| 20 November 2007
Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 18 Council Members ICANN Staff Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - (Board teleconference) Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest Item 2: Chuck Gomes, seconded by Kristina Rosette moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of Motion unanimously approved Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 11 October 2007 Item 3: Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) Avri Doria explained by way of background, that Council had received an Issues Report which recommended a particular Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP). The vote to create a working group to revise the DRP in the Council meeting on 31 October, 2007, did not succeed, then a vote authorising an ad hoc process failed. The ICANN Bylaws required a vote on approving a Policy Development Process (PDP). Council was being asked to vote on delaying the vote on the PDP until the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) could provide a revised DRP, a process Council has used in the past to allow more time for the issue to be clearly defined. Kristina Rosette explained that since the Council meeting in LA on October 31, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) had further discussed the IGO-DRP which had culminated in certain developments. In light of the expected revised proposed DRP, and to ensure that all constituencies had sufficient time for review and consultation, Kristina proposed a motion to postpone voting on the PDP until the Council meeting on December 20, 2007. Avri Doria read the motion proposed by Kristina Rosette and seconded by Chuck Gomes Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" and Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 December meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development process. Philip Sheppard supported the motion, commenting that the issue was being addressed because it was politically right, and that it did not serve any particular constituency interest, but looking at a text that would be acceptable to constituencies was important. Robin Gross commented that a couple of months difference would not convince the NCUC that starting a PDP on the subject was a good use of the constituencies or Council's time and energy and thus, was currently prepared to vote 'no' on the matter. Jon Bing commented that there were several unresolved issues, it was a cumbersome process which appeared to be over regulated, and would benefit from more detailed reflections. Chuck Gomes stated that one of the concerns was the rights of existing domain holders with regard to IGO names and the proposed process omitted that issue. Kristina Rosette further elaborated that there was no requirement that the complaining IGO show that the domain name registrant had a bad faith intent in terms of registering a domain name and using it. Similarly omitted, was language that would effectively allow a domain name registrant, facing such a complaint, the opportunity to descend their registration and use of the domain name, because they had either an independent right in the second level or a legitimate use in using the name. Avri Doria called for a voice vote. One 'nay' was heard and 2 abstentions were noted from Tom Keller (2 votes) and Norbert Klein (1 vote) The motion passed. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 December meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development process. Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP An Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers Avri Doria called for a roll call vote. Whereas the Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by the Staff. The motion carried 22 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing, Avri Doria (one vote each) 1 Abstention: Carlos Souza Absent did not vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Olga Cavalli (not yet joined the call) 4b - Contingent vote of forming a TF for the PDP pending from 31 October 2007. The ICANN bylaws allow for 2 options, forming task force, or collecting constituency statements. Avri Doria called for roll call vote. The motion did not carry. 23 Votes against: Philip Sheppard, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing, Avri Doria, Carlos Souza (one vote each) Absent did not vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Olga Cavalli (not yet joined the call) Decision 3 Liz Gasster was designated as the responsible staff person and charged with collecting the constituency statements as defined in the ICANN bylaws Each constituency to appoint a representative, within 10 days, by November 30, 2007, to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Item 5: IDN ccTLD WG Discussion Avri Doria quoted the Board Resolution adopted in Los Angeles which accepted a resolution of the ccNSO to form a working group on an interim approach for IDN ccTLDs. The IDNC WG shall select its own chair from the members of the Working Group. The Council was in agreement and emphasised the necessity for increased GNSO participation in the working group. In addition, Council agreed that there should be clarity on whether it was a ccNSO working group to which other advisory groups and Supporting organisations are being invited to participate, or was the intent for it to be joint working group. Denise Michel clarified that no limit had been placed on the number of participants from the GAC and the ccNSO. The ICANN Board specifically requested the formation of such a group and that it should consist of representatives from all of the supporting organisations and the advisory committees. Chuck Gomes suggested an alternative approach, that in fact if it was meant to be a joint working group, that there be opportunity for a balanced membership between the two supporting organizations involved, the GNSO and the ccNSO. Avri Doria invited Council members to submit further comments regarding the formation of the group to the mailing list. 5b. Discussion on how to bring the draft GNSO comments as revised in Los Angeles on the ccNSO-GAC IDN Issues Report to closure Chuck Gomes suggested and Council accepted, that any changes to the revised document would be submitted to the GNSO Ad Hoc Group to draft a response to ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Policy as had been done with the revisions made in Los Angeles. Philip Sheppard suggested that the group should assist with Council's responses and expressed concern that some of the big questions were left to the decision of the ccNSO and GAC, while it would be beneficial for the new working group to give input to such issues. Item 6: GNSO response to the Board Governance Committee Working Group draft report on GNSO Improvements Avri Doria stated that the report had been discussed in Los Angles and noted, that while many of the issues would be commented on individually by constituencies or by individual Council or constituency members, a consensus position from the Council could be obtained on some issues. In discussion concern was raised by the aggressive timeline. Phasing was mentioned as way to handle it but while phasing the implementation stage was broadly agreed on, phasing decision making was not considered acceptable and could be seen as a means of delay. The Council agreed that a document be drafted, consisting of the sections in the Board Governance Committee (BGC) report where there was broad general approval, posted to the Council mailing list for councillors to comment, and then be edited by noon, UTC on 28 November. In the last 48 hours the Council would be asked to accept or reject the document and if there were no objections, it would be submitted to the BGC by 30 November 2007 at the close of comment period http://www.icann.org/public_comment/. Philip Sheppard, CBUC, volunteered and was accepted as editor of the proposed document. Item 7: Establishment of a general GNSO discussion list, similar to the ones for NANOG and IETF. Greg Ruth explained that conversations with members of the community in Los Angeles indicated that it would be an advantage to have a focused list for IDN discussions, similar to specific topic lists in other organisations. A place to meet and discuss with like-minded individuals but not necessarily a list attached to the GNSO. Adrian Kinderis said consideration should be given to whether people would feel comfortable posting to an open list on topics that had not yet been properly formulated. A general list would not be so different from the General Assembly list already in use, while a specific IDN list could have the same criteria in terms of membership, but prohibit discussions off topic. The ICANN bylaws section 3.4 state: An additional list under the sponsorship of the GNSO would place expectations on the Council and constituency members to monitor it and provide responses. Several suggestions were made, such as: Avri Doria proposed further discussion on the Council mail server list and proposed the topic, meeting interaction with the community and response issues.as an agenda item for a future Council meeting. Item 8: Letter on behalf of Hagen Hultzsch re job description for open GNSO Council position in 2008 Suggested responses had been sent to the mailing list from Avri Doria Avri Doria proposed that further comments be sent to the Council mailing list and by 30 November 2007 there should be a job description for the open GNSO council position in 2008 for the Council to review and vote on at the Council meeting on December 6, 2007. Patrick Jones stated that if the response were extended beyond December 6, the input would be less valuable for the Nominating Committee. Item 9: Pending Work Item Review Avri Doria mentioned that a high-level agenda for the Council meetings up until the ICANN Meetings in Delhi had been worked out and invited Councillors to collaborate in filling out topics that required discussion. Item 10: AOB 10 a. Adrian Kinderis requested that items added to the agenda should be done timely so that all councillors had the opportunity to review them before the call. 10 b. Discussion of chair and vice-chair election process Pursuant to the ICANN bylaws There will be a total of 27 votes cast. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. In case of a tie, there will be a second round of voting. The process followed in the past for the election of the GNSO Council Chair and Vice-chair, has been a call for nominations open for a period of two weeks for each position separately, Chair followed by Vice-chair. All nominations should be seconded by the end of this period, and only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second them. The voting period, is usually open for 14 days for the position of GNSO Council chair. All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. When the e-mail vote is closed, the results will be announced for each council member to check that her/his vote was correctly registered and the results of the e-mail vote will be confirmed at a GNSO Council meeting. Given the approaching holiday season a proposed election schedule could look like this: GNSO Council chair: Vice-chair : Call for nominations 9 January to 23 January 2008 Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 23:00 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 6 December 2007 at 15:00 UTC. Action Items arising from the minutes Item 4: item 6: Prepare a broad consensus document on the GNSO Improvements for comment on the Council list. Item 7: Meeting interaction with the community and response issues during the ICANN meetings as an agenda item for a future Council meeting. Item 8: Job description for the open GNSO council position in 2008 for the Council to review. Item 10 b. Call for nominations to be launched on Thursday 22 November 2007.
|