| 6 December 2007
Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 16 Council Members GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Chuck Gomes chaired the meeting. Avri Doria requested that the following items be added under Any Other Business Decision 1: The GNSO Council moved a motion to approve the Nominating Committee job description as agreed upon by the Council and set forth in the document. Olof Nordling reported in the absence of Ross Rader, who is the group coordinator. One of the 3 documents produced by the working group to review inter-registrar transfers Ross Rader was appointed as the lead/coordinator for the short-term planning group. The purpose of the exercise was to prepare for additional policy development processes (PDP), not to amend the already launched PDP. The prioritised list could be considered as a starting point for such. Chuck Gomes introduced the topic reminding Council of Part 3 of the resolution 20071031-3 that Liz Gasster explained the various steps that were envisioned for the group: The draft template for the WHOIS studies would be reviewed by the Council at its meeting on 20 December 2007. Volunteers for the group: Item 5 - IDNC and new ccTLD allocation issues discussion Avri Doria reported that discussions with Chris Disspain, the ccNSO Council chair, had not been successful in obtaining increased GNSO representation on the group. Chuck Gomes stated that a key question related to the allocation of names in the name space was whether all names, not on the ISO-3166-1 list, were presumed to be in the generic name space. It was unlikely that a new ISO list for IDN names and territories, as for the 2 letter country codes, would be created. It thus became a fundamental issue for the GNSO because the allocation of names in the name space was a broad issue that required full community participation. Tim Ruiz supported additional membership because it was as much a GNSO, as it was ccNSO and GAC issue. Norbert Klein supported the allocation of names, outside the ISO-3166 space as being a GNSO policy issue and not a technical question. Edmon Chung viewed the allocation of the name space as a larger ICANN issue, but was in favour of the ccNSO/GAC fast track approach for satisfying those countries that needed IDN ccTLDs and as a means of defining issues and providing input to a broader discussion on the topic. Edmon likened the fast track approach to the experimental basket used in the gTLD process. Edmon supported increased GNSO membership in the group, or alternately having observers in addition to the 2 chosen representatives. Philip Sheppard, speaking as an individual, noted that: 1. Solutions were not simple and logic would not always work. Generally Government involvement did not favour a logical process and there was no precedent in terms of mapping the historic ISO- 3166 list into IDNs. So, a clean extrapolation from the new gTLD process in a logical way to predict certain outcomes was unlikely. Following the fast-track approach of one IDN ccTLD per country would work for some countries but not for others, because of political issues and shared multiple scripts. Tim Ruiz was in agreement with Philip Sheppard and noted that the current ccTLD space was becoming very competitive with the gTLD space. ccTLD operators were not required to have the same agreements as the gTLD registries with ICANN, such as mandating that only ICANN accredited registrars be used by the registries to offer registration services. Chuck Gomes referred to Milton Mueller's blog posting which raised another nuance that a new IDN gTLD would be a giveaway for country codes, while it would cost several hundred thousand dollars to even get a chance to play for the gTLD applicants wanting an IDN gTLD. Avri Doria offered 3 clarifications with regard to the IDNC working group charter: - the charter specifically stated that anything that the IDNC did, would not set precedence for the ccNSO's PDP on the full solution for ccTLDs. - the charter was approved by the ICANN Board, thus if the Council wanted increased representation, back-ups or observers,it may be appropriate to send a request to the Board asking for such consideration. Tina Dam commented that it was interesting that the Council opened up a specific name space discussion and referred to the workshop on IDN policy in Lisbon attended by ccNSO, GNSO and GAC members Chuck Gomes, expanding on the 'middle ground' concept, asked if it would be reasonable to believe that it was good for countries or territories to have an IDN version(s), of their country code names, realizing that in many cases it would go beyond two-characters, for use in their country and territory and for users of the script? Could Council support such a notion, or were there proponents for the other extreme that everything outside of the ISO 3166-1 list belonged to the gTLD space? Olga Cavalli commented that in her view, anything outside of the ISO 3166-1 list would be generic ('g') name space, but country names could be in scripts other than ASCII. However, the whole name of the country in another script, would then belong in the 'g' space. Avri Doria, stating her personal viewpoint, believed that until such time as a reallocation of the name space had been undertaken by ICANN, the community as a whole, Supporting Oragnisations and Advisory Committees, all of the name space, IDN and ASCII, was generic except for the ISO 3166-1 two character ASCII list. Tim Ruiz, as an individual Registrar, agreed with Avri and supported the fast approach, but expressed reservations about the policies and rules that the IDN TLDs would fall under. The current ccTLD market trends indicated that the allocation of additional IDN TLDs would not necessarily benefit the local people in their country. The gTLD space versus ccTLD space was important from the GNSO’s perspective in that consideration should be given to one of ICANN's core values, to promote and sustain a competitive environment. Mike Rodenbaugh expressed support for the fast track approach and, while recognizing that IDNs needed to go beyond two characters, believed that they should not go beyond a direct reference to a country’s name. Robin Gross supported the fast track approach and added that the GNSO needed to be a part of the decision in scoping the name space. Chuck Gomes proposed that a small group be formed to develop a clear statement, for consideration by the Council if possible by the next Council meeting on 20 December 2007, that describes the Council's position regarding: The group would do its work on a dedicated email list and by teleconference to develop the statement. Volunteers for the group: Tina Dam and Liz Gasster, ICANN staff, volunteered to co-ordinate the group Kristina Rosette, seconded by Edmon Chung proposed that: The GNSO Council submit a formal request to the ICANN Board for increased GNSO participation on the IDNC working group as stated in the charter that was approved by the ICANN Board Decision 2: b. Discuss candidates and pick 2 as required by the current IDNC charter Cary Karp - gTLD Registries Constituency 1 - good understanding of IDN issues from a technical and policy point of view. Charles Sha'ban with technical and policy knowledge of both the gTLD and ccTLD environments was proposed by the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency and supported by the CBUC, Norbert Klein and Chuck Gomes. In addition to rich exposure to Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), generic and country code Domain Names, and Multilingual Domain Name issues, Charles Sha'ban is the Executive Director of the Regional office of Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (AGIP), member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization (TAGOrg), Director of Internet Affairs in TAGOrg. and Founding Member and ex-board member of the Arab Internet Names Consortium (AINC) Edmon Chung stated that he had actively worked with IDNs since their inception in 1999. He had followed through the policy process being involved in ccTLD’s especially in Asia, where there was a pent-up demand for IDNS and also being from GTLD space, understood the overlapping, rather than the conflicting issues as well as the political sensitivities that existed. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Bilal Beiram proposed that: The GNSO Council approves two candidates to join the IDNC working group, The motion unanimously passed by voice vote. Item 7 - Action Item Review Chuck Gomes reporting on the GNSO Council response to the GAC/ CCNSO issues paper on IDN TLD’s, said that the group had been formed, they had held one meeting, and were revising the statement via Google documents. The goal was to have a rough draft before the Council by January 18, 2008. The GNSO Secretariat reminded Council that the nomination period for GNSO Council chair would close at 23:00 UTC and that voting would start on Thursday 13 December 2007 and run through to 7 January 2008. Avri proposed that both actions should proceed in parallel. Chuck Gomes suggested that the issue be divided in two: Kristina Rosette noted that funding was to ensure all volunteers, who contributed to the formation of ICANN's policy, were actually in a position to do that without personal financial disadvantage. If ICANN was essentially limiting participation, barring reimbursement of reasonable travel expenses, it was inconsistent with the entire bottom up, international, multi-stakeholder model. Tim Ruiz, from a personal point of view, was in general agreement with the concept of funding travel. If GNSO policy was a considerable part of what took place at ICANN meetings then reasonable expenses should be covered to ensure good Council representation. However, there was some strong opposition to the concept in the Registrars Constituency. Jordi Iparraguirre, speaking for the gTLD Registry Constituency noted that the constituency did not oppose travel subsidisation but that the criteria for having such support should be transparent, crystal clear, and public. Bilal Beiram supported Jordi, but until such time as the remote participation via video conferencing had been developed, physical participation was important. Norbert Klein agreed that there were two different issues, the immediate New Delhi meetings and the long term travel policy, and urged for the matter to be expedited, because airline tickets increased in price nearer the dates. Chuck Gomes added that the issue of meeting venue for meetings was an important issue and needed to be revisited. Avri Doria stated that as Council Chair she would put forward the Council position, but her personal view was that parity of treatment with the ICANN Board and staff should be requested. Chuck Gomes summarised, that two constituencies had noted hesitations about a blanket request for travel funding while different personal views were expressed in at least one of those constituencies. Almost everybody else seemed to be supportive of requesting travel funding. Avri Doria invited Council members to inform her privately if they were completely dependent on funding to attend the New Delhi meetings. Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.The meeting ended at 17:30 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 20 December 2007 at 15:00 UTC. |