|
5 December 2003.
Proposed agenda
and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC -
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Philip Sheppard
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Philip Sheppard
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Philip Sheppard
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders
Carlos Afonso- Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent, apologies, proxy to Demi Getschko
13 Council Members
John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel and Secretary
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Consultant, Issues
Report author
Christopher Wilkinson - Acting GAC
Liaison
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 recording
Quorum present at 19 :10 UTC
Bruce Tonkin chaired this
teleconference.
Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Item 2: Approval of minutes
of last meeting
Marilyn Cade, seconded by Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the
minutes
of 29 October, 2003
The motion was carried by a majority of council votes. Two abstention: Ross
Rader and Marc Schneiders (not members of council on 29 October)
Decision 1: The minutes of the
GNSO meeting held in Carthage were adopted
Item 3: Discussion of Terms
of reference for developing a procedure for use by ICANN staff in managing
contractual approvals or amendments to allow changes in the architecture or
operation of a gTLD registry
Bruce Tonkin opening up the discussion explained that the terms
of reference, had been taken from the Issues
Report and would be used as the base for the policy development process.
Marilyn Cade proposed striking:
Many changes approved by ICANN
in recent history have been minor and should have been approved in under 30
days, and in other cases changes have been more substantial, but not so substantial
as to justify decision making processes running for 6 months or longer.
Marilyn Cade suggested replacing "registry operators" with
"registry agreements" and asked for clarification on what sponsored
registry agreements required, as there was mention of unsponsored agreement
requirements.
Cary Karp referred to A3 in the FAQ
posted to the Council:
"Although portions of the policy-development authority for each sTLD are
delegated to the designated sTLD sponsor, there are some situations in which
an sTLD's sponsor will requests amendments to, or approvals under, the sponsorship
agreement it has with ICANN. Although approval and amendment requests are much
more common in the case of unsponsored TLDs than for sTLDs, the overall goals
(e.g., predictability, timeliness, transparency) of the procedures for handling
gTLD and sTLD requests are similar, even though there are differences in the
provisions of the underlying agreements that must be observed. It therefore
is appropriate to develop a recommended policy to guide the establishment of
the procedures under which ICANN handles requests for approvals and amendments
under ICANN's agreements for both gTLDs and sTLDs.
It should be noted that the sponsorship
agreements for the current three sTLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) delegate
to the sponsors the responsibility to select and enter agreements with those
sTLDs' registry operators. The sTLD sponsors are responsible for establishing
the procedures they use to handle requests made by registry operators under
the agreements between the sTLD sponsors and their operators. Although PDP would
not be directly concerned with such requests, sTLD sponsors may find the recommendations
resulting from the PDP to be useful in developing their procedures. "
Bruce Tonkin proposed incorporating
the FAQ
text into the terms of reference clarifying sponsored and unsponsored requirements,
and pointed out that the FAQ
did not change the substance of the terms of reference.
Cary Karp suggested deferring any decision during the meeting so that
the salient features in the FAQ
could be incorporated into the terms of reference before a vote was taken.
Jordyn Buchanan asked for clarification on the formal relationship between
the Staff
Manager's Issues Report, the FAQ
and the Terms
of Reference.
Bruce Tonkin explained that the Issues report, from a policy development
process point of view, described issues, gave background and information on
the topic, while the scope of the work was defined by the GNSO Council.
Ken Stubbs suggested that there be a procedure to assure the confidentiality
of submissions and that experts used by ICANN be subject to confidentiality
agreements as well. In addition ICANN should be able to use experts in the "quick
look" process.
Philip Sheppard spoke out in favour of moving forward on the terms of
reference and leaving in depth discussion to the working group.
Jordyn Buchanan stated that the Registry Constituency was uncomfortable
with the broad terms of reference as they stood and had not yet come up with
concrete terms of reference that were more constraining. Security and stability
concerns led to the Issues Report but the policy and development process and
the proposed line of action might not necessarily be successful in improving
these.
Christopher Wilkinson leaves the teleconference.
Marc Schneiders expressed the concern that the "user" community
was left out. Bruce Tonkin suggested including the option for the GNSO to consider
incorporating a process for ICANN to seek input from affected stakeholders or
the general public in the terms of reference, rather than just outside experts.
The language in the title phrase was modified to:
"Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related
contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of
a gTLD registry, which also included a modification in the last phrase of the
task force description."
While Philip Sheppard and Marilyn Cade proposed proceeding forward
with a vote to initiate the policy development process, the registry constituency
had concerns that constrained their ability to vote favourably on the terms
of reference, not out of objection but in order to fully understand the implications
of the terms of reference and make some improvements before being able to fully
support the process.
Cary Karp, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan proposed a procedural motion:
To defer the vote to initiate the policy development process for a period of
14 days for further refinement of the terms of reference.
The motion failed with 21 votes against and 6 registry constituency votes in
favour.
Decision 2: The vote will not be deferred for a period of 14 days for further
refinement of the terms of reference.
Item 4: Decision required
by Council to proceed with policy development on an issue detailed in the terms
of reference in (3) above
Philip Sheppard, seconded by Marc Schneiders, proposed:
To initiate the policy development process on the issue of registry services
based on the terms of reference as amended on the call
The motion carried with 21 votes in favour, 4 votes against and one abstention
(2)
Decision 3: To initiate the policy development process on the issue of registry
services based on the terms of reference as amended on the call.
Item 5: If the council decides to proceed with policy development in agenda
item 4, then a decision is required as to whether to form a task force and if
not, how to manage the policy process at the Council level.
Bruce Tonkin described the process from the ICANN
bylaws when no task force was formed:
8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed
a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request
that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a
representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative
shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within
thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist
in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to
gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing.
All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five
(35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements,
and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial
Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter,
the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report.
Bruce Tonkin asked John Jeffrey whether there were any restrictions
on Council forming a committee as a whole to work in the context of the policy
development process?
John Jeffrey replied that there were no restrictions as had been pointed
out in the FAQ.
Marilyn Cade, seconded by Antonio Harris proposed that:
Council undertakes the policy
development process as a committee as a whole and follows the policy development
process with the requirements of public notice in compliance with the ICANN
bylaws and procedure when no task force is formed.
The motion carried with 25 votes in favour and one abstention (2)
Decision 4: Council undertakes the policy development process as a committee
as a whole and follows the policy development process with the requirements
of public notice in compliance with the ICANN
bylaws and procedure when no task force is formed.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody
for attending.
The meeting ended: 21 :05 UTC
|
