The meeting started at 20:03 UTC.
List of attendees:
Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting - absent, apologies
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder
Adrian Kinderis - absent, apologies, Tim Ruiz - absent
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Caroline Greer; Edmon Chung
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis - joined after roll
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; Mike Rodenbaugh
Zahid Jamil - absent, apologies,
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, William Drake, Rosemary Sinclair
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer - absent, apologies
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Policy Director
David Clossons - Director of IT Operations
Roman Pelikh - Director, Applications & Services
Joshua Bierman - End User Support
Patrick Jones - Senior Manager of Continuity & Risk Management
Ken Bour - Consultant
For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:
Item 1: Administrative Items
1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest
•Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, Councilors were polled regarding the following meeting topics:
- New voting procedures
- Whois studies
- GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs
- Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG
- Community WG regarding the GAC requested community working group on new gTLD Recommendation 6 (i.e., morality & public order)
Disclosures of interest were recorded for the following Councillors:
Chuck Gomes: With regard to the vertical integration issue Verisign is intending to participate in the new gTLD process so what happens with regard to vertical integration could impact us.
Caroline Greer: DotMobi may be participating in the new gTLD process.
Stéphane van Gelder: Indom may be participating in the new gTLD process.
Mike Rodenbaugh: I represent clients that are likely to participate in the new TLD process. I represent clients who are likely to be benefited and also perhaps negatively impacted by various changes to WHOIS rules depending on how that ever changes.
Kristina Rosette: I am advising a number of firm clients that are considering whether to participate in the gTLD process. None have decided to do so. Virtually every client that I advise in terms of providing status information of WHOIS developments would likely be adversely impacted depending upon certain WHOIS developments and just generally to the extent that I am advising clients on any of these issues that we are considering it is in an information status perspective as opposed to a policy perspective.
David Taylor: I am advising clients on the new gTLD process; none have confirmed that they are going to proceed but I would expect some to.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: I am representing Deutsche Telecom and we are running a registrar called T Online but there is no decision undertaken to participate in the present new gTLD process.
Debbie Hughes: While my organization is considering whether or not to participate in the new gTLD program we have not made any decision either way, however we would be potentially impacted by any WHOIS developments.
Olga Cavalli: I have been approached by some local original communities to help them understand the new gTLD process. Nobody has expressed interest in going forward.
Edmon Chung: DotAsia is interested in applying for IDN versions of DotAsia in new gTLDs.
Andrei Kolesnikov: I might be involved in consultations regarding some quasi-governmental gTLDs for certain parts of certain countries.
1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
1 3 Review/amend the agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures
Item 2: Overview of New Procedures Related to Voting
Chuck Gomes thanked Ken Bour for creating tools to help navigate the new procedures related to voting and encouraged stakeholder groups or constituencies to avail themselves of the opportunity to review the procedures with Ken.
Item 3: Whois Studies
Mike Rodenbaugh requested that the WHOIS motion to proceed with Study number 1 be deferred to the next Council meeting on 8 September 2010.
Staff committed to provide the staff analysis on the Study Number Three, WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Abuse Study as soon as possible after the deadline for input from the vendors on 16 September 2010, so as to provide the Council with adequate time for review before its meeting on October 7, 2010.
Item 4: GNSO Endorsements for the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team Composition SSR & Whois Policies Review Teams
Chuck Gomes thanked the Stakeholder Groups for their timely completion of the process and remarked that all four of the stakeholder group endorsements will be forwarded to the Selectors according to the GNSO procedures.
However, Council needs to decide whether or not to improve the geographic diversity of the Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team(SSR RT) by adding George Asare Sakyi from Ghana to the slate.
Chuck Gomes suggested that a motion was needed to add George Asare Sakyi to the slate.
- The Secretariat will inform the Stakeholder Group/Constituency chairs that the NCSG would like to add George Asare Sakyi to the SSR RT slate and the Council will be considering that during the meeting on 8 September 2010.
- If needed, the Secretariat will facilitate scheduling a meeting with George if any group would like further information from him.
Item 5: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG
Margie Milam provided the Council with an overview of the revised Initial Report
Chuck Gomes raised a question on behalf of Adrian Kinderis who was not on the call:
How much closer will we get to consensus by continuing the work of the group going forward?
Stéphane Van Gelder indicated that some in the Registrar Stakeholder Group held the position that since it appeared unlikely that the group would reach consensus, there was no need for a preliminary report, it could be taken as the Final Report.
Chuck Gomes pointed out that the Policy Development Process (PDP) makes provision for submitting a Final report to the Board, but there are no procedures for submitting an Initial Report. However in his view, in the Council's responsibility of managing the Policy Development Process it had a responsibility to communicate with the Board. Chuck Gomes noted that if there was a request to discontinue the working group it could be done via the Council processes.
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
There was no second for the motion.
The discussion was reopened at the end of the meeting and objection was made to seconding a motion that had been tabled.
Discussion indicated that especially the NCSG felt that the Initial Report should be forwarded by the Council to the Board.
Kristina Rosette did not question sending the Initial report to the Board, but expressed concern at making changes to the processes on the fly and thus asked two questions:
- Whether there was formal procedural requirement that would prohibit the Board from discussing the issue/Initial Report unless it was forwarded by the Council?
- Whether it was correct to assume that it is on the Board Retreat Agenda?
Staff committed to responding to these questions on the Council mailing list.
Item 6: GAC requested community working group on new gTLD Recommendation 6
Liz Gasster provided the Council with a brief overview of the terms of reference developed by the cross community group working on recommendation 6 of the New gTLD recommendations
Chuck Gomes recommended that the draft terms of reference that have been agreed upon by the ALAC, GAC and GNSO members of the Cross Community Working Group remain unchanged and suggested working with staff to incorporate a public comment period into the process.
Council confirmed Chuck Gomes as a co-chair, and Stéphane Van Gelder who volunteered to serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for the Rec6 CWG.
Councillors were reminded of the short timeframe, 13 September and were encouraged to keep their respective groups informed of the Working Group issues so that the GNSO together with the ALAC and GAC would be in a position to readily comment on the group's report when completed.
Item 7: Ongoing Action Items
7.1 Next Steps for Prioritization of GNSO Projects
Deferred to the Council meeting on 8 September 2010.
7.2 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan
Status update deferred to the Council meeting on 8 September 2010.
7.3 Suggested improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings
Status update deferred to the Council meeting on 8 September 2010.
7.4 Suggestions for GNSO Council interaction with the Board
Stéphane van Gelder will provided a report on the Council mailing list.
7.5 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter
A meeting with the ccNSO and ALAC Chair is planned during the week of 6 September 2010. The ccNSO has identified volunteers for the group.
7.6 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation
Volunteers should contact Glen to join the group.
7.7 Council meeting dates for November, December 2010 & January 2011.
The results of the doodle poll indicate the following possible dates:
- 18 November at 11:00 UTC
- 8 December Open Council meeting in Cartagena, time to be decided
- 6 January 2011 at 20:00 UTC
There was no further business.
Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 22:00 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 at 15:00 UTC.