16 November 2006 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: 19 Council Members ICANN Staff GNSO Council Liaisons Jonathan Nevett Registrar Constituency chair - invited guest Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - apologies Quorum present at 19:08 UTC. Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Bruce Tonkin proposed an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 19 October 2006. Motion approved. Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 19 October 2006 were adopted. Marilyn Cade requested an update from staff: "To request the Board to delay any decision on the .biz .info and .org agreements until the ICANN Board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN meetings 2006 and to take into account the current outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that time." - Request and update on "the ICANN Board has requested the staff to engage an outside agency to deliver findings on economic questions relating to the domain registration market and how the Council and task force could take input". Bruce Tonkin noted that he had not received any correspondence from the ICANN Board in response to his request relating to the timing of the present agreements. Denise Michel reported that the ICANN Board had not made a decision on the .biz .info and .org agreements Bruce Tonkin noted that the item was on the ICANN Board agenda for the next meeting on 22 November 2006. Bruce Tonkin noted that 7 days before a GNSO Council meeting was a target for Task Force reports to be submitted to the Council for consideration, but if task force or other meetings occurred within 7 days of the GNSO Council meeting, it was acceptable to submit a report to the Council following that meeting. Item 3: Proposed bylaws amendment to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals. "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." The proposed bylaw amendment was to require publication of material agreements 21 days prior to a vote by the Board. This item arose from a request to the GNSO Council in August, 2005 to a proposed change to ICANN bylaws to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals. At the GNSO Council meeting in September 2006, it was suggested to change ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY in the bylaws Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals At the GNSO Council meeting in October, 2006, Alistair Dixon and Jon Nevett were tasked to revise the wording. The revised wording clarified that ICANN should notify the GNSO Council when there was an effect that differed materially from previous agreements, and materially affected policy changes. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Avri Doria proposed the motion to adopt the following wording: Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals. "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level The motion passed with 24 votes in favour: Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Lucy Nichols (IPC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Maureen Cubberley, Avri Doria, Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru (IPC) and Sophia Bekele Nominating Committee) (3) no vote, absent. Total 27 votes Decision 2 "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." Item 4. The GNSO IDN Working Group. Bruce Tonkin referred to the formation of the GNSO IDN working group at the GNSO Council meeting in May 2006 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18may06.shtml for the purpose of going through the Issues Report and deciding how to go ahead with a Policy Development Process on IDNs. There were further discussions at the ICANN meeting in Morocco, followed by meetings of the GNSO committee on new gTLDs in Amsterdam. It was agreed that IDNs should be considered as a type of new gTLD. Bearing this in mind, matters relating to IDNs, should be consistent with the policies for new gTLDs. However it was recognised that there could be policy issues not defined in the PDP-Dec05 process, thus, at the GNSO Council meeting on 19 October, 2006 it was agreed to reinstate the GNSO IDN working group to consider material, including the technical tests, the Internet Architecture Board comments and new materials which have arisen since the issue was examined, review the material and identify what policy issues there may be for consideration by Council. Considerable interest had been shown in the group, and Bruce Tonkin noted, that due to his time constraints, the group should elect a chair to move the work forward. The purpose was to provide clarity on the IDN working group and the processes and procedures. GNSO IDN Working Group Charter The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs should also apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 on IDNs available at: (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and prioritise any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps: (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaising with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. A Task Force was defined as a group that was specifically working on a policy development process while working group was an ad hoc group formed to perform a specific task. Council discussion on the Proposed Charter included asking the ccNSO how they were engaging in broader ccTLD groups. Mawaki Chango commented When "we say the new gTLD policy being developed applies to IDN [responding to a change suggested by Marilyn Cade on the charter], I'd like to make sure that we don't mean to equate policy for new gTLD to policy for IDN, and that it at best would apply only for the corresponding IDN-gTLD. Furthermore on that same note, I'd like to warn not to cede to the temptation to preempt or preclude a possible future IDN policy, as specific issues unfold, by the current new gTLD policy (drawing on the idea that the latter applies to the former.)" Bruce Tonkin clarified that the difference between an IDN TLD was in the encoding that was in the string, other than that, it was a new domain name. The policy being worked on, regarding new domain names applied to any kind of domain name, irrespective of the encoding mechanism. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Avri Doria proposed : The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. The GNSO IDN Working Group Charter was passed by an unanimous acclamation vote. Decision 4: GNSO IDN Working Group Charter The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. Item 5: Regarding term limits Proposed Resolution from Ross Rader: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. Denise Michel reported that the Board Governance committee had on its agenda for final approval, a process for GNSO improvements that entailed creating a joint Board-GNSO working group to consider the recommendations raised in the Patrick Sharry Council Review, the LSE review and other input from the GNSO and the public to develop specific recommendations to be considered by the ICANN Board. Approval was anticipated in the next few weeks and the council would be apprised. The next meeting date for the Board Governance committee was still to be decided. Two groups could be envisaged: The Board group would take input from any structure that the GNSO decided to create. Philip Sheppard proposed providing immediate input to the members of the Board Governance committee and referred to his proposed resolution as an amendment to the resolution under agenda item 6. Whereas the GNSO council review report and GNSO review reports are now complete. Maureen Cubberley supported Philip Sheppard's approach of cooperative development. It was fair that the Board wanted to deal with the issue and it should be noted that the Council had expressed its wish to be involved in the options. Philip Sheppard's proposal, council deliberations indicating the desire to be involved in discussions with the Board at an early stage and prior to it making a final decision should be passed on to the Board for consideration. Bruce Tonkin commented that the GNSO Council could not set term limits, it could recommend to the Board to make a bylaw change in that regard or it could recommend that constituencies voluntarily adjust their processes accordingly. Alistair Dixon asked what the rationale was for addressing the one particular recommendation from the LSE Report. It was argued that the resolution was put forward by a Council member on the mailing list, posted on the agenda 7 days prior to the meeting which gave Council members the opportunity to discuss resolutions with their constituencies prior to the meeting and it was up to each of them to determine the impact of the motion on the constituency. It was considered that the impact on constituencies would differ from one to another. No one recommendation from the LSE Review had any status above another. The LSE Review was intended as an independent review and should not be seen in the light of an external entity mandating changes to be implemented. It was up to the ICANN Board and the community to read it along with the previous Patrick Sharry Council Review and other inputs to define a process for improving the GNSO and to move forward with recommendations. Philip Sheppard who chaired LSE briefings, noted that a question was posed as to the nature of the report that some elements could be taken together and some elements could be separable. In that discussion, term limits were mentioned as being able to be separated out, recognising that many other elements could not, while another part of the proposal talked about joining constituencies together and the impact that that would have in terms of the nature of the term limits. Thus the premise that this particular item could be separated is flawed. Philip Sheppard posed the following questions: The discussion that followed highlighted that constituencies were not seen to have rights independent of the ICANN bylaws, but they did have the right to question the bylaws and they could run their affairs consistent with the ICANN bylaws as they saw fit. Ross Rader commented that the resolution did not address the capability of constituencies to govern themselves or appointing members to task forces, but amending the qualifications for the Council members. Furthermore there seemed to be no reason to delay such a resolution and did not believe that it affected the larger reform. The average term of participation in the Council is much longer than in any similarly situated body. The rules of the constituencies specified the appointment of a specific number of members to the council, so the resolution in no way changed the governance structure of the constituencies but rather changed the constitution of the Council. The difference between the nature of the constituencies was pointed out. The registrars and gTLD registries constituencies, were likely to draw engaged and available participation as opposed to other constituencies which were recipients of the services offered by the registries and registrars. Tony Holmes commented that one element could not be singled out and the passion noted in the discussions was reason to object to the vote without more dialogue. Robin Gross commented that the issue was not new and failed to understand that it would be a loss of control within constituencies, rather it should be seen as levelling the playing field among the constituencies. The LSE report was not an all in one package. Tony Holmes noted that the ISPC had no concerns over appointing new blood to the Council and if it is appropriate and it is the view of the constituency then it would certainly happen, there is nothing in the bylaws to stop it, it is a concept that we support putting the best people in the process. Bret Fausett commented that there were sound policy reasons against term limits, the scope should be discussed, and recommended, that the issue be taken up at the Sao Paulo meetings. Bruce Tonkin commented that there were views for and against the motion and the need for further reflection at a face-to-face meeting in Sao Paulo. The standard rules are that if there is quorum, it is the majority of the votes in the meeting in which there is quorum that determines the outcome. Bruce Tonkin proposed a procedural vote on calling the question. The motion carried with 13 votes in favour of voting on the resolution at the present meeting: 7 votes against voting on the resolution at the present meeting: 2 votes abstaining: 5 votes not recorded: Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele no vote, absent. Motion to table the resolution to the next Council meeting in Sao Paulo, failed. Ross Rader, seconded by Cary Karp proposed: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. Councillors were called to make Statements of Interest on the impact of the resolution on them as individuals. Marilyn Cade called a point of order to the Deputy General Counsel's comment that the GNSO Council could not set term limits and thus objected to speculation on the impact on individuals. The resolution carried with 15 votes in favour. Lucy Nichols, (IPC) Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Ross Rader would not be impacted by the motion as he would be ineligible to serve on the Council after the end of his current term under the terms of the Registrar constituency (2 votes) 7 votes abstaining: Statements of abstention Philip Sheppard (CBUC) I object to the piecemeal and ill-considered approach to the items in the LSE review and prefer to discuss them in the broader context of a working group. In such a group the inter-relation of different aspects of the review can be better understood and their implications debated with all interested parties. The specific question of term limits is inseparable to the proposal for joined constituencies and touches on the bottom-up sovereignty of the constituencies themselves. Marilyn Cade (CBUC) Alistair Dixon (CBUC) Tony Harris (ISPCPC) Tony Holmes (ISPCPC) Greg Ruth (ISPCPC) Maureen Cubberley (Nominating Committee appointee) I abstain. Originally I posted to the list in support of term limits. Personally, as a Nominating Committee appointee, my term is up in December 2006 and I have not sought re-appointment and therefore will not be returning. I support the principle under the direction of the proposed resolution. I do not think that it is thorough enough and having heard the passion in this discussion that to make a decision on this today would contribute to the dysfunctionality of the group rather than move it forward, so for that reason I wish to be on the record as abstaining from the vote, but supporting the principle of term limits. 5 votes not recorded: Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele, no vote, absent. The motion passed Decision 5: Item 6: Update on New gTLDs. Liz Williams posted an updated draft report Agreed upon time frame: Item 7: Update on PDP Feb06. Maureen Cubberley reported that a teleconference was scheduled for 17 November 2006, thanked Avri Doria for being the interim chair, and Marilyn Cade and Jon Nevett for leading two rapporteur groups. Item 8: Sao Paulo Update Sunday 3 December 2006 Thursday 7 December 2006 Thursday morning Breakfast GNSO working group and ccNSO IDN group Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 21:35 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on December 6 2006 in Sao Paulo at 10:00 local time 12:00 noon UTC
|