| 8 January 2009 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C
Zahid Jamil - Commercial & Business Users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Stéphane van Gelder - Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent apologies
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Cyril Chua - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Mary Wong - NCUC - absent - apologies
William Drake - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Terry Davis - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 18 Council Members
( 23 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Tim Cole - Chief Registrar Liaison
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Olof Nordling - Director, Services Relations and Branch Manager, Brussels office
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Craig Schwatrz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Marika Konings - Policy Director
Ken Bour - Policy consultant
Kieren McCarthy - General Manager of Public Participation
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons and Observers
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
Pierre Bonis - ccNSO Observer Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies Absent Apologies
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President Services
MP3 Recording Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes chaired the meeting. Roll Call. Avri Doria welcomed Pierre Bonis the newly appointed ccNSO observer
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Chuck Gomes and Avri Doria updated statements of interest
Item 2: Review/amend the agenda
Item 9: GSNO comments regarding the (IDN) ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan - removed
Added AOB Item on AC/SO
Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes:
Philip Sheppard, seconded by Stéphane van Gelder, moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 November 2008
The motion passed unanimously.
Decision 1. The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 20 November 2008 Item 4: Confirm GNSO Council Chair election results Avri Doria asked the vice chair, Chuck Gomes, to preside for the GNSO Chair election. The Secretariat noted that the chair must receive affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO Council - i.e., at least 14 votes.
Weighted voting results:
24 votes FOR Avri Doria,
1 vote AGAINST.
1 vote not cast (2)
27 Total Twenty-one ballots were sent out. Twenty-one ballots were returned but one was a duplicate, so 20 people voted and one person did not vote.
The GNSO Council confirmed the election of Avri Doria, 24 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 person did not vote, as the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected. The motion passed by a voice vote
One abstention: Avri Doria Chuck Gomes passed the chair back to Avri Doria.
Item 5: Registrar Accreditation Agreement ( RAA) Discussion and vote Avri Doria reminded Council that the two motions, both proposed by Tim Ruiz and seconded by Chuck Gomes, were tabled at the previous Council meeting on 18 December 2008. Motion one required a two thirds majority for it to be passed on to the ICANN Board, and absentee voting would be allowed.
Tim Cole clarified the process that would occur after the Council's vote on the RAA amendments (documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec….)
explaining, that if the GNSO Council passed the motion with a 2/3 majority vote, the amendments would go for another round of public comment prior to going to the Board for a vote. Then, assuming the Board approved, the new form of the contract would go into effect upon renewal for each registrar (each registrar has a 5 year contract - so it could take up to 5 years to get onboard). Registrars can voluntarily accept the new RAA earlier if they want. ICANN will be operating with 2 contracts in place for a period of time. Questions were asked about renewals and it was explained that there would be many this year, 2009, and next year, 2010, due to the large growth in the registrar group 5 years ago. It is conceivable that about 2/3 would be renewed in the next 2 years, but the effective date of the RAA approval would determine how many were already renewed and therefore not covered. This interpretation was challenged and Dan Halloran and Tim Cole explained that the process is not identical to the Policy Development Process (PDP) Consensus Policy process so they do not apply unilaterally the way a consensus policy would. Tim Ruiz, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed a motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Whereas ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments
(documented in:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec…)
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Votes cast during the Council meeting:
7 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC): Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISPCPC): William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) 12 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.): Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each)
Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) Council members absent: Adrian Kinderis, Mary Wong, Cyril Chua 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard (CBUC): Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC): Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each)
The following reasons were noted for the abstentions:
Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the RAA changes. Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. Kristina Rosette (IPC):
Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input. In addition to that flawed consultative process, the Registrar constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. Terry Davis (NCA):
I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated. Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): The reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote.
The results of the final vote with the absentee votes for the record:
9 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC): Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISPCPC): William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each)
Mary Wong (NCUC): Cyril Chua (IPC) - absentee votes, (one vote each) Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close. As the balloting had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. 14 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.): Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each)
Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes): Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard (CBUC): Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC): Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) Avri Doria proposed tabling the second motion and it was suggested that the Policy staff should also discuss the issue to find a way forward.
(See https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?08_jan_2009_motions)
Item 6: New gTLDs Implementation Chuck Gomes, seconded by Tony Harris, with a friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh proposed a motion on new gTLD Implementation
Whereas: Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round."
(See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_…) The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire. The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'. It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages). Resolve: The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: - Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6.
- ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment.
The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP).
As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include:
**** Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP)
**** Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP)
Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.
The motion passed
19 Votes in favour:
Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each):
Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iprraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (two votes each) 1 Vote against: Kristina Rosette (one vote) 3 Abstentions: Tim Ruiz (two votes). Mike Rodenbaugh (one vote) Absent: Adrian Kinderis, Cyril Chua, Mary Wong. Reasons for the abstentions: Mike Rodenbaugh:
.. I’m personally going to abstain from the motion anyway. I feel conflicted actually, because I’m involved in business ventures that are, actually dependent on the timeline to some extent. Although certainly everyone understands it’s flexible. So I’m certainly not in favor of inordinate delay. But I think it may be going a little bit too fast.
Tim Ruiz
".. A number of reasons. For one I’m not clear on how we - where we even go from here. .... because we’re actually changing the previously approved policy. In fact setting a timeline that didn’t exist before. .... then I’m not even sure that my constituency fully understands what this motion was all about. And even the fact that I’m not even sure. And the recent comments from the Department of Commerce and events that have occurred since the first draft have made me rethink, not whether we support new gTLDs, but whether it’s prudent at this time to be shortening or setting a timeline so that’s why I abstained at this point."
Avri Doria proposed scheduling a Council meeting, open to alternates if Council members could not attend, to discuss inconsistencies or deviations between the policy recommendations and the draft new gTLD Guidebook. No decisions will be taken at the meeting.
Action Item: schedule an open meeting Item 7: IDN Deployment Chuck Gomes, seconded by Adrian Kinderis with friendly amendments from Mike Rodenbaugh and Edmon Chung, proposed Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, Resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following: i) follow security and stability requirements such as those contained in gTLD Registry contracts, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.
The motion passed. 18 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Carlos Souza, (one vote each): (Council agreed to amend Carlos Souza's vote from "no" to "yes").
Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each) 5 Votes against: Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Terry Davis. (one vote each)
Absent: Adrian Kinderis, Mary Wong, Cyril Chua.
Item 8: GNSO Improvements Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Charter approval
Council requested Chuck Gomes, the OSC chair, to take the proposed charter back to the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and ascertain whether the changes recommended by the Council members would be acceptable to the steering committee.
Tim Ruiz and Mike Rodenbaugh were requested to submit the alternate language they proposed, so that Chuck could incorporate it in the revised charter. The motion was tabled until the next Council meeting on 29 January 2009. (See motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?08_jan_2009_motions) Item 9: GNSO comments re IDN ccTLD fast track implementation plan (removed from the agenda)
Item, 10.2.3 Travel Policy ( Kristina Rosette requested that this item be placed next on the agenda). .Denise Michel referred to the email from Kevin Wilson, the Chief Financial Officer, to the GNSO and ccNSO regarding the implementation of the travel guidelines for the ICANN Mexico City meeting including the deadlines and noted an important change from the Cairo guidelines, namely that the support could be split between two people.
The list of travelers receiving ICANN support should be provided by 22 January and by 28 January the hotel room and the flight bookings have to be locked in. The GNSO constituencies should decide how the 13 slots will be divided up and inform ICANN staff of their decision.
It was suggested that the Travel Drafting Team work out the details of the support.
Stéphane van Gelder and Alan Greenberg volunteered as additional members of the drafting team.
Item 10: Status Updates
10.1 Board Update
Denise Michel reported that the last Board meeting was held on 11 December 2008 and that an update had been given during the Council meeting on 18 December 2008. Minutes of the meeting have been posted on the ICANN web site.
Denise reiterated the Board resolution on GNSO Improvements / Implementation and the Role of Individual Users in GNSO
Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on registrant and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in constructive yet non-duplicative ways remains an open issue that affects GNSO restructuring. Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted, no later than 24 January 2009, for consideration by the Board. Avri Doria committed to contacting the ALAC chair. Denise Michel drew Council's attention to an announcement that would be published on the ICANN and the GNSO home pages regarding GNSO Improvements Implementation informing the community how to become involved in the process .
10.2.1 Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - no update
10.3.1 Whois
Chuck Gomes reported that the group was working on a spreadsheet that summarizes each group’s priorities and their estimates in terms of study feasibility in order to develop possible motions to present to the Council, which would then decide for which studies if any, staff would be asked to develop cost estimates and feasibility estimates. A dedicated mailing list has been created for the WHOIS study group which consists of councilors and other constituency members.
10.3.2 Registration Abuse Policy
The first meeting is scheduled for 9 January 2009. Members from the ISPC and NCUC are encouraged to volunteer.
10.3.3 ccTLD response
Edmon Chung produced a ccTLD response which was discussed on the mailing list and subsequently submitted to the comment forum. 10.4 Working Groups
10.4.1 Fast Flux
Avri Doria, the interim chair, reported that an initial report was near conclusion.
10.4.2 IRTP Part A PDP
Marika Konings reported that the public comment period was due to open the following day, 9 January 2009, and run until 30 January 2009. 10.6 GNSO Restructuring
Rob Hoggarth mentioned an invitation that would appear in the next few days for volunteers to join one of the 5 work teams in the GNSO Restructuring process and encouraged the constituencies, the ALAC and ccNSO liaisons to distribute the notice. Rob Hoggarth drew Council's attention to the deadlines in the GNSO Council Restructuring Implementation Plan and encouraged the constituencies to provide their constituency reconfirmations in advance of the February 2009 Board meeting. Item 11: AOB 11.1 GNSO Council Vice Chair elections
The Secretariat noted that a formal call for nominations for GNSO Council vice chair will open on 9 January for two weeks until 23 January 2009. Voting will take place during the Council meeting on 29 January 2009. 11.2
Avri Doria encouraged the councilors to provide topics for discussion for the Advisory Committee and Supporting Organisations (AC/SO) joint session on Monday afternoon, 3 March 2009, during the ICANN meetings in Mexico City.
Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting ended at 21:15 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will on 29 January 2009 at 19:00 UTC.
see: Calendar
| 