[council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 12 April 2007

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

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

Dear Council Members,

Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 
12 April 2007.
Please let me know if you would like any changes made.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,
Glen
..................................................................................
12 April 2007

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

16 Council Members
(21 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff
Sue Jonklaas- Deputy General Counsel
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer
Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent

Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member

Quorum present at 12:15 UTC.

MP3 recording

Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this meeting

Approval of the agenda

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No updates

Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007
The approval of the minutes was deferred to the next Council meeting

Item 3: Revision of Transfers Policy
- consider staff recommendations
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03369.html

Ross Rader, chair of theTransfers Policy Review Committee, set up in mid 
2005, reported that the committee's goal was to review the effectiveness 
of the existing Transfer Policy from an operational perspective and 
determine whether or not any amendments to the existing policy should be 
recommended for further examination in a policy development process by 
the GNSO and/or whether or not any additional work would be required on 
the implementation side at an ICANN Staff level.
ICANN Staff prepared 3 summary documents
1) is the draft advisory, unchanged from last message in January. 
<Draft-Transfer-Advisory-24jan07.doc>
2) is some notes on possible tighter wording/clarifications to the 
existing policy. This consists of 4 points taken out of the previous 
"policy issues" list--all of these had to do with the reasons for denial 
section. <DenialClarifications-28mar07.doc>
3) is a revised list of policy issues with the above-mentioned items 
taken out. <Draft-TransfersPolicyList-28mar07>
The committee had reached a set of recommendations which would be 
submitted to the GNSO Council by the Puerto Rico meetings for Council's 
consideration. However the committee would proceed with the staff 
updating certain wording in the contractual conditions and issuing 
advisories.
Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard for Item 4 concerning 
the ICANN Board election results.
Item 4: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03416.html

Results of Election Board seat # 13 :
Dr. Bruce Tonkin is elected to the ICANN Board in seat # 13.
Total votes 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin
3 abstentions
3 votes not cast

The details of the vote:
3 people did not vote by ballot.
1. Bruce Tonkin was not replaced by the Registrar constituency. (2 votes)
2. One Council member did not return a ballot and could not be
contacted. (1 vote)
3. One Council member did not return a ballot and under special
circumstances, voted by email and phone before the close of the vote on
9 April at 17:00 UTC. (1 vote)

The total number of votes that Council could cast was 27 and a majority 
14 or more.
Philip Sheppard proposed that
The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board 
seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 
votes not cast.
The motion passes by voice vote.
Bruce Tonkin abstained.

Decision 1: The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for 
ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 
abstentions, 3 votes not cast.
Philip Sheppard, on behalf of the Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin and 
handed the chair back to him.
Bruce Tonkin thanked the Council for their support and stated that he 
was prepared to continue chairing the Council until the council elected 
a new chair and/or he took his place on the ICANN Board in the beginning 
of June 2007, but that an election process for a new chair should be 
started based on previous procedures.
The GNSO secretariat was requested to launch the process.

Item 5: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an 
interim chair
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html

Bruce Tonkin referred to postings to the Council list relating to recent 
Council decisions regarding Whois , a summary of opposition to the WHOIS 
task force recommendation, the WHOIS task force recommendations, and 
IETF working group guidelines for managing working groups.
Maria Farrell summarised the changes to the charter proposed by various 
Council members on the mailing list:
1. Changes that related to the objective of the working group that 
should explicitly consider the implementation issues raised by 
Operational Point of Contact (OPOC).
2. Changes to the background section and information, ensuring an 
explicit reference to the definition of purpose agreed upon by Council 
on April 12 2006
http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms -of-reference.html

3. The task force policy recommendations should be specified.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm#_Toc161480260

4. Changes referring to the work:
a. to use the text of the resolution agreed by the council, rather than 
the current text.
b. only examine the definition of the OPAC in the light of the original 
resolution then consider whether access should be for a legitimate 
interest as stated in the original proposal or with regard to legitimate 
activities, as referenced in the GAC principles
c. whether there should be distinctions between people accessing the 
data and how these should be made.
5. In the assignment of work, which third party and under which 
condition should have access to unpublished data.
6. Remove the GAC principles from the document.

Bruce Tonkin summarised the discussion in Council and indicated where 
agreement appeared to have been reached:
In the background section specifically include a reference to the 
council decision on the WHOIS purpose 
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml
and Council's intention to revisit the definition in the light of the 
final report.
Reference Council's 3 decision and summarise what they were about in two 
or three sentences:
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtm
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html

Refer to that GAC principles
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html
GAC Communiqué is available at:
http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf
and identify that they specifically provided a list of legitimate 
activities.
Move the material currently under 4B into the Background section.

In section 3, the policy recommendations being referred to should be 
specified in a footnote.
In section 4B, the motion passed in Lisbon stated 'how legitimate 
interest will access' while the current document used the term ' how 
third parties may access for legitimate activity'.
Thus 4B could be re-worded to: 'determine how and which legitimate third 
parties may access registration data that is no longer available for 
unrestricted public query based access.
Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria, proposed that the WHOIS Charter of work
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 2: Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.

[The revised charter as approved is available at:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-charter-16apr07.pdf]

It was agreed to send a communication to the GAC inviting those 
interested members in participating as individuals whose expertise would 
be valued rather than the official view of the particular department or 
government
Item 5 b: appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group
Bruce Tonkin commented that Council needed to select a WHOIS working 
group chair bearing in mind the short mandate of the working group. The 
person should be currently available, have chairing experience and be 
acquainted with the WHOIS background and history to get the work started.
Bruce Tonkin proposed Philip Sheppard as the interim chair.

The discussion emphasised the need for a skilled chair person to remain 
neutral for the 120 day period while the group was in place. Listening 
to the discussions, and the various points of view and identifying areas 
of rough consensus. Bruce Tonkin referred to the RFC2418 IETF Working 
Group Guidelines and Procedures - dated Sept 1998 as possible guidelines 
for such a group.
Rita Rodin expressed hope that the working group would produce policy 
and resolve some of the WHOIS issues. Rita emphasised the facilitator 
role of the chair, aided by a co-chair, in eliciting ideas and moving 
towards a compromise.
Views were stated in favour of having a co-chair because two different 
neutral perspectives could lead to broader rough consensus being obtained.
It was suggested that a facilitator or neutral party, such as an 
ex-board member or an external paid facilitator, could be a valuable 
support and sounding board for the chair in pointing out where 
neutrality could be compromised.
It was suggested that Jon Bing, not on the call, Nominating Committee 
appointee to the Council, relatively new to the Council in a neutral 
role, could fulfil the role and be consulted by the chair.
Philip Sheppard expressed concern with formalizing a co-chair 
relationship. In accepting the challenge of chair he was prepared to 
approach the WHOIS issues in a neutral perspective to best resolve a 
long standing issue. Philip went on to state that if council had 
concerns about the level of neutrality and ability to exert in this then 
he would stand down and let somebody else take on the role. Professional 
staff or someone in the Council/community would be welcomed to fulfil 
the role of sounding board.
Mawaki Chango suggested that the motion should not preclude the 
possibility of electing co-chairs and urged Philip not to put as a 
condition that he would step down if there would be a co-chair.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed that:
the GNSO Council resolves to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of 
the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group 
in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in 
determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.
The motion was carried by a voice vote.

2 abstentions were noted from Philip Sheppard and Mawaki Chango

Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as 
interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to 
chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from 
others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.
Item 6: Protection of IGO Names and Abbreviations in line with WIPO 2

- consider recommendation from the intellectual property constituency
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03368.html
The constituency recommends that:

"The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to 
further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute 
resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes 
involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the 
GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. "
see correspondence on this topic:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ on this topic.

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tarmizi-13mar06.pdf

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-twomey-15jun06.pdf

Kristina Rosette commented on the background to the proposal.
When the initial Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) statement was 
submitted to the new gTLD policy development process there were 
suggestions to implement parts of the WIPO2 recommendations, 
specifically, protection of international governmental organization 
names and abbreviations. The inclusion of that recommendation was 
motivated by a request made to the IPC during a cross constituency 
meeting in Vancouver to take a lead in attempting to find a consensus 
solution proposal to some of the issues raised in the WIPO 2 
recommendations.
The WIPO 2 recommendations did include other areas, for example, the 
protection of country names and the protection of personal names. In 
examining the issue, the IPC had not found sufficient legal basis in 
international law to justify full implementation of all of the WIPO2 
recommendations.
Thus, the scope of the IPC recommendation was to restrict it to the 
protection of IGO names and abbreviations.In summary there is definitely 
a basis in international law for the protection of IGO names and 
abbreviations tracing back to the Paris Convention.
Currently,there are slightly over 132 IGO's that have followed the 
procedure for having their names and acronyms registered and consistent 
with the Paris convention.
WIPO itself has provided a draft model and rules for the possession of 
IGO names and abbreviations as type of modified parallel UDRP procedure.
The notable difference would be to restrict the scope to IGOs and create 
a different appeals procedure from that which is currently in place.
WIPO feels quite strongly that it is important to obtain the protection 
and to have an alternate procedure to allow IGO's to protect their names 
and marks particularly because of the nature of some of the IGO's,
In summary, the IPC requests the GNSO Council should request an Issues 
Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in 
introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically 
for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on 
this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP 
on the topic.
IGO Names and Abbreviations are not considered to be trademarks.

Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling a motion for the next meeting and 
requesting feedback from the ICANN Staff in terms of resourcing a policy 
development process.
Item 7: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of 
work http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03373.html
The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name 
Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council,
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 
April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the 
attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment 
that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks 
regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA 
names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 
10 May 2007.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 4: The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original 
Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the 
Council,
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 
April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the 
attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment 
that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks 
regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA 
names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 
10 May 2007.
Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG

Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the 
following added.
General Tasks
1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon
2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in 
the following categories:
a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP 
report
b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, 
not as reserved names
i. Geographical and geopolitical names
ii. Controversial names
c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG
i. Three character names at the third level
ii. Registry specific names at the second level
iii. Other reserved names at the second level
3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs
4. Review IDN-WG Report
5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and 
reference them in applicable name categories
6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability 
issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to 
how any such issues might be mitigated
7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply 
the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically
8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams

Tasks regarding Recommendations

1. ICANN/IANA reserved names
a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation 
regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement 
should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry.
a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can 
be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain 
Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for 
.name and .pro and edit the document accordingly
iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN 
names
1. Provide examples
2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed
2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language
i. Provide examples as possible
ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
3. Single & two-character reserved names
a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character 
IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to 
non-roman scripts
b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding 
single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character 
ASCII names involving at least one number.
c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character 
IDN names
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, 
ASCII and IDN, single and two-character
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character 
names at all levels
g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single 
and two-character names at all levels
4. Tagged names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth 
character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’
ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top 
level
iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms 
‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’
iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an 
IDN gTLD would have to provide
v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
5. NIC, Whois and www
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
6. Geographical & geopolitical names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical 
and geopolitical names
b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical 
names and IGO names
c. Consult with the GAC as possible
d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify 
underlying laws if different than a treaty
e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to 
unsponsored gTLDs only
f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New 
gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to 
conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not 
be considered reserved names
i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
7. Third level names
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the 
Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with 
the statement regarding scope
8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable)
a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final 
results in the RN-WG report
b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made
c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work
9. Other names at the second level
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the 
Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with 
the statement regarding scope
10. Controversial names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial 
names
b. Consult with the GAC as possible
c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a 
reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names 
are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New 
gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to 
conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered 
reserved names
g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary

Schedule
1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April
2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May

Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their 
participation.
The meeting ended: 14 :15 UTC

Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 24 May 2007 at 12:00 UTC.
see: Calendar

Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes:

1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election 
process for GNSO Council chair.
2. Arising from item 5, revise the WHOIS working group charter to 
reflect the Council discussions.
3 Arising from item 5, send a communication to the GAC seeking 
participation from the members as individuals.
4. Arising from item 6,

a. table the motion "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report 
from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a 
separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing 
disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues 
Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. "
b. request ICANN staff for feedback on the availability of resources to 
commence a policy development process (pdp).
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org