect 
registrars&rsquo; existing obligations to obtain registrant consent to the use 
of their contact information in the WHOIS system. <br>
 <br>
 <strong>Maria Farrell</strong> reported on the </font><span 
style="font-family: Arial;">summary findings of registrar notification 
complianc<span class="style1">e with the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>RAA</a>. 
</span><o:p>This was indicative only as </o:p></span><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">  a full compliance examination had not been done.<br>
 <br> 
 <a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>3.7.7.4 of 
the RAA</a>, Registrar shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registered 
Name Holder stating:<br>
<br>
3.7.7.4.1 The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant 
are intended;<br>
Out of the top 10 registrars, 8 complied and out of the Random 10 registrars, 5 
complied </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.7.7.4.2 The intended recipients 
or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and 
others who will receive the data from Registry Operator);<br>
 In each category, the top 10 registrars and the random sample, 9 registrars 
complied.<br>
 <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.7.7.4.3 Which data are 
obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">N/A<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">  (information generally 
available in web-forms rather than terms and conditions)<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">(information generally available in web-forms rather 
than terms and conditions but 2 registrars explicitly mentioned in 
terms)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.7.7.4.4 How the Registered Name 
Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held 
about them.<br>
  There were 
9 in the top 10 category and 8 in the random selection <br>
<br>

9 of the top 10  and 10 of the random registrars required Explicit consent (by 
ticking a box) while 9 of the top 10 and 2 of the randomly selected registrars 
had a </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">s</font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">eparate privacy page.<br>
<br>
Regarding &lsquo;purpose&rsquo;, 2 of the randomly chosen registrars and 4 of 
the top 10 registrars provided explicit purposes of data collection. An example 
of explicit purpose is:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&ldquo;The purposes for the 
collection of Registrant Information by X registrar are :</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 1. to accurately, efficiently, 
and effectively process the registration application of the Registrant and 
administer on a continuing and global basis the registration of Domain Names by 
itself and in coordination with ICANN and other ICANN accredited Registrars.<br>
  2. to identify to users of the Internet the Registrants of specific Domain 
Names<br>
  3. to enable X registrar to identify, for its own business purposes, 
geographic, commercial, and marketing trends in the use and registration of 
Domain Names and<br>
  4. to abide by the requirements of the ICANN as that body may from time to 
time require the disclosure and processing of Registrant Information. 
&hellip;<br>
  5. to correct mistakes made by X registrar or other ICANN accredited 
Registrars and the registry in the registration of a Domain Name<br>
6. for the resolution of disputes concerning a Domain Name.&rdquo;<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most registrars simply listed 
or broadly referred to uses to which data may be put:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&ldquo;You agree that Y registrar 
may use and rely on any such information provided by you for all purposes in 
connecting with your services, subject to Y registrar&rsquo;s privacy 
policy.&rdquo;</font></p>
<p class="style2"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that there was no 
specific requirement to inform about Whois but there had to be specific 
information about the use of the data. <br>
Two questions arise:<br>
1. Does the registrar make clear that the  information is going to be disclosed 
in the public WHOIS service.<br>
  2. Where do the registrars disclose that
  information.<br>
  Different legal jurisdictions<br>
  Registrars act in different legal jurisdictions and in  different countries 
so there is no standard with regard to privacy policy information. In some 
jurisdictions it is a requirement while in others not. The recommendation 
should focus on the objective rather than specify the implementation.<br>
  <strong><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin </font></strong><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">commented that the  first part of the 
recommendation was very similar to  the existing contractual requirement in the 
<a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>RAA 3.77.42 
</a>which is the recipients of data and under the new policy is just another 
way of saying the same thing:<br>
  Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding availability and 
third-party access to personal data associated with domain names actually be 
presented to registrants during the registration process.<br>
  <br>
  Is the intent to be specific about Whois which is a service that provides 
data because registrars can legally collect data and give it to marketing 
companies provided that it is stated in their terms and conditions. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Maureen Cubberley</strong> and <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> both 
thought is was necessary to clarify the problem to be  solved. One of the 
criticisms of the report was that it jumped into the recommendation rather than 
state clearly the problem, objective and the solution. An  impact analysis 
would be desirable. <br>
  <br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> summarised:<br>
<br>
1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding availability and 
third-party access to personal data associated with domain names actually be 
presented to registrants during the registration process. <br>
Linking to an external web page is not sufficient.<br>
This was 
similar to existing contractual requirements in the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>RAA 
3.77.42</a><br>
<br>
2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set aside from other 
provisions of the registration agreement if they are presented to registrants 
together with that agreement. Alternatively, registrars may present data access 
disclosures separate from the registration agreement. The wording of the notice 
provided by registrars should, to the extent feasible, be uniform.<br>
Part 2 was new, disclosures should be set aside from other parts of the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm";>RAA</a> and 
Maria agreed that it was hard to identity in the RAA where these disclosures 
were to be found. <br>
 This would be an improvement on the status quo which was that these conditions 
could be spread across 10 or 13 pages of terms and conditions  and adding a 
requirement that they should be is one place was the only improvement  to be 
seen.<br>
 <br>
  3. 
 Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from registrants that they 
have read and understand these disclosures. This provision does not affect 
registrars&rsquo; existing obligations to obtain registrant consent to the use 
of their contact information in the WHOIS system. <br>
  This was not  supported by the registrars. <br>
  Reasons for this were:<br>
  - people click whatever box they need to get the registration done and it 
adds more boxes to click. <br>
  - 
  the gain is small and costs are high as registrars would have to create data 
base elements and record all the information.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>questioned whether with certain compromises, 
the constituencies could view item 2 as an improvement and that if the last 
sentence &quot;<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Linking to an external 
web page is not sufficient.</font>&quot; in item 1 were struck it would be 
acceptable as she emphasised the importance of <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">  reaching consensus policy.</font><br>
  To questions from <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong>, <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
responded that a distinction should be made between ICANN issues and national 
law issues.  ICANN registrars could  act as they wished  as long as it was 
included in the registrars' terms and conditions. On the national law side 
there were stronger requirements for explicit consents where the data was being 
used for something other than it was intended.   National laws were quite 
different from ICANN's requirements. When National laws changed registrars had 
to make the appropriate change. It is a requirement of any  business practice  
to pay attention to the local laws.<br>
  <strong><br>
    Bruce Tonkin</strong> summarised saying that when registrants  provided 
their information to the registrar they presumed that the information would 
only be used for the purposes of renewing the domain name unless they 
explicitly consented to it being used for something else. <br>
  The issue arose from the ICANN requirements that the data was published 
publicly,   and the Whois task force was suggesting  the necessity for a new 
policy that required registrars to disclose what they were doing with the data 
but in reality registrars were already required to do that.  Marilyn Cade was 
proposing to check whether registrars were complying with that requirement, 
Maria Farrell was saying that mostly they were but that the wording could be an 
the issue  because in some cases the actual service of providing WHOIS and 
having it in a publicly available data base was only indirectly mentioned by 
some registrars knowing that the data was given to ICANN or made available 
according to ICANN's requirements.<br>
  <br>
  The Business Constituency was concerned about making the notice clear and 
conspicuous, while Ross Rader was of the opinion that what constituted decent 
disclosure and notice could optimally be dealt with in best practices.<br>
  Possible compromises : <br>
  Item 1 was existing policy - ask staff to determine compliance with existing 
policy <br>
Item 2 is new a requirement <br>
Item 3 cannot be supported from the registrars perspective as  costs were not 
commensurate with the benefit. The existing requirement is to have to agree to 
the terms and conditions <br>
<br>
 <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>clarified that the  privacy policies varied 
according to jurisdiction, mentioned nothing about WHOIS and were not an ICANN 
issue. <br>
 <strong><br>
 Bruce Tonkin</strong> reminded Council that one of issues being addressed were 
the  deficiencies in the ICANN processes. There was a requirement for 
registrars to provide WHOIS <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">but no 
explicit requirement to tell customers about WHOIS.</font><br>
 <br>
  The<a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01033.html";> 
amended version</a> Ross Rader <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01033.html";>proposed</a>
 as a policy objective that would be acceptable to the registrars constituency 
allowed registrars flexibility in how they disclosed the WHOIS requirements, 
based on common practice across Internet ecommerce transactions, the 
expectations of their customers, and the national laws within which different 
registrars operate.<br>
&quot;In order to accomplish this, changes to the current recommendations are 
required. <br>
  These changes are: <br>
  - - removal of second sentence from the first recommendation that prevents a 
link to an external web page <br>
  - - removal of the third recommendation that requires separate 
acknowledgement<br> 
  The amended recommendations would read as follows: <br>
  <br>
  1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding availability and 
third-party access to personal data associated with domain names actually be 
presented to registrants during the registration process. <br>
  <br>
  2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set aside from other 
provisions of the registration agreement if they are presented to registrants 
together with that agreement. Alternatively, registrars may present data access 
disclosures separate from the registration agreement. The wording of the notice 
provided by registrars should, to the extent feasible, be uniform. &quot;<br>
  <strong><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</strong> clarified, in response to question form <strong>Ken 
Stubbs</strong> that for any wording to be introduced into the RAA  all 
registrars had to agree or it had to be a consensus policy.<br>
  <strong><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed a straw poll to ascertain constituency views 
on the direction proposed by various Council members on the call. <br>
 <strong>Grant Forsyth, Philip Colebrook, Cary Karp, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, 
Ross Rader, Tom Keller, Ken Stubbs, Niklas Lagergren, Maureen Cubberley, Alick 
Wilson,  Marilyn Cade, Philip Sheppard</strong> supported the direction<br>
 <strong>Bret Fausett, </strong> from an ALAC point of view,  added that 
implementation should be given to the Registrars as culture and language 
variations were necessary in order to make it  clear and conspicuous.<br>
 <strong>Suzanne Sene</strong>, the GAC Liaison, commented that the suggestions 
were respectful of National law  and would provide a resume to  the GAC working 
group  which was scheduled to meet on Saturday 9 July 2005 in Luxembourg. <br>
 <strong><br>
 <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin </font></strong><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">commented that approving a policy and the 
date of implementation could be two separate decisions. </font> <br>
 <br>
 <b>ACTION:<br>
 </b><strong>Bruce Tonkin proposed:<br>
 - 
 that to gauge the extent of the problem, ICANN staff should confirm the 
compliance of the top 30 registrars, with the RAA. <br>
(Top 20 registrars present approximately 78% , top 30 present approximately 85% 
of the market)<br>
- rewording the recommendation incorporating the council discussion  <br>
- Council to seek agreement at constituency level and  discuss this in 
Luxembourg. <br>
- expressing thanks for the work task force has done and notify those on the 
task force that the discussions were in the best interests of consensus policy. 
<br>
  </strong><br>
  <strong>Item 4 Voting on the Whois task force - deferred</strong><br>
  <strong><br>
  </strong></font><strong><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 5: New 
gTLDs<BR>
- update from staff </FONT></strong></p>
<p class="style2"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt 
Pritz</strong> commented that the purpose of the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01028.html";>draft
 staff paper on &quot;New TLD questions&quot; </a>was to describe issues to be 
considered and answers to the questions and whether other issues should be 
considered before a new round of TLDs was launched or designated.<br>
  The paper on &quot;New TLD questions should be considered as work in process 
and as such the GNSO is being asked for advice, which is distinct from the role 
of the GNSO as a policy body and all policy related issues that arise out of 
the input will be referred to the Supporting Organisations for decision making. 
<br>
  <strong>Philip Sheppard</strong> referring to his  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01030.html";>posting
 </a>commented that one essential correction in the matrix was needed making 
clear that the GNSO was a policy developing body rather than a consultative 
body as it currently appeared. <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented on the title of the<a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01028.html";> 
paper, &quot;New TLD&quot;</a> rather than &quot;gTLD&quot; and said that there 
could be a reciprocal statement  regarding ccTLDS. The ccNSO may be interested 
in international character versions of ccTLDs or as longer words than the 2 
letter acronyms. Further, once the technical question was answered of how many 
domain names could be in the system before it became unstable,   most of other 
questions split up into gTLD and ccTLD issues because <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> from a policy point of view</font>, the result could be 
different on some of the questions depending on whether it was a  ccTLD or 
gTLD.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> thanked the ICANN staff for the paper and 
expressed disappointment about the lack of involvement of the Council at an 
earlier stage and further   commented that the CBUC had been opposed to   <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01043.html";>monetizing
 the TDL space</a>. <br>
  <strong>Bret Fausett </strong>supported <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>and 
expressed concern that if ICANN was taking a new direction receiving large 
amounts of money from the delegation of new gTLDs, different from the past 
registry cost recovery mode, there needed to be significant conversation on the 
issue.</font>  </p>
<p><span class="style3">ACTION <br>
<span class="style2"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Certain 
clarifications should be made before commenting on the questions. 
</font></span><br>
- Possible discussions with the interested members of the ccNSO and GNSO in 
Luxembourg<br>
<br>
<FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 6: update of GNSO Council 
meetings in Mar del Plata <BR>
<BR>
Item 7: Any other business</FONT><br>
1. Luxembourg agenda<br> 
Stratplan / Operational plan <br>
<br>
ACTION:<br>
Kurt Pritz would post to Council a summary of the Strategic planning events 
scheduled in Luxembourg<br>
  <br>
  2. GAC/GNSO working group Sunday 10 July 14:00 - 18:00
  <br>
  Suzanne Sene </span><span class="style2">said that due to the sensitivity of 
the working session invitations had been extended to the relevant communities, 
the GNSO, ccNSO, the WHOIS task force and the SSAC. It was intended to be an 
educational session for the GAC on the range of public policy uses of WHOIS 
data, highlighting the law enforcement  uses and at the Vancouver meetings 
other aspects such as privacy would be highlighted. <BR>
  </span><span class="style3"><BR>
3. Marilyn Cade</span><span class="style2"> announced that the Nominating 
committee was soliciting candidates.</span> </p>
<p>    <strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></strong><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared 
          the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.<br>
The meeting ended: 16: 30 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
</b><strong>Meeting will be held in LuxExpo in Luxembourg July 12, 
2005</strong> <strong>at  15:00 UTC.</strong> <strong>17:00 CET.</strong> <br>
      see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>Calendar</a></font><br>
  </li>
</ul>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"--> </font>