[announce] GNSO Council Montreal meeting minutes, 24 June, 2003

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: announce@xxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxx]
[To: ga@xxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxx]

Please find the minutes, text and html version, of the GNSO Council meeting
held in Montreal, 24 June, 2003 and approved at the GNSO Council
teleconference, 14 August, 2003.
http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml

GNSO Secretariat

1 July 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html


List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC -
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies,
proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. -absent, apologies, proxy
to Laurence Djolakian
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton
Mueller
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent
Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee
Demi Getschko - Nominating Committee
Amadeu Abril I Abril - Nominating Committee - not yet seated as still a
Board member

16 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel


Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison

Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison
Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Web casting

Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Montreal,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.


Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html

Agenda approved


Item 2: Summary of last meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Jeff Neuman.
The motion was carried unanimously.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.



Item 3: Welcome to the three new council members selected by the ICANN
Nominating Committee

Bruce Tonkin welcomed:
Demi Getschko from Brazil, Alick Wilson from New Zealand, and Amadeu Abril I
Abril, currently seated on ICANN Board, who would join the GNSO Council
following the Board meeting.


Item 4. Ratify e-mail vote on GNSO Council chair

Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard for this agenda item.
Philip Sheppard reported that the current chairman was renominated, accepted
the nomination, duly stood for nomination and the results of the votes which
were an electorate of 18 persons were:
22 votes in favour of Bruce Tonkin, one abstention, (Bruce Tonkin, with 2
votes) total 24 votes.
Philip Sheppard called for ratification of the vote therefore electing Bruce
Tonkin as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual
meeting in 2003.

Vote: 23 votes in favour, Bruce Tonkin abstained, (with 2 votes).
The motion carried.

Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion
of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003.

Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin who thanked Council
for their support.
Item 5. Deletes Task Force recommendations
- approve recommendations as consensus policy
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html
Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows:
A draft report was presented to Council at the teleconference on April 17
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
ICANN Staff provided input suggesting that the implementation issues of the
recommendations needed to looked into further.
Subsequently an implementation committee was formed with representation from
registries, registrars as well as representation from the Deletes task force
membership to deal with the concerns.
The Deletes implementation committee completed its report, the Deletes Task
Force, revised its recommendations.
Jordyn Buchanan, chair of the Deletes Task Force, presented the Deletes task
force recommendations, reminding Council of the 4 areas it was charted to
discuss.

1. Uniform delete practice, after domain name expiry by registrars. All
recommendations were made with regard to this issue.
2. The deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy.
3. Registry delete process.
Interest was expressed by the task force for further exploration and it was
recommended that Council pursue the issue in a new task force, as a result
could not be produced in the time frame and scope of the present one.
4. Reversal of renewal transactions
While this was an issue of concern, it was proposed that it be dealt with in
a technical fora to add the capability rather than in a policy fora.

Recommendations:
3.1 Uniform deletion practice after domain name expiry by registrars
3.1.1 Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been received
by the registrar from the registrant or someone acting on the registrant?s
behalf by the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period (generally forty-five days
after the domain's initial expiration). As a mechanism for enforcing this
requirement, registries may elect to delete names for which an explicit
renew command has not been received prior to the expiration of the grace
period.
3.1.2 Domain names must be deleted within 45 days of the expiration of the
registration agreement between the registrar and registrant, unless the
agreement is renewed.

3.1.3 These requirements retroactively apply to all existing domain name
registrations beginning 180 days after the adoption of the policy.

3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy, as well as
an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at the time of
registration. This policy should include the expected time at which
non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to the domain's expiration
date, or a date range not to exceed ten days in length.

3.1.5 Registrars must provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies in a
conspicuous place on their websites.

3.1.6 Registrars should provide, both at the time of registration and in a
conspicuous place on their website, the fee charged for the recovery of a
domain name during the Redemption Grace Period.


3.2 Registrar deletion practice after domain name expiry for domain names
subject to a pending UDRP dispute
3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to
expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider
will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration
either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to
the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process,
registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it
confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider.

3.2.2 In such an event, the complainant will have the option to pay for a
one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing rate for
renewals.

3.2.3 In the event that the complainant paid the renewal fee prior to the
domain name?s expiration, the original registrant will have up to thirty
days after the end of the relevant registry?s Auto-renew Grace Period in
which to pay for the renewal of the domain name. If neither the complainant
or the original registrant pay for the renewal of domain name, it will be
subject to deletion no later than the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period.

3.2.4 In the event that both the registrant and the complainant pay for the
renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original registrant in
accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any renewal fee paid by
the complainant will be refunded and shall not effect this provision.

3.2.5 In the event that only the complainant pays for the renewal of the
domain name, prior to the expiration of the Auto-renew Grace Period the
registrar will:

3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the result
that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS.

3.2.5.2 Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the name
is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific registration
information for the Whois record.

3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated prior to a panel decision being
rendered, but after the domain name reaches this state, the domain name will
be deleted.

3.2.6 Where only the complainant paid the renewal fee for a domain name the
subject of a UDRP action and the complainant?s UDRP case fails, if the
relevant registry?s normal renewal grace period has expired, the domain name
will be deleted.

3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome of the
UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies.

3.3 Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
3.3.1 The Redemption Grace Period will apply to names deleted due to a
complaint on WHOIS accuracy. However, prior to allowing the redemption in
such a case, the registrar must update the registration with verified WHOIS
data and provide a statement indicating that the data has been verified in
conjunction with the request for the name?s redemption. The same rules that
apply to verification of WHOIS data for regular domain names following a
complaint will apply to deleted names.

Jordyn Buchanan proposed adding the supermajority task force vote:
In favour:
Intellectual Properly Interests constituency, Internet service and
Connectivity Providers constituency, Non commercial Users constituency,
Commercial and Business Users constituency, Registrars and gTLD Registries
constituencies.
Vote Against:
ccTLD representative
No Vote registered:
General Assembly representative did not vote

to the Final Deletes report before sending it to the ICANN Board for
approval.

During discussion, Louis Touton remarked on the language of :


3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to
expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider
will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration
either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to
the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process,
registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it
confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider.

and suggested it should read
"In the event that a domain name which is the subject of a UDRP dispute is
deleted or expires during the course of the dispute.... "

Bruce Tonkin called for the policy recommendations to be put to the vote,
( According to the Policy Development Process, each person should vote
individually.)

Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried
by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen
Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes.

Motion carried.

Decision 3: The Deletes Task Force final report was recorded as a consensus
recommendation to be forwarded to the ICANN Board with the appropriate
changes in paragraph 3.2.1.

Bruce Tonkin, joined by Jeff Neuman, thanked the Deletes Task Force and its
chair, Jordyn Buchanan, for the good work done.


Item 6. Discussion of ICANN Staff Manager's Issue Report on UDRP
- decide whether to implement policy development process on UDRP

Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton, as Staff Manager or General Counsel to
comment.
Louis Touton commented as General Counsel and apologised that the Issue
report on UDRP which was requested by the Council in Rio de Janeiro was not
complete due to pressure of work.

Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton to provide an update on the status of the
WHOIS and Transfers task force recommendations the Board accepted.
Louis Touton reported that the WHOIS recommendations forwarded by the
Council to the Board in February, were accepted by the Board at the ICANN
Rio de Janeiro meeting at the end of March.
1. The implementation process has begun and notification has been posted on
the ICANN website setting forth the second consensus policy ever, called the
WDRP, standing for the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, regarding the first
recommendation relating to registrars notifying their customers and
reminding them to update the WHOIS data on record .
(see: http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.html)
It is planned is to phase the policy in from October 31,2003 to October 31,
2004, so that reminders would occur at the renewal or anniversary dates of
registration creations.
2. Circumstances or handling of names that are deleted due to inaccurate
WHOIS data and if they go into the redemption grace period, they can be
restored by the registrant but cannot become activated, taken off registrar
hold until the data is rectified.
This policy is due to be implemented and was held up waiting the outcome of
the Deletes Task Force report.
3 & 4. Relate to the prohibition of marketing Bulk WHOIS data and will be
implemented within the next three to four weeks.
Transfer recommendations, some aspects require further community or task
force consultation such as the form of a standard notice for authorization
of a transfer. This is being undertaken in consultation with a group of
providers.
A word of caution was given to Council and to staff, that when things are
done, they should be done right which requires prioritization of the limited
resources.


Item 7: Update on ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO
recommendations

Bruce Tonkin stated that the Board asked the Council to provide advice.
Council provided the advice that the recommendations needed further analysis
and that the President consider creating a policy development process before
voting or recommendations could be considered. Subsequently the Board did
meet and stated that the President would contact the GNSO, ALAC, GAC chairs
to form a working group.



Item 8: gTLDs committee report on new gTLDs
- approve report associated with the GNSO Council resolution of 22 May 2003:
(Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names
proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be
demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria to
be met in any future expansion. The development of this set of objective
criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development Process (PDP).
These ideas are expanded in a report together with the responses of the GNSO
Constituencies and the ALAC which will be forwarded to the Board in June.)
Document:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.html

Bruce Tonkin stated that that the ICANN board had requested the advice of
the GNSO Council on whether the new gTLDs should be structured in such a way
that perhaps there was a predefined list of names and that entities could
potentially be proposed to operate one of those names or alternately,
organizations that wished to create a new TLD could propose one of their
own.
The recommendation was that the namespace should be market driven and that
organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use
to DNS users.

Philip Sheppard, chair of the gTLD Council committee reported that the final
report before Council divided up:
- Objectives in expansion of the namespace which summarized previous
statements of the then Names Council or the Board and what would be subject
to a future policy development process
- List of possible criteria
- Statement with regard to continuity in the event of business failure
- Criteria relating to technical and financial competence?
Editorial changes and suggestions were made.
The report was a complement to the resolution adopted:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html

Louis Touton commented that the report was one of the many inputs to a
process of evaluation on gTLDs and the alternatives for handling them in the
future.
Cary Karp asked what the relation was to the RFP that had been posted:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm

Louis Touton responded that the document posted was further work on moving
forward on the RFP based on the criteria that were discussed at the Rio de
Janeiro meeting and in writing subsequently. The study of the various items
that the new TLD evaluation process recommended would be supplemented by
other inputs to reach consensus in the community about how best to deal with
the introduction of new top level domains.

Bruce Tonkin called for a vote to approve the report to be given to the
ICANN Board by the GNSO Council.

Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried
by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen
Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes.

Motion carried.

Decision 4: The GNSO council concludes: Expansion of the gTLD namespace
should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties
to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be a
set of objective criteria to be met in any future expansion. The development
of this set of objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy
Development Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together
with the responses of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be
forwarded to the Board in June.


Item 9: Discussion on improving communication between the ICANN Board and
the GNSO.

Bruce Tonkin, referring to a Council communication by Jeff Neuman
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00001.html
reported that there was discussion on the Council list about ICANN Board
members participating in GNSO Council discussions and suggested that Board
members could be invited to speak to Council where a briefing on a topic of
concern or the Council could seek clarification from the Board regarding its
process or consideration or what advice it was seeking from the Council.
Louis Touton responded to the message to Council stating that it started
from a false premise that the Council had representatives on the Board. Two
members were selected by the GNSO Council that sit in parallel with all
other Board members that have a duty to the Internet community and ICANN.
He was of the opinion that there would be no objection periodically
requesting interactions with Board members.
Jeff Neuman clarified that what he meant was a liaison function.

Bruce Tonkin proposed the following motion:
The GNSO Council requests the Chair to communicate with the ICANN President
to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board
and the GNSO Council.

Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried
by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen
Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes.
Motion carried.

Decision 5: The GNSO Council Chair will communicate with the ICANN President
to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board
and the GNSO Council.

Item 9: Any Other Business

9. a. WHOIS privacy steering Group
Bruce Tonkin announced that two Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO
Council agreed to join the WHOIS Privacy steering group and that the group
was scheduled to meet during the Montreal meeting.

9. b. ccNSO
Marilyn Cade reported on the Country Code Naming Supporting Organization
(ccNSO) saying that many of the constituencies were supportive of the
creation of the ccNSO. Open dialogue between the Government Advisory
Committee and the Board was attended by several Council members as well open
meetings between the ccNSO and the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC).
Many of the differences that were in existence between the ERC and the
Country Codes were broadly and narrowly addressed which indicated broad
support for the formation of a ccNSO with a large number of Country Code
members who would be coming into the Supporting Organization. A Country Code
Name Supporting Organization would probably be seated by the next ICANN
meeting in Carthage.

9.c. RFP relating to new gTLDs
Jeff Neuman raised the topic of the RFP.
http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm
saying that the comment period was short and asked whether the GNSO Council
would want to make a joint comment, or whether individuals could respond.
Louis Touton commented that comments should be made as soon as possible and
that there would be a possibility for discussion during the Public Forum.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that individual constituencies put forward
coordinated comments.

9. d. The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00012.html

Jeff Neuman stated that the gTLD Registry constituency put forth a paper
called;
The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS which had been sent to
Council:
Subsequently notice was given that the paper had been included in the RPF.
Response to the paper was encouraged.
There had been response to the word "filtering" that would probably be
substituted by "support" or "supporting of top-level domains.
Further more it was believed that it was not only an ISP problem but an
application problem that affected the businesses not just of the sponsored
TLDs but also several of the unsponsored TLDs. A proposal for moving forward
would be advantageous.

Tony Holmes commented that the word "filtering" had been misleading and led
the ISPs to investigate the problem. The issue was the way the new domain
names are looked at within the resolves and the way that the action was
taken.
Mark Mc Fadden, the ISPCPC secretary commented from the floor that 15 ISPs
in North America and 5 ISPs in Europe had been surveyed and no instances of
filtering were found. It has been made an item for discussion in the ISPCPC.

Louis Touton commented on process saying that the sTLD RPF
http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm
had been posted in draft form, exhibit E was the paper provided by the gTLD
registries constituency. The purpose for including it was to alert possible
applicants to the reality that getting a TLD in the root does not
necessarily work for end users, giving a measure of fairness to the
applicants in assessing how to proceed.
If the gTLD registry wished to amend the paper by removing the word
"filtering" they should do so quickly.

Bruce Tonkin said the action to be taken from the meeting was to mention
during the Public Forum
- that a technical issue had been identified. That there had been some
problems with resolving some of the new TLDs, just as there would be
problems in the rollout of IDNs as well. Consideration should be given to
improving and increasing awareness among the different parties as technical
changes at the core of the DNS which affects the viability of some of the
new registries.
- that something should be coming out of the evaluation of the new TLD
process.
- that it should be remembered that the seven new TLDs were created as an
initial experiment, and that the issue is an example of a problem that has
arisen in the process which could not be foreseen initially and should be
taken into consideration when creating new TLDs.

9. d. Resolution thanking Louis Touton

Bruce Tonkin proposed a final resolution:
To thank Louis Touton as General Counsel of ICANN, who had announced that he
would be leaving ICANN, for the enormous support that he had provided both
the Names Council and the GNSO Council. That he was available at 5:00 am for
some of the GNSO teleconferences as well as available on Sundays. He made
himself available to the Council well beyond the average call of duty for
any individual and the GNSO Council formally thanked him for his dedication
and the work that he put into ICANN.

The GNSO Council unanimously supported the resolution with a standing
ovation.

Louis Touton reciprocated by thanking Council for the good healthy dialogue,
engagement and working together to solve problems to help people on the
Internet and felt gratified having been able to work with the DNSO/GNSO
Council since 1999.


Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody for
attending, at 3:45 local time.
The meeting ended: 15:45 local time
Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday July 17, 2003 at 12:00 UTC
see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="24 June 2003"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Meeting Minutes'"-->
<p></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;&sup2;1 
  July 2003. </font> 
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed agenda and related documents 
  <br>
  <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html<br>
  </a> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>List of attendees:</b><br>
  Philip Sheppard - Commercial &amp; Business users C.<br>
  Marilyn Cade - Commercial &amp; Business users C.<br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business users C. <br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC - <br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - Registrars <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Jeff Neuman - gTLD <br>
  Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD <br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD <br>
  Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy 
  to Laurence Djolakian<br>
  Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.<br>
  Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. -absent, apologies, proxy 
  to Laurence Djolakian<br>
  Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. <br>
  Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton 
  Mueller<br>
  Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent <br>
  Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee<br>
  Demi Getschko - Nominating Committee<br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril - Nominating Committee - not yet seated as still a Board 
  member </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">16 Council Members <br>
  Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison<br>
  Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison <br>
  <br>
  Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison<br>
  Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  Web casting<br>
  <br>
  Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Montreal, </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin </b>chaired this 
  teleconference.</font></p>
<ul>
  <p> 
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 1: Approval of the Agenda</b><br>
    <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html<br>
    </a><br>
    <b>Agenda approved</b><br>
    </font>
    <p> 
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of last meeting 
    </b><br>
    <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html</a><br>
    <b>Ken Stubbs</b> moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by <b>Jeff Neuman.</b><br>
    The motion was carried unanimously. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Decision 1: Motion adopted. <br>
    </b><br>
    <br>
    </font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 3: Welcome to the three 
    new council members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee<br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin</b> welcomed:<br>
    <b>Demi Getschko </b>from Brazil, <b>Alick Wilson</b> from New Zealand, and 
    <b>Amadeu Abril I Abril, </b>currently seated on ICANN Board, who would join 
    the GNSO Council following the Board meeting.<br>
    <b><br>
    </b></font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 4. Ratify e-mail vote 
    on GNSO Council chair</b> <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> handed the chair to<b> Philip Sheppard </b>for this agenda 
    item.<br>
    Philip Sheppard reported that the current chairman was renominated, accepted 
    the nomination, duly stood for nomination and the results of the votes which 
    were an electorate of 18 persons were:<br>
    22 votes in favour of Bruce Tonkin, one abstention, (Bruce Tonkin, with 2 
    votes) total 24 votes.<br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard </b>called for ratification of the vote therefore electing 
    Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual 
    meeting in 2003.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Vote: 23 votes in favour, Bruce Tonkin abstained, (with 2 votes).<br>
    The motion carried.<br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion 
    of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003.<br>
    <br>
    Philip Sheppard </b>handed the chair back to<b> Bruce Tonkin </b>who thanked 
    Council for their support.</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 5. Deletes Task Force 
    recommendations <br>
    - approve recommendations as consensus policy<br>
    </b><a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html 
    </a><br>
    Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows:<br>
    A draft report was presented to Council at the teleconference on April 17<br>
    <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html%20";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html 
    </a><br>
    ICANN Staff provided input suggesting that the implementation issues of the 
    recommendations needed to looked into further.<br>
    Subsequently an implementation committee was formed with representation from 
    registries, registrars as well as representation from the Deletes task force 
    membership to deal with the concerns.<br>
    The Deletes implementation committee completed its report, the Deletes Task 
    Force, revised its recommendations. <br>
    <b>Jordyn Buchanan, </b>chair of the Deletes Task Force, presented the Deletes 
    task force recommendations, reminding Council of the 4 areas it was charted 
    to discuss.<br>
    <br>
    1. Uniform delete practice, after domain name expiry by registrars. All recommendations 
    were made with regard to this issue.<br>
    2. The deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. <br>
    3. Registry delete process.<br>
    Interest was expressed by the task force for further exploration and it was 
    recommended that Council pursue the issue in a new task force, as a result 
    could not be produced in the time frame and scope of the present one. <br>
    4. Reversal of renewal transactions <br>
    While this was an issue of concern, it was proposed that it be dealt with 
    in a technical fora to add the capability rather than in a policy fora.<br>
    <br>
    Recommendations:<br>
    3.1 Uniform deletion practice after domain name expiry by registrars<br>
    3.1.1 Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been received 
    by the registrar from the registrant or someone acting on the registrant&#146;s 
    behalf by the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period (generally forty-five days 
    after the domain's initial expiration). As a mechanism for enforcing this 
    requirement, registries may elect to delete names for which an explicit renew 
    command has not been received prior to the expiration of the grace period. 
    </font> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.1.2 Domain names must be deleted 
      within 45 days of the expiration of the registration agreement between the 
      registrar and registrant, unless the agreement is renewed.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.1.3 These requirements retroactively 
      apply to all existing domain name registrations beginning 180 days after 
      the adoption of the policy.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.1.4 Registrars must provide 
      a summary of their deletion policy, as well as an indication of any auto-renewal 
      policy that they may have, at the time of registration. This policy should 
      include the expected time at which non-renewed domain name would be deleted 
      relative to the domain's expiration date, or a date range not to exceed 
      ten days in length.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.1.5 Registrars must provide 
      their deletion and auto-renewal policies in a conspicuous place on their 
      websites.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.1.6 Registrars should provide, 
      both at the time of registration and in a conspicuous place on their website, 
      the fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption 
      Grace Period.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
      3.2 Registrar deletion practice after domain name expiry for domain names 
      subject to a pending UDRP dispute<br>
      3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely 
      to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider 
      will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration 
      either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior 
      to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars 
      will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the 
      registration of the domain to the UDRP provider.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.2 In such an event, the complainant 
      will have the option to pay for a one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's 
      current prevailing rate for renewals.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.3 In the event that the complainant 
      paid the renewal fee prior to the domain name&#146;s expiration, the original 
      registrant will have up to thirty days after the end of the relevant registry&#146;s 
      Auto-renew Grace Period in which to pay for the renewal of the domain name. 
      If neither the complainant or the original registrant pay for the renewal 
      of domain name, it will be subject to deletion no later than the end of 
      the Auto-renew Grace Period.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.4 In the event that both 
      the registrant and the complainant pay for the renewal, the name will be 
      renewed on behalf of the original registrant in accordance with the registrar's 
      usual policy, and any renewal fee paid by the complainant will be refunded 
      and shall not effect this provision.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.5 In the event that only 
      the complainant pays for the renewal of the domain name, prior to the expiration 
      of the Auto-renew Grace Period the registrar will:</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR 
      HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the result that the name will no longer resolve 
      in the DNS.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.5.2 Modify the Whois entry 
      for the domain name to indicate that the name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, 
      and to remove all specific registration information for the Whois record.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated 
      prior to a panel decision being rendered, but after the domain name reaches 
      this state, the domain name will be deleted.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.6 Where only the complainant 
      paid the renewal fee for a domain name the subject of a UDRP action and 
      the complainant&#146;s UDRP case fails, if the relevant registry&#146;s 
      normal renewal grace period has expired, the domain name will be deleted.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.7 In all other cases, the 
      registrar shall comply with the outcome of the UDRP dispute in accordance 
      with its regular policies.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.3 Deletion following a complaint 
      on WHOIS accuracy<br>
      3.3.1 The Redemption Grace Period will apply to names deleted due to a complaint 
      on WHOIS accuracy. However, prior to allowing the redemption in such a case, 
      the registrar must update the registration with verified WHOIS data and 
      provide a statement indicating that the data has been verified in conjunction 
      with the request for the name&#146;s redemption. The same rules that apply 
      to verification of WHOIS data for regular domain names following a complaint 
      will apply to deleted names.<br>
      <br>
      <b>Jordyn Buchanan </b>proposed adding the supermajority task force vote:<br>
      In favour:<br>
      Intellectual Properly Interests constituency, Internet service and Connectivity 
      Providers constituency, Non commercial Users constituency, Commercial and 
      Business Users constituency, Registrars and gTLD Registries constituencies. 
      <br>
      Vote Against:<br>
      ccTLD representative<br>
      No Vote registered:<br>
      General Assembly representative did not vote<br>
      <br>
      to the Final Deletes report before sending it to the ICANN Board for approval.<br>
      <br>
      During discussion, <b>Louis Touton</b> remarked on the language of :<br>
      </font></p>
    <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.2.1 In the event that a domain 
    the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the 
    dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant 
    and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute 
    is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. 
    In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration 
    date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain 
    to the UDRP provider. <br>
    <br>
    and suggested it should read<br>
    &quot;In the event that a domain name which is the subject of a UDRP dispute 
    is deleted or expires during the course of the dispute.... &quot;<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> called for the policy recommendations to be put to the 
    vote,<br>
    ( According to the Policy Development Process, each person should vote individually.)<br>
    <br>
    <b>Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried 
    by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman 
    and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. <br>
    <br>
    Motion carried.<br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Decision 3: The Deletes Task Force final report was recorded as a consensus 
    recommendation to be forwarded to the ICANN Board with the appropriate changes 
    in paragraph 3.2.1.</b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, joined by<b> Jeff Neuman,</b> thanked the Deletes Task 
    Force and its chair, <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, for the good work done.<br>
    <b><br>
    </b></font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 6. Discussion of ICANN 
    Staff Manager's Issue Report on UDRP <br>
    - decide whether to implement policy development process on UDRP <br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin</b> asked <b>Louis Touton</b>, as Staff Manager or General Counsel 
    to comment.<br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> commented as General Counsel and apologised that the Issue 
    report on UDRP which was requested by the Council in Rio de Janeiro was not 
    complete due to pressure of work.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> asked <b>Louis Touton</b> to provide an update on the 
    status of the WHOIS and Transfers task force recommendations the Board accepted.<br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> reported that the <b>WHOIS recommendations</b> forwarded 
    by the Council to the Board in February, were accepted by the Board at the 
    ICANN Rio de Janeiro meeting at the end of March. <br>
    1. The implementation process has begun and notification has been posted on 
    the ICANN website setting forth the second consensus policy ever, called the 
    WDRP, standing for the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, regarding the first recommendation 
    relating to registrars notifying their customers and reminding them to update 
    the WHOIS data on record . <br>
    (see: <a href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.html";>http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.html</a>)<br>
    It is planned is to phase the policy in from October 31,2003 to October 31, 
    2004, so that reminders would occur at the renewal or anniversary dates of 
    registration creations.<br>
    2. Circumstances or handling of names that are deleted due to inaccurate WHOIS 
    data and if they go into the redemption grace period<b>, </b>they can be restored 
    by the registrant but cannot become activated, taken off registrar hold until 
    the data is rectified.<br>
    This policy is due to be implemented and was held up waiting the outcome of 
    the Deletes Task Force report.<br>
    3 &amp; 4. Relate to the prohibition of marketing Bulk WHOIS data and will 
    be implemented within the next three to four weeks.<br>
    Transfer recommendations, some aspects require further community or task force 
    consultation such as the form of a standard notice for authorization of a 
    transfer. This is being undertaken in consultation with a group of providers.<br>
    A word of caution was given to Council and to staff, that when things are 
    done, they should be done right which requires prioritization of the limited 
    resources.<br>
    <br>
    </font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 7:</b> <b>Update on ICANN 
    President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations<br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin </b>stated<b> </b>that the Board asked the Council to provide 
    advice. Council provided the advice that the recommendations needed further 
    analysis and that the President consider creating a policy development process 
    before voting or recommendations could be considered. Subsequently the Board 
    did meet and stated that the President would contact the GNSO, ALAC, GAC chairs 
    to form a working group.<b><br>
    <br>
    <br>
    </b></font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 8: gTLDs committee report 
    on new gTLDs <br>
    - approve report associated with the GNSO Council resolution of 22 May 2003: 
    (Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names 
    proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. 
    Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria to be met in any 
    future expansion. The development of this set of objective criteria should 
    be the subject of a new Policy Development Process (PDP). These ideas are 
    expanded in a report together with the responses of the GNSO Constituencies 
    and the ALAC which will be forwarded to the Board in June.) Document: <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.html";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.html 
    <br>
    <br>
    </a>Bruce Tonkin</b> stated that that the ICANN board had requested the advice 
    of the GNSO Council on whether the new gTLDs should be structured in such 
    a way that perhaps there was a predefined list of names and that entities 
    could potentially be proposed to operate one of those names or alternately, 
    organizations that wished to create a new TLD could propose one of their own.<br>
    The recommendation was that the namespace should be market driven and that 
    organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use 
    to DNS users.<br>
    <b><br>
    Philip Sheppard, </b>chair of the gTLD Council committee reported that the 
    final report before Council divided up:<br>
    - Objectives in expansion of the namespace which summarized previous statements 
    of the then Names Council or the Board and what would be subject to a future 
    policy development process<br>
    - List of possible criteria<br>
    - Statement with regard to continuity in the event of business failure<br>
    - Criteria relating to technical and financial competence?<br>
    Editorial changes and suggestions were made. <br>
    The report was a complement to the resolution adopted:<br>
    <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html";>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html</a><br>
    <br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> commented that the report was one of the many inputs to 
    a process of evaluation on gTLDs and the alternatives for handling them in 
    the future.<br>
    Cary Karp asked what the relation was to the RFP that had been posted:<br>
    <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm";>http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm 
    <br>
    </a><br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> responded that the document posted was further work on 
    moving forward on the RFP based on the criteria that were discussed at the 
    Rio de Janeiro meeting and in writing subsequently. The study of the various 
    items that the new TLD evaluation process recommended would be supplemented 
    by other inputs to reach consensus in the community about how best to deal 
    with the introduction of new top level domains.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> called for a vote to approve the report to be given to 
    the ICANN Board by the GNSO Council.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <br>
    <b>Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried 
    by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman 
    and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. <br>
    <br>
    Motion carried. <br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Decision 4: The GNSO council concludes: Expansion of the gTLD namespace 
    should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties 
    to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be 
    a set of objective criteria to be met in any future expansion. The development 
    of this set of objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development 
    Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together with the responses 
    of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be forwarded to the Board 
    in June. </b><br>
    <b><br>
    <br>
    Item 9: Discussion on improving communication between the ICANN Board and 
    the GNSO.<br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin, </b>referring to a Council communication by Jeff Neuman<br>
    <a href="%3Cfont%20face=%22Arial,%20Helvetica,%20sans-serif%22%3Ehttp://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00001.html%3C/font%3E";>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00001.html</a><br>
    reported that there was discussion on the Council list about ICANN Board members 
    participating in GNSO Council discussions and suggested that Board members 
    could be invited to speak to Council where a briefing on a topic of concern 
    or the Council could seek clarification from the Board regarding its process 
    or consideration or what advice it was seeking from the Council.<br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> responded to the message to Council stating that it started 
    from a false premise that the Council had representatives on the Board. Two 
    members were selected by the GNSO Council that sit in parallel with all other 
    Board members that have a duty to the Internet community and ICANN.<br>
    He was of the opinion that there would be no objection periodically requesting 
    interactions with Board members.<br>
    <b>Jeff Neuman </b>clarified that what he meant was a liaison function.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed the following motion:<br>
    The GNSO Council requests the Chair to communicate with the ICANN President 
    to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board 
    and the GNSO Council.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried 
    by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman 
    and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. <br>
    Motion carried. <br>
    <br>
    Decision 5: The GNSO Council Chair will communicate with the ICANN President 
    to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board 
    and the GNSO Council.<br>
    <br>
    Item 9: Any Other Business<br>
    <br>
    9. a. WHOIS privacy steering Group<br>
    Bruce Tonkin </b>announced that two Nominating Committee appointees to the 
    GNSO Council agreed to join the WHOIS Privacy steering group and that the 
    group was scheduled to meet during the Montreal meeting.<br>
    <b><br>
    9. b. ccNSO</b><br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade </b>reported on the Country Code Naming Supporting Organization 
    (ccNSO) saying that many of the constituencies were supportive of the creation 
    of the ccNSO. Open dialogue between the Government Advisory Committee and 
    the Board was attended by several Council members as well open meetings between 
    the ccNSO and the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC). Many of the differences 
    that were in existence between the ERC and the Country Codes were broadly 
    and narrowly addressed which indicated broad support for the formation of 
    a ccNSO with a large number of Country Code members who would be coming into 
    the Supporting Organization. A Country Code Name Supporting Organization would 
    probably be seated by the next ICANN meeting in Carthage.<br>
    <b><br>
    9.c. RFP relating to new gTLDs</b><br>
    <b>Jeff Neuman</b> raised the topic of the RFP.<br>
    <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm";>http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm 
    </a><br>
    saying that the comment period was short and asked whether the GNSO Council 
    would want to make a joint comment, or whether individuals could respond.<br>
    <b>Louis Touton </b>commented that comments should be made as soon as possible 
    and that there would be a possibility for discussion during the Public Forum.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested that individual constituencies put forward coordinated 
    comments.<br>
    <br>
    <b>9. d.</b> <b>The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS.</b><br>
    <a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00012.html";>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00012.html</a> 
    <br>
    <b><br>
    Jeff Neuman</b> stated that the gTLD Registry constituency put forth a paper 
    called;<br>
    <b>The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS </b>which had been sent 
    to Council:<br>
    Subsequently notice was given that the paper had been included in the RPF. 
    Response to the paper was encouraged.<br>
    There had been response to the word &quot;filtering&quot; that would probably 
    be substituted by &quot;support&quot; or &quot;supporting of top-level domains.<br>
    Further more it was believed that it was not only an ISP problem but an application 
    problem that affected the businesses not just of the sponsored TLDs but also 
    several of the unsponsored TLDs. A proposal for moving forward would be advantageous.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Tony Holmes</b> commented that the word &quot;filtering&quot; had been 
    misleading and led the ISPs to investigate the problem. The issue was the 
    way the new domain names are looked at within the resolves and the way that 
    the action was taken.<br>
    <b>Mark Mc Fadden</b>, the ISPCPC secretary commented from the floor that 
    15 ISPs in North America and 5 ISPs in Europe had been surveyed and no instances 
    of filtering were found. It has been made an item for discussion in the ISPCPC.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> commented on process saying that the sTLD RPF<br>
    <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm";>http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm</a><br>
    had been posted in draft form, exhibit E was the paper provided by the gTLD 
    registries constituency. The purpose for including it was to alert possible 
    applicants to the reality that getting a TLD in the root does not necessarily 
    work for end users, giving a measure of fairness to the applicants in assessing 
    how to proceed.<br>
    If the gTLD registry wished to amend the paper by removing the word &quot;filtering&quot; 
    they should do so quickly.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>said the action to be taken from the meeting was to mention 
    during the Public Forum <br>
    - that a technical issue had been identified. That there had been some problems 
    with resolving some of the new TLDs, just as there would be problems in the 
    rollout of IDNs as well. Consideration should be given to improving and increasing 
    awareness among the different parties as technical changes at the core of 
    the DNS which affects the viability of some of the new registries.<br>
    - that something should be coming out of the evaluation of the new TLD process. 
    <br>
    - that it should be remembered that the seven new TLDs were created as an 
    initial experiment, and that the issue is an example of a problem that has 
    arisen in the process which could not be foreseen initially and should be 
    taken into consideration when creating new TLDs.<br>
    <br>
    <b>9. d. Resolution thanking Louis Touton<br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed a final resolution:<br>
    To thank <b>Louis Touton</b> as General Counsel of ICANN, who had announced 
    that he would be leaving ICANN, for the enormous support that he had provided 
    both the Names Council and the GNSO Council. That he was available at 5:00 
    am for some of the GNSO teleconferences as well as available on Sundays. He 
    made himself available to the Council well beyond the average call of duty 
    for any individual and the GNSO Council formally thanked him for his dedication 
    and the work that he put into ICANN.<br>
    <br>
    The GNSO Council unanimously supported the resolution with a standing ovation.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Louis Touton</b> reciprocated by thanking Council for the good healthy 
    dialogue, engagement and working together to solve problems to help people 
    on the Internet and felt gratified having been able to work with the DNSO/GNSO 
    Council since 1999. <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody 
    for attending, at 3:45 local time.<br>
    The meeting ended: 15:45 </b>local time </font> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference: 
      Thursday July 17, 2003 at 12:00 UTC </b><br>
      see: <a href="http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html";> http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html</a> 
      </font> 
  </li>
</ul>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"--> </font>