2 December 2005 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. -( proxy to Marilyn Cade)
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C - remote participation
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
June Soe - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - proxy to Ken Stubbs
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren
Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.
Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.
Mawaki Chango - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Robin Gross
Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - remote participation
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 18 Council Members
ICANN Staff
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison
Michael Palage - ICANN Board member
Quorum present at 11: 15 PST.
Real Time Captioning
Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this meeting
Item 1: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006
- initiate formal call for nominations
Bruce Tonkin noted that Council needed to elect a chair for the period
4 January 2006 to 3 December 2006.
Action: GNSO Secretariat, following the meeting, initiated a call for nominations. Item 2: Terms of reference for new TLDs
(staff recommendation from issues report) 1. Should new top level domain names be introduced?
a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable.
2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries.
b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users.
c. Examine whether distinctions between restricted, unrestricted, sponsored and unsponsored top level domains are necessary and how the choice of distinctions meets the interests of relevant stakeholders.
d. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet.
e. Examine whether additional criteria can be developed to normalize and simplify the administrative process of selecting and implementing new top level domains.
3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds of top level domain name application processes, develop modified or new criteria which simplify and standardize the allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names.
b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots and comparative evaluation processes to determine the most predictable and stable method of implementing additions to the Internet root.
c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers.
4. Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop modified or new contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds.
b. Examine whether additional contractual conditions are necessary to improve ICANN's contractual compliance regime to provide predictability and security of registry services.
c. Examine whether a registry services code of conduct, in addition to contractual conditions, would improve a compliance regime which is easily understandable and recognizes differences in approaches to offering registry services whilst, at the same time, ensuring the stability and security of the Internet.
Bruce Tonkin stated that at the GNSO Council meeting on 28 November 2005 in Vancouver the council had agreed to initiate policy in this area.
"Whereas, the GNSO Council recognises that the review of the GNSO Council held in 2004 recommended that the PDP timelines be reviewed.
The GNSO votes to initiate the PDP on new gTLDs. The GNSO will develop a work program in consultation with the ICANN staff and ICANN board that sets out a timeframe for work"
The terms of reference for new gTLDs would benefit from the input received in the GNSO public forum and the constituency meetings. Discussions and modifications focused on making the terms of reference enabling without too much detail which could impede exercising judgment during the process, taking into account the whole picture, trying to accelerate the process and being mindful of creating policy that would guide contracts.
Ross Rader, seconded by Avri Doria and Marilyn Cade proposed the modified "Terms of Reference for New gTLDs"
1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?
a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable.
2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
a. Taking into account the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries.
b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users.
c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet.
3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names.
b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability.
c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers.
4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds.
b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services.
c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services.
The motion was unanimously carried by show of hands. 27 votes in favour (Marilyn Cade voted Philip Sheppard's proxy in favour, Philip being temporarily absent).
Decision: 1
"Terms of Reference for New gTLDs"
1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced?
a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable.
2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
a. Taking into account the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries.
b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users.
c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet.
3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names.
b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability.
c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers.
4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds.
b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services.
c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services.
Marilyn Cade, seconded by Ross Rader proposed a procedural motion:
that the policy development process on the "Terms of Reference for new gTLDs" be managed by the GNSO Council as a committee of the whole according to the provision made in the ICANN bylaws, section 8,
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.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote and show of hands. Decision 2:
That the policy development process on the "Terms of Reference for new gTLDs" be managed by the GNSO Council as a committee of the whole according to the provision made in the ICANN bylaws, section 8,
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
Ross Rader, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed a procedural motion:
To request ICANN staff to assist the Council to arrange two full meeting days before the meeting in Wellington and before the meeting in Morocco on the policy development process on new gTLDs. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote and show of hands.
Decision 3:
To request ICANN staff to assist the Council to arrange two full meeting days before the meeting in Wellington and before the meeting in Morocco on the policy development process on new gTLDs.
Marilyn Cade noted for the record that the council had acknowledged that there was a problem in the policy development process time line, documented in section 5 of the GNSO Council evaluation. and a pending work item which Council had not yet addressed.
In view of this Council should acknowledge that an extended working time line was required, establish a realistic work expectation and advise the ICANN Board that the Council would be seeking an exception to the bylaws. It was clarified that the Council would be working as a task force in a policy development process and that the output of the days will be the development made on the working drafts as opposed to a full minuted GNSO Council session. Item 3: Issues report on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Proposed motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN is to increase the internationalisation of the domain name space. WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to the issue of localised IDN equivalents of existing gTLDs and ccTLDs, and for the purpose of jointly requesting an issues report The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs can also be considered.
Bruce Tonkin commented that the motion arose from discussions over the past few
months where a strong desire was expressed by both country code managers and
operators of generic top-level domains to be able to support and continue to support the internationalization of the domain name space.
The Council, as the policy body, with the policy development process mechanism for making recommendations to the ICANN Board, considered it important to start identifying the policy
issues as early as possible. Appropriate decisions as to the next steps can be made with the issues clearly identified in an issues report.
One of the outcomes of the Internationalized Domain Name workshop on 30 November 2005 wasthe desire to have IDNs in the top level. International domain names were recognized as one of ICANN's goals and it was important to liaise and interact with the ccNSO to deal with the topic.
Dialogue and interaction with all other fora, in particular with the President's Advisory
Committee which was a point of interaction with those communities external to the ICANN process, was strongly encouraged.
The complexity of the issue and the time lines set out in the ICANN bylaws were specifically acknowledged in order to avoid unrealistic timelines and expectations Lucy Nichols, seconded by Tom Keller proposed the following motion: WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN is to
increase the internationalisation of the domain name space; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with
respect to internationalization of the domain name space, and for the
purpose of jointly requesting an issues report; WHEREAS the GNSO Council recognizes and wishes to inform and be informed by
the technical efforts currently under way in other organizations which are
represented on the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs; WHEREAS the GNSO Council acknowledges the timelines in the ICANN bylaws, and
recognizes the recommendation from the GNSO Council review to revise those
timelines, and given the complexity of this issue, the GNSO Council will
develop an appropriate work plan that meets the needs of the ICANN
community. The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the policy issues associated
with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second
level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO Council recommends that the staff engage appropriate expert
resources to assist in the preparation of the Issues Report. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that
the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing
ccTLDs can also be considered. Council voted by show of hands.
The motion carried with 25 votes in favour and 1 abstention which counted for 2 votes.
.
Ross Rader abstained from voting and commented that he supported the intent of the motion and the outcomes that would arise from it, but the reason for abstaining from the vote was a philosophical problem, he was uncomfortable with explicitly passing a motion that urged Council to ignore the bylaws.
Decision 4:
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN is to
increase the internationalisation of the domain name space; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with
respect to internationalization of the domain name space, and for the
purpose of jointly requesting an issues report; WHEREAS the GNSO Council recognizes and wishes to inform and be informed by
the technical efforts currently under way in other organizations which are
represented on the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs; WHEREAS the GNSO Council acknowledges the timelines in the ICANN bylaws, and
recognizes the recommendation from the GNSO Council review to revise those
timelines, and given the complexity of this issue, the GNSO Council will
develop an appropriate work plan that meets the needs of the ICANN
community. The GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the policy issues associated
with creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second
level domains within existing gTLDs. The GNSO Council recommends that the staff engage appropriate expert
resources to assist in the preparation of the Issues Report. The GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that
the policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing
ccTLDs can also be considered. Item 4: Vote of thanks for outgoing Council members
Bruce Tonkin on behalf of the Council, thanked the following Council members who were leaving:
Philip Colebrook
Alick Wilson
Niklas Lagergren for their work on the Council and called for a formal vote of thanks from the Council which would be mentioned in the GNSO Chair's presentation to the ICANN Board at the public forum.
The motion carried unanimously
Decision 5: Vote of thanks for outgoing Council members
Philip Colebrook
Alick Wilson
Niklas Lagergren Item 5 Any Other Business: Philip Sheppard referred to a proposed compromise motion relating to the Verisign settlement posted to the Council list on December 2, 2005 from the Commercial and Business Users constituency for discussion by Council.
Draft GNSO Council motion on the proposed Verisign settlement v2
Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed
settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern,
Whereas the GNSO Council supports the principle of a settlement of
litigation between ICANN and Verisign,
Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this
proposed settlement,
Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised
in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO. The GNSO Council resolves: That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement
while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the
proposed changes.
All the council members were requested to make a full disclosure of their potential interests or involvement in any issues relating to the dot com agreement.
Conflict of Interest Policy Section 4, Duty to Abstain, 4.1, states:
4.1 No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct financial interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote. 4.2 In the event of such an abstention, the abstaining Director shall state the reason for the abstention, which shall be noted in the minutes of the Board of Directors. Further clarification on a point of order was that there was quorum for the meeting, the GNSO Council was in session and that quorum related to the meeting, not to the topic. . Alick Wilson declared independency with no conflict of interest and held a proxy vote for Bruce Tonkin Bruce Tonkin, employed by Melbourne IT declared that Melbourne IT would be affected by the outcomes of the proposed dot com agreement and the company was a 10% share holder of the dot biz. registry operator.
Tom Keller, working for a German registrar, would be affected by the dot com agreement, and the company was a shareholder in Afilias registry.
Lucy Nichols, was not aware of any immediate conflict, but disclosed that Nokia Corporation where she worked was part of the joint venture for dot mobi.
Cary Karp, representative of the gTLD registry constituency, declared a conflict of interest.
Ken Stubbs, representative of the gTLD registry constituency, declared he was a director of Afilias.
Ken Stubbs disclosed that June Seo, a representative from the gTLD registry constituency, was an employee of Verisign.
Ross Rader works for Tucows, a shareholder of Afilias Corporation, a registry and reserved the right to put other conflict of interests, should there be any, on the table at any time. Bret Fausett, a nonvoting liaison, representing the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) disclosed that his family trust owned a de minimus amount of stock in Tucows, Neustar and Verisign. Council members who had no conflict of interests holding proxy votes: Alick Wilson, and Avri Doria, held proxies for Bruce Tonkin
Norbert Klein held proxy for Tom Keller,
Niklas Lagergren held proxies for Ross Rader and Lucy Nichols
Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, and Maureen Cubberley had no conflict in the issue. Bruce Tonkin clarified that the decision was up to individual councillors, after they had declared their conflict of interest, whether they felt that they could discuss the topic, with the advice that any councillor who wished not to participate could pass a proxy to an appropriate person.
Bruce Tonkin handed over the chair of the actual discussion to Philip Sheppard.
Philip Sheppard, in the chair, accepted the proposed friendly amendment and
Cary Karp moved to call the question.
The motion was put to a role call vote.
The motion carried: 21 votes in favour, 2 against that count for 4 votes, one abstention that counts for 2 votes. Decision 6:
Whereas the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and have detailed statements on issues of concern; Whereas the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation between ICANN and Verisign; Whereas the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed settlement; Whereas the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the GNSO; The GNSO Council resolves:
That the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement
while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes.
Philip Sheppard, thanked the transcribers, and passed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin. Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 1: 20 PST. | 