Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
Agenda approved
Item 2: Summary of last meeting
* http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Marilyn Cade .
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
Item 3: Motion to recommend to the ICANN Board to adjust the quorum
requirements for the GNSO Council in the ICANN Bylaws:
Council recommends that the ICANN Board change the ICANN by-law
relating to quorum in the GNSO (Article X, section 3(8)) from the
present text: "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number
of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business...." with
"A majority of the total number of Council members in office, provided
that those members are entitled to cast a majority of the total number
of votes of GNSO Council, shall constitute a quorum".
Philip Sheppard commented that the recommended amendment was aimed at
clarifying an oversight in the bylaws and the new wording aimed at
legitimacy.
Discussion: Marilyn Cade supported the recommendation saying that it
protected broad geographical and Council participation. . Ellen
Shankman supported having as many members of council involved in
discussions as possible.
Ken Stubbs and Jeff Neuman felt that there was no necessity to amend
the bylaws and no cases of abuse had been recorded.
Louis Touton referred to his paper on proposed by-law revisions dated
31 May 2003
(http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-31may03.htm),
where he stated that:
"Philip Sheppard wrote on 12 May 2003 that the GNSO Council, at its
meeting on 22 May 2003, would likely adopt a resolution requesting a
change to the New Bylaws concerning the GNSO Council's quorum rules. He
suggested that such an amendment could be added to the group of
amendments to be considered by the Board at its 2 June 2003 meeting. In
fact, the GNSO Council did not consider the proposed resolution at its
22 May 2003 meeting due to the overcrowded agenda for that meeting. (It
appears likely that the GNSO Council will meet on 5 June 2003 to
complete the agenda of its 22 May 2003 meeting.)
The proposal referenced by Mr. Sheppard would amend Article X, Section
3(8) of the New Bylaws. Currently there are 18 members on the GNSO
Council, consisting of 6 members from "providers constituencies" and 12
members from "users constituencies." Votes are equalized, so the two
groups of constituencies each have 12 votes, for a total of 24. Under
the quorum provision in Section 3(8) as currently written, the GNSO
Council can act when members entitled to cast a majority of the total
number of votes on the Council (i.e. 13 votes) are present. The
proposal would require that, in order to transact business, the GNSO
Council would need both a majority of votes (i.e. 13 votes) and a
majority of members (i.e. 10 members) present. Thus, under the proposal
the non-attendance of nine members, having as few as 37.5% of the votes
on the GNSO Council, would prevent the GNSO Council from acting.
The proposal is a substantive change from the intended effect of
equalized voting, rather than a technical correction consistent with
the intended effect of the Bylaws. As such, it would appear more
appropriate to address the proposal as part of the process for periodic
review of ICANN structure and operations under Article IV, Section 4.
Under that Section, the first periodic review will be initiated within
one year following the adoption of the New Bylaws and will cover the
GNSO Council. Among the topics to be considered in that review should
be the equalized voting concept and its implications."
Philip Sheppard, who originally proposed the motion, suggested it be
put to the vote.
Vote: 7 votes support (Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth,
Tony Harris,Tony Holmes (via proxy to Tony Harris), Laurence Djolakian
(via proxy to Ellen Shankman), Ellen Shankman)
6 votes oppose (Jeff Neuman, Cary Karp, Jordyn Buchanan),
7 votes abstain (Ken Stubbs, Thomas Keller, Bruce Tonkin, Gabriel
Pineiro) .
4 voters absent: (Greg Ruth, Milton Mueller, Lynda Roesch, Chun Eung
Hwi). The motion failed.
The motion failed.
Item 4: Update on the deletes implementation committee
Jordyn Buchanan reported that the Deletes Implementation Committee
report was under discussion in the Deletes Task Force and a final
report was expected 7 days before the Montreal meeting.
Item 5: Budget update:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.ICANN-GNSO-finances-recap.html
- status of constituency payments for 2003
- balance of account
The Secretary reported that the unencumbered funds totalled $49 042,11
and the NCUC dues for 2003 were still outstanding.
On the debt issue, there was currently $103,444.84 in outstanding
receivables in the DNSO financial records. According to ICANN's
financial policies, there has been a bad debt reserve created for this
amount as it is more than 90 days past due. Before completing the
processing of closing out the GNSO accounts, instructions would be
needed from the GNSO Council on how to handle this debt on the ICANN
books. If it is to be written off, then ICANN needs to be advised that
the DNSO (now GNSO) wishes to take that action.
Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Budget committee make a proposal to the
GNSO Council to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting in July which
would allow for an understanding of the final status of the accounts.
Item 6: Updated GNSO rules of procedure
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.GNSOprocedures.html
- no comments have been received
- schedule for vote at the June meeting Any other business
Bruce Tonkin stated that the GNSO Rules of Procedure have been combined
with the ICANN bylaws to bring them in line and that they should be
approved in July by the ICANN Board.
Louis Touton stated that this was not a requirement, but the
Constituency bylaws had to be submitted and approved by the ICANN Board
in July.
Bruce Tonkin referred to the 14 day voting period and the current term
for the GNSO Chair which may want to be changed.
Louis Touton informed the Council that at the Montreal meeting, three
members of the Nominating Committee would be seated and would be
eligible to vote.
Item 7: Any other business
7a. Bruce Tonkin stated that at the last GNSO Council meeting,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
Council voted to form a WHOIS Steering Group.
Two issues to be considered:
1. Membership of the WHOIS Steering Group.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that each constituency should nominate one member
who could be a non council member or a council member.
2. WHOIS Steering Group Chair.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that the chairperson be independent of the
constituencies and recommended Mike Roberts.
The purpose of the WHOIS Steering Group would be to determine the
topics and not to create policy.
Milton Mueller joined the meeting.
Ken Stubbs commented that Mike Roberts would be an excellent person,
but if he were to decline, there should be a methodology in place to
another person. Could a Board member be chosen?
Marilyn Cade mentioned that it would be more advantageous to have a non
Board member.
Milton Mueller proposed Scott Bradner, a member of the Internet
Engineering Task Force.
Tom Keller proposed two persons from each constituency and the Chair
chosen from the European Community.
Bruce Tonkin supported the proposal of two members per constituency.
Louis Touton clarified saying that the WHOIS Steering group would be
making recommendations to the Council for moving forward.
The proposed time line:
Steering Committee in place for the Montreal meeting so the outputs of
the public forums could be considered.
Thirty days for the first drafts, and possible discussion at Council
level.
Thirty days to refine the drafts.
Thus a sixty day period to obtain the initial output with a
recommendation for one, two or three task forces with clearly defined
purposes for each.
Louis Touton clarified the voting position in the proposed WHOIS
Steering Group, saying that the bylaws do not define the voting in task
forces and steering groups.
Cary Karp left the meeting and handed a proxy to Jeff Neuman.
Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be appropriate for the WHOIS
Steering Group to have liaisons from the GAC and the ALAC.
Audri Mukhopadhyay commented that there were 9 liaisons in the GAC and
that the invitation would be extended to them.
Bruce Tonkin proposed:
That each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS
Steering Group,
- the members may be from outside the GNSO Council
- each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the
WHOIS Steering Group.
Vote: motion carried unanimously.
Decision 2: Each constituency could appoint one or two members to the
WHOIS Steering Group - the members may be from outside the GNSO Council
- each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the
WHOIS Steering Group.
Bruce Tonkin urged the constituencies to appoint one or two members
before Montreal and that the independent chair to the steering group
could be achieved by consensus among the steering group members, or a
chair could be appointed from within the steering group.
Bruce Tonkin supported the request from the ALAC to appoint two
representatives to give flexibility, with the understanding that only
one person has the right to vote and extended the same invitation to
the GAC representation.
7 b. Bruce Tonkin inquired whether there was convergence on the gTLD
committee document.
Philip Sheppard reported that the wording on the issue of International
Domain Names still had to be reviewed and the document would be ready
for the ICANN Montreal meeting on June 24, 2003.
7 c. Audri Mukhopadhyay extended an invitation to the GNSO Council to
meet with the GAC gTLD working group on Monday morning, June 23, 2003,
to discuss whatever issues the Council wished to raise with the GAC
which could cover gTLD policies, deletes and transfers.
It was requested that a list of topics be drawn up by the GNSO Council
Chair and forwarded to the GAC in preparation for the meeting.
The meeting would follow after the GNSO Council breakfast meeting in
the same room at 9:00 AM.
Marilyn Cade requested a list of the GAC working groups.
Action: Secretary will request the list from Christopher Wilkinson,
Secretary to the GAC. and post to GNSO Council list.
7 d. Ken Stubbs said that requests had been received from various users
expressing concern about users who had relied on Internet Service
Providers (ISP) over the last years to manage domain names. The
Internet Service Providers, were experiencing difficult times and some
had gone out of business resulting in the users, who have domains with
them, not having any portability. Would it thus be possible to develop
a methodology to deal with the problem, which could be communicated to
the users?
Bruce Tonkin replied that it was an appropriate subject for the
Registrar's constituency to consider.
7 e. Bruce Tonkin asked the GNSO Secretariat for a status report on the
process for the GNSO Council Chair vote.
The secretary explained that nominations would close on Friday June 6,
12:00 UTC
The ballots would be sent out just after the close of nominations.
The GNSO Council will vote by e-mail between Friday , June 6, 15:00 UTC
and Friday, June 20, 15:00 UTC 2003 to elect the GNSO Council Chair.
The vote will be ratified at the GNSO Council meeting in Montreal on
June 24, 2003.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed
Call ended: 15:20 CET, 13:20 UTC, 23 :20 Melbourne time Thursday 5 ,
June , 2003.
* Next GNSO Council meeting: Tuesday June 24 , 2003 at 14:00 local time
in Montreal
see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html
