19 October 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. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD - absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril

15 Council Members

Paul Twomey - ICANN President
John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel

Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison
Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison

Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Quorum present at 23:07 CET
MP3 recording

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Discussion on meeting with Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and GNSO Council members, proposed to be held on Sunday 26 October in Carthage at 19:00 (7:00 pm)

• Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
  
  Bruce Tonkin summarized:
• requested in put from Paul Twomey, ICANN President, on the request for a policy development process in the area of Registry Services
• address the motion before the GNSO Council
  "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)"
• If the motion passes, discussion of issues that should be included in the Issues report to be issued by the ICANN Staff.
  
• Agenda items for Carthage meeting
  
  Paul Twomey, ICANN President stated that he had drafted a letter to the GNSO Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin, which was read by John Jeffrey, formally requesting the GNSO Council to commence a GNSO policy development process designed to produce recommendations to the Board.
  
  
  Paul Twomey commented that the letter was intended to give input to guiding issues that came out of the ICANN mission.
  The President's request was directed at the dialogue that takes place between the Registries and the ICANN staff function under the Registry Agreement. It was not aimed at the establishment of an ongoing process of policy making.
  At the core structure of the Registry agreement, it was important to note that on behalf of the decision making process, registry service by registry service, whereby an independent third party makes the decision, the ICANN staff and the ICANN Board do not consist of parties that would be competitors with the Registry.
  Important issues have emerged around competition such as how does a Registry introduce a service in a true market environment when confidentiality may be important for their business needs. Expert advice is needed on how to achieve the processes of confidentiality.
  The rationale as a whole for the President's request for a policy development process arises from dialogues the President has had since his installation with the Registries and was thus on the agenda before the Verisign Sitefinder incident. It is an attempt to outline ICANN concerns and a process in moving forward, rather than preserving a static format of what Registries should do.
  Milton Mueller asked whether the intention was for the GNSO to give advice on how to do an advanced process.
  Paul Twomey replied that the intent was to address what steps a Registry would be required to follow to ensure that a service could be introduced and was consistent with the outline in the letter.
  Milton Mueller went on to ask what justification there was for the rapid process and the priority it received, other than the Sitefinder service.
  Paul Twomey responded that Sitefinder and other recent registry services in .name required amendments to the Registry service agreements which had affects on people running businesses.
  Amadeu Abril l Abril asked whether the Staff Manager was indeed available to draw up an Issues Report to which Paul Twomey replied that staff resources were available.
  Concern was expressed about the consequences if the policy development process was not completed in the 90 day policy development process timeframe.
  Paul Twomey stated that the process would affect future services.
  Jeff Neuman mentioned that the letter was structured to address all TLD services while it should be for unsponsored tld services only.
  Paul Twomey stated that the definitions in the registry contracts were the key factors.
  
  Discussion on the motion from Bruce Tonkin, the GNSO Chair and seconded by Marilyn Cade:
• "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)"
  
  Jordyn Buchanan stated that there was not enough precision in registry agreements to make it possible for ICANN to preserve stability and security of the Internet. Contracts should be rethought in terms of registry interaction with ICANN.
  Bruce Tonkin clarified the process:
  The GNSO Council was commissioning an Issues Report
  The GNSO Council would meet to determine whether the policy development process would be appropriate
  The terms of reference would be well specified before starting the task force.
  Milton Mueller proposed adding the following amendment:
  The Issues Report should consider the advantages and disadvantages of reviewing new registry services ex post or ex ante; whether rules should be different for dominant and non-dominant players; and who would make the initial determination of whether a new service qualified as a registry service.
  Bruce Tonkin suggested separating the two matters and proposed that the amendment should be taken up in the Issues report.
  Milton Mueller expressed further concern about ICANN as a regulator and stated that regulation by contract was preferable to centralized regulation.
  
  The motion passed with 18 votes in favour, the gTLD Registries constituency and the Non-commercial Users constituency abstained.
  
  Decision 1:
  The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)
  
  The ICANN President was asked whether a public comment would be appropriate to assist in collecting data for the Issues Report to which he replied that council members and experts from other services would be more suitable to provide information.
  
  Paul Twomey excused himself and left the meeting.
  
  Bruce Tonkin called for suggestions on issues to be raised in the Issues Report:
  Milton Mueller suggested the following:
  The Issues Report should consider the advantages and disadvantages of reviewing new registry services ex post or ex ante; whether better focus of the gTLD contracts on technical and stability is a better way to address the problems; whether rules should be different for dominant and non-dominant players; and who would make the initial determination of whether a new service qualified as a registry service.
  Ken Stubbs stated that a reasonable time was required for accelerated consultation in the constituencies for input on issues to be raised in the Staff Managers report. The suggested return date for the input to be sent to the GNSO Council list: Monday 20 or Tuesday 21 October.
  Jeff Neuman added that the input to the issues report should be before the Councillors' terms end in Carthage. The question should be examined:
  What rights did ICANN have in the agreement in the interruption of Registry services.
  
  Bruce Tonkin proposed the following schedule:
  GNSO Council members should have the opportunity to read through the ICANN President's letter.
  GNSO Council members and liaisons should contribute suggestions, individual submissions, that could be gathered and incorporated in the Staff Manager's report.
  Timing for the Staff Manager's Report, 15 days which brings the date to October 31.
  
  Action:
  Bruce Tonkin proposed talking to Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey about the consultation and input that Council members would like from their constituencies.
  
  
  Item 2: Any Other Business
  
  1. Proposed Meetings in Carthage:
  
  Bruce Tonkin proposed that constituencies discuss possible issues for the Staff Manager's report.
  
  Marilyn Cade reported on an open informational meeting on Monday afternoon, October 27, 2003
  Discussion topics:
  - Briefing on Wildcards
  - Tutorial on Domain Name System (DNS )
  
  Clarification on Cross Constituency meeting.
  Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property Interests, and Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituencies meet
  together often with invited guests from the At Large Advisory Committee and the ccNSO and other groups.
  
  2. Agenda Topics for Carthage:
  - UDRP
  - WHOIS Steering group terms of reference for task forces
  
  Marilyn Cade requested information on the status of the GNSO Council request: arising from the GNSO Council meeting on August 14, 2003 where a decision was taken to:
  - Formally submit the motion as a request for an amendment to the Bylaws:
  And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its review timetable:
  1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004;
  2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council.
  - GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin to liaise with ICANN President, Paul Twomey on joint ICANN Board teleconference on the topic.
  
  Bruce Tonkin proposed sending a formal request to the Board enquiring on the status of allowing 3 representatives per constituency.
  
  3. Status of Elections in the Constituencies
  1. gTLD Registries Constituency: 2 Representatives elected: Cary Karp elected for a 2 year term, Ken Stubbs elected for a 1 year term.
  2. Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC): 3 Representatives elected: Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth.
  3. Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): Election due to start on 20 October and finish on 31 October 2003.
  4. Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency : Elections have not commenced, planned for after Carthage.
  5. Registrars Constituency: Election has been held and the results were being finalised
  6. Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: No representative present to report
  
  Jeff Neuman asked whether the constituencies had elected two or three representatives?
  The Non-Commercial Users Constituency planned to elect two and have another election if a third representative was needed.
  The Commercial and Business Users Constituency had elected three.
  
  Marilyn Cade proposed forming a committee of the present councillors that could focus on the specific Registry Service issue in order to meet the necessary timelines in the policy development process.
  
  
  Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for attending.
  
  The meeting ended: 00:45 CET, 22:45 UTC, 08:45, 17 October, Melbourne.

  
  Next GNSO Council meeting to be held at the Carthage Palace Hotel in historic Carthage, Tunisia. : Wednesday October 29, 2003 at 14:00 local time, 13:00 UTC
  see:http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/