[council] GNSO Council teleconference August 14, 2003, draft minutes

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

[To: council@xxxxxxxx]

Dear Council members,

Please find the draft minutes, in text and html version, for the GNSO
Council teleconference on August 14, 2003.

If you would like any changes made, please let me know.

Thank you very much.
Glen

GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
15 August 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents


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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris/Greg Ruth
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.
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
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril

17 Council Members



Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison - absent, apologies
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison

Roger Cochetti, Budget committee chair attended for item 7 on the agenda.

Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Quorum present at 14:07 CET
MP3 recording
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20030814.mp3


Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.


Item 1: Approval of the Agenda

Agenda approved


Item 2: Summary of last meeting

Philip Sheppard/Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by
Marilyn Cade.

The Council approved the adoption of the minutes, with Amadeu Abril l Abril
abstaining
Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Matters arising from the minutes:
1. The GNSO chair was asked to liaise with the president of ICANN in
connection with GNSO Council communication with the ICANN Board. Bruce
Tonkin did not discuss this but posted a suggestion to Council explaining
that the aim was to meet quarterly, via teleconference with the ICANN Board,
to brief it on policy work undertaken and address any issues with regard to
processes and procedures.
2. Liaise with the ICANN President on WIPO II recommendations - Item 3 on
the agenda.
3. Discussion about new gTLDs as raised by Jeff Newman to be addresses in
Item 8 Any Other Business



Item 3: Update on ICANN President's working group on WIPO-II recommendations

Bruce Tonkin reported that the ICANN President had invited 6 members from
the Government Advisory Committee to participate in the working group and
asked the GNSO Council to nominate 6 participants. Bruce recommended that
each constituency should nominate one person so that the GNSO Council
representatives on the President's working group would represent a broad
cross section of interests.

In response to a question from Jeff Neuman as to the purpose of the group,
Bruce Tonkin referred to:

A discussion by the Board regarding the appropriate next steps for
consideration of the WIPO recommendations

Whereas, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) sent ICANN a
letter dated 21 February 2003 providing information about two decisions,
concerning recommendations about the names and acronyms of International
Intergovernmental Organizations and about the names of countries, which WIPO
member states requested be transmitted to ICANN;

Whereas, in resolution 03.22 the Board requested the President to inform the
Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the other
Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from WIPO and to invite
their comments;

Whereas, advice and comments were received from the At-Large Advisory
Committee (ALAC), the GNSO Council, the Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC), and the Intellectual Property Interests and the Commercial and
Business Users Constituencies of the GNSO;

Whereas, the Board has considered the advice and comments received, as well
as the discussion and analysis in the 1 June 2003 General Counsel's Briefing
Concerning Policy-Development Process on WIPO-2 Recommendations;

Resolved [03.83] that the President is directed to form, in consultation
with the chairs of the GNSO Council, the ALAC, and the GAC, a working group
including participants in the GNSO, the ALAC, and the GAC as well as Board
members, for the purpose of analyzing the practical and technical aspects of
implementing the WIPO recommendations, and notably the implications for the
UDRP; and

Further resolved [03.84] that the President and General Counsel are directed
to investigate and analyze legal aspects of the relationship between ICANN's
mission and the recommendations conveyed by the 12 February 2003 letter from
WIPO, and to report to the Board and to the working group formed under
resolution 03.83 on the result of that investigation and analysis. Among
topics to be considered should be whether implementation of the WIPO
recommendations would require ICANN to prescribe adherence to normative
rules, not based on established laws, for the resolution of competing
third-party claims to rights to register names.

Amadeu Abril l Abril clarified that the purpose of the ICANN President's
working group was not to look at implementation but to study the
implications, how, if and what, and to map out the question. Difficult legal
questions arise where protection is sought for matters which are not
protected under law at a national level. Six participants from the GNSO are
preferable to one, and at least some of those participants should have a
legal background in international law.

Marilyn Cade drew attention to the way WIPO l and WIPO ll had come about.
The former was a request for a fast track study with broad participation
followed by a process in ICANN to determine what outcome should be related
to the UDRP. The latter was a study of the implications of the
recommendations that came from within WIPO itself.


Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Milton Mueller, proposed:

that the GNSO Council requires each constituency to nominate one person to
represent the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the
WIPO ll recommendations.

The Council unanimously approved the motion.

Decision 2. Each constituency is required to nominate one person to
represent the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the
WIPO ll recommendations.



Item 4. Discussion of Staff Managers report on UDRP

Bruce Tonkin summarized saying that the report was divided into procedural
and substantive issues. The Acting General Counsel of ICANN considered that
most of the substantive issues and some of the procedural issues would
extend beyond ICANN's mission.
Procedural Issues:
01. Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to
administrative panel decisions
02. Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available
03. Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or
supplement their filings?
04. Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address
concerns about potential conflicts of interest?
05. Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated?
06. Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?
07. Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be
mandatory and standardized?
08. Should the notice requirements be amended?
09. Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations
be amended?
10.Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate
review?
Substantive Issues:
11. Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal
deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders?
12. Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for
non-registered marks?
13. Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the
interpretation of "confusing similarity"?
14. Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration
and registrant?
15. Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes
"use"?
16. Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
permissible evidence of bad faith?
17. Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in
order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?
18. Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?
19. Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?
20. Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration ? allowing
subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy?

Bruce Tonkin supported by Marilyn Cade, proposed that each constituency
prioritize five issues from the total and then the GNSO Council would ask if
they were in ICANN's scope in an answer to Council members who did not agree
with the delimitation considered by ICANN that most of the substantive
issues would extend beyond ICANN's mission and that some of the issues could
be possible changes but in fact were not solicited by anyone.
Bruce Tonkin also proposed that after the elements were identified, there
should be a discussion with ICANN General Counsel as to the scope of the
issues within ICANN's mission.
Thomas Roessler, ALAC Liaison, said that ICANN should certainly not extend
the UDRP to take up complex cases better dealt with in court, but that -- on
the other hand -- it is certainly within ICANN's mission to either cut back
or fix policy where it has already invaded realms better left to courts. On
outreach done by the ALAC, it was felt that there was too little time for
thorough outreach on these complex issues, but that ALAC had some expertise
available on UDRP, and would be interested in continuing to participate in
the discussion.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Milton Mueller, proposed:
That the GNSO requests each constituency to review the list of issues
presented in the Staff Manager's report on UDRP and identify the top five
issues from the report that the constituency believes has the highest
priority for policy development.
This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25.


The Council unanimously approved the motion.

Decision 3 : Each constituency is requested to review the list of issues
presented in the Staff Manager's report on UDRP and identify the top five
issues from the report that the constituency believes has the highest
priority for policy development. This should be done by the next GNSO
Council meeting on September 25.

Item 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group

Bruce Tonkin, acting chair of the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee, reported
that during the teleconference held on 7/8 August, each member had been
asked to identify five top issues in the Staff Manager's report on WHOIS
privacy issues.

1. Two issues in general received the majority of votes:
5. Are the current requirements that registrars make disclosures to, and
obtain consent by, registrants concerning the uses of collected data
adequate and appropriate? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.4 to 3.7.7.6.)
10. Are the current means of query-based access appropriate? Should both
web-based access and port-43 access be required? (RAA § 3.3.1.)

2. The chair, requested as outcome of the streering group, that each
constituency should formally review the top five issues and report back
their positions to the GNSO Secretariat so that the issues could be collated
and developed as the terms of reference for one or more task forces.

3. Related to the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee work, the ICANN
President, Paul Twomey informally chairs a group that coordinates
representatives from GAC, RIRs, IETF to identify what issues raised in the
WHOIS workshop are appropriate for further analysis. The topics discussed
included status of the IETF CRISP work, documenting uses for each data
element collected at the time of registration, possibility of classifying
types of registrants, and different approaches taken by cctld operators.

4. Work is going on in Internet Engineering Task Force on new registry data
access protocol. John Klensin, the IETF liaison on the ICANN Board requested
input from each GNSO constituency on the requirements of this protocol.


5. Alick Wilson recommended, that each constituency review the data that
must be collected by registrars currently, identify which elements should be
mandatory and, in addition, identify for each of these elements the
consequences if the data element was not available.

6. The information gathered is to be shared with the other ICANN Groups.




Item 6. Discussion on council structure
- The ICANN nominating committee appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council in
June 2003
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm
- the ICANN by-laws require each constituency to appoint 2 representatives
to the GNSO to take up office at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting
in 2003
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X
- the ICANN by-laws require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following the
adoption of the ICANN by-laws (15 Dec 2002)
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV


Bruce Tonkin summarized saying that the ICANN bylaws provide for the
appointment of two, and no longer three, constituency representatives on the
GNSO council after the ICANN general meeting in 2003. The bylaws further
require a review of the GNSO to be initiated no later than 15 December 2003
and to be completed in time for Board consideration at ICANN's annual
meeting in 2004.
Members of the Council requested a change as stated in the motion below.
Philip Sheppard, one of the originators of the motion, along with Ken
Stubbs, Ellen Shankman and Antonio Harris, stated that the essence of the
motion was a change in timetable, which called for the review first and then
an examination whether the change from 3 to 2 representatives per
constituency was necessary.
Philip Sheppard accepted the motion as amended by Jeff Neuman to Council:

Proposed language by Marilyn Cade
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004, WHICH
SHOULD INCLUDE AMONG OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA, A RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY.

was amended by Jeff Neuman to read:
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which
should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of
the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the
GNSO Council.

Amadeu Abril l Abril, stated that he would not vote on the resolution as he
had been a Board member at the time of the Reform and had voted for 2
representatives.
Milton Mueller supported two representatives and said that with possible new
constituencies being added in the future, three representatives would make
the structure unwieldy.
Marilyn Cade supported maintaining 3 representatives and an assessment from
within the Council rather than an outside review process.
Antonio Harris supported 3 representatives to lessen the work load of
representatives and to ensure geographical diversity
Bruce Tonkin, from an engineering point of view, found advantages in
assessing the impact after one year, of the first change made by the three
representatives from the nominating committee.

Philip Sheppard proposed the motion, as amended by Jeff Neuman:

Whereas, the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three
representatives per Constituency on the GNSO Council".

Whereas, ICANN core value 2.4 is: - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed
participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity
of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making".

Whereas, ICANN core value 2.7 is: - "Employing open and transparent policy
development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on
expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist
in the policy development process."

Whereas, by-law article XX.5.8 states: "In the absence of further action on
the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two
representatives to the GNSO Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003."

The GNSO council resolves that:

Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core value
2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency as the
majority of ICANN regions are represented. . Three representatives per
Constituency is consistent with ICANN core value 2.7 on well-informed
decision making. Experience has shown that three representatives improves
the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council member, to be
able to participate in task forces of the council, and to more effectively
communicate with multiple regions.

And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its
review timetable:

1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per
constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting
2004;

2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which
should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of
the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the
GNSO Council.

The Council approved the motion by a vote:
- 21 in favour( proxy votes for Tony Holmes, Lynda Roesch, Ellen Shankman)
- 1 Against (Milton Mueller)
- 4 Abstentions (Amadeu Abril lAbril, Alick Wilson, Demi Getschko, proxy
vote carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi)

During the teleconference the following message was received from Chun Eung
Hwi and only read after the teleconference.
GNSO Secretariat


I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three representatives
per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to
Milton Mueller.


Decision 4:
- Schedule a joint teleconference with ICANN Board
- Formally submit the motion as a request for an amendment to the Bylaws:
And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its
review timetable:
1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per
constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting
2004;
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which
should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of
the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the
GNSO Council.
- GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin to liaise with ICANN President, Paul Twomey on
joint ICANN Board teleconference on the topic

Philip Sheppard leaves the call, hands proxy to Grant Forsyth



Item 7: Budget committee report
Bruce Tonkin stated that the items to be discussed were:
- the current state of the budget
- the transition costs of the GNSO website from AFNIC to ICANN management

Roger Cochetti, GNSO Budget committee chair, joins call.

Roger Cochetti reminded Council that the GNSO budget for 2003 was for six
months as ICANN planned to cover the costs for the GNSO after July. The
Constituency dues assessments were based on 6 months spending.
On June 30, 2003, the Budget committee met, and by the end of June there
were no arrangements in place to cover the costs of FISAT Inc. the
Secretariat's firm, and AFNIC, the website operator. The budget committee
agreed to cover the costs for FISAT Inc. and AFNIC for the month of July if
these were not met by ICANN.
With routine spending the current balance amounts to approximately $26
700.00..
The original plan after July was to close off the books and the balance of
funds would go to the GNSO for administrative expenses.

Budget Committee recommendations on larger issues:
Closing out old account - constituency debts over years. Constituency debt
was never forgiven so no constituency ever officially subsidized another
constituency. Council was never supportive of debt forgiveness.
The budget committee recommends a compromise between debt forgiveness and
permanent carrying debts on the ICANN Books
Once all the expenses for June and July are fully paid, the DNSO/GNSO books
would be closed and a new account established for administrative
miscellaneous expenses.
The new account would be funded by the balance from the old to the new
account. The new account would be handled by another form of administration.
The debt would not be officially forgiven but would be irrelevant and the
books closed.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Greg Ruth, proposed:
1. When all payments had been made the DNSO/GNSO account should be closed.
2. With the closure of the account, the Council budget committee would be
disbanded
3. Balance of funds transferred to new GNSO administration miscellaneous
account.
4. Procedure be established for management of the new account.

The Council members unanimously approved the motion


Bruce Tonkin summarized the DNSO/GNSO website transition saying that the
expectations were for ICANN to take over the management of the DNSO/GNSO
website by June, 2003. The GNSO secretariat notified the GNSO chair that the
end of June timetable would not be feasible. Bruce Tonkin spoke to Paul
Twomey in Montreal and suggested that the current provider, AFNIC continue
services till the end of the transition in July, 2003.
The GNSO Secretariat was instructed to verbally speak to the director of
AFNIC and verbally received the assurance that the services would continue
until the end of the transition period. Bruce Tonkin has since spoken to the
ICANN President who confirmed that the expense had not been budgeted for by
ICANN and ICANN did not formally engage the French provider during July.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed the following recommendation:
That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred by AFNIC for
the transition of the DNSO/GNSO website to ICANN administration.
The Council members unanimously approved the motion

Decision 5: That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred by
AFNIC.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Amadeu Abril l Abril, on behalf of the GNSO
Council proposed a motion of thanks to Roger Cochetti for his efforts as
budget committee chair in the first half of the year, and for chairing the
committee for two years on a voluntary basis.

The Council members unanimously approved the motion

Item 8: Any Other Business

Bruce Tonkin stated that Jeff Neuman had raised a problem relating to new
gTLDs
Bruce Tonkin mentioned that it was a software problem that required
upgrading and education of the public which should be undertaken as soon as
possible. It was suggested that ICANN send out an advisory note and that the
Internet Engineering Task Force, (IETF) should also be asked to send out an
advisory note as well.
Bruce Tonkin proposed to finalize the document and use all possible council
contacts to propagate the message

Jeff Neuman proposed;
- Forming a group to do outreach as soon as possible.
- That each constituency send one representative to the group.
- To coordinate with the Security committee and the GNSO Council


Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for
attending.

The meeting ended: 16:10 CET, 14:10 UTC, 00:10, 15 August, Melbourne.
Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday September 25, 2003 at 12:00 UTC
see:http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="14 August 2003"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference 
Minutes'"-->

<!--#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><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15 August 2003. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml";>agenda</a> 
  and related documents <br>
  </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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris/Greg Ruth<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. <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 <br>
  Demi Getschko <br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
  <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison 
  - absent, apologies<br>
  Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison <br>
  <br>
  Roger Cochetti, Budget committee chair attended for item 7 on the agenda. <br>
  <br>
  Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO 
Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  Quorum present at 14:07 CET<br>
  MP3 recording<br>
  http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20030814.mp3 <br>
  </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 <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann/Meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml";>Agenda</a></b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Agenda approved</b><br>
    </font> 
    <p> 
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings-gnso-24jun03.shtml";>Summary 
    of last meeting</a> </b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard/Ken Stubbs</b> moved the adoption of the minutes 
seconded 
    by <b>Marilyn Cade.</b><br>
    <br>
    The Council approved the adoption of the minutes, with Amadeu Abril l Abril 
    abstaining <br>
    <b>Decision 1: Motion adopted. <br>
    <br>
    Matters arising from the minutes:<br>
    </b>1. The GNSO<b> </b>chair was asked to liaise with the president of 
ICANN 
    in connection with GNSO Council communication with the ICANN Board. Bruce 
    Tonkin did not discuss this but posted a suggestion to Council explaining 
    that the aim was to meet quarterly, via teleconference with the ICANN 
Board, 
    to brief it on policy work undertaken and address any issues with regard to 
    processes and procedures.<br>
    2. Liaise with the ICANN President on WIPO II recommendations - Item 3 on 
    the agenda. <br>
    3. Discussion about new gTLDs as raised by Jeff Newman to be addresses in 
    Item 8 Any Other Business<br>
    <b><br>
    <br>
    </b></font></li>
  <li><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 3: Update on ICANN 
President's 
    working group on WIPO-II recommendations<br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">reported 
    that the ICANN President had invited 6 members from the Government Advisory 
    Committee to participate in the working group and asked the GNSO Council to 
    nominate 6 participants. Bruce recommended that each constituency should 
nominate 
    one person so that the GNSO Council representatives on the President's 
working 
    group would represent a broad cross section of interests. <br>
    <br>
    In response to a question from Jeff Neuman as to the purpose of the group, 
    Bruce Tonkin referred to:<br>
    </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
    A <a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02jun03.htm";>discussion by 
    the Board</a> regarding the appropriate next steps for consideration of the 
    WIPO recommendations<br>
    </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    Whereas, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) sent ICANN a 
    letter dated 21 February 2003 providing information about two decisions, 
concerning 
    recommendations about the names and acronyms of International 
Intergovernmental 
    Organizations and about the names of countries, which WIPO member states 
requested 
    be transmitted to ICANN; <br>
    <br>
    Whereas, in resolution 03.22 the Board requested the President to inform 
the 
    Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the 
other 
    Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from WIPO and to invite 
    their comments; <br>
    <br>
    Whereas, advice and comments were received from the At-Large Advisory 
Committee 
    (ALAC), the GNSO Council, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and 
the 
    Intellectual Property Interests and the Commercial and Business Users 
Constituencies 
    of the GNSO; <br>
    <br>
    Whereas, the Board has considered the advice and comments received, as well 
    as the discussion and analysis in the 1 June 2003 General Counsel's 
Briefing 
    Concerning Policy-Development Process on WIPO-2 Recommendations; <br>
    <br>
    Resolved [03.83] that the President is directed to form, in consultation 
with 
    the chairs of the GNSO Council, the ALAC, and the GAC, a working group 
including 
    participants in the GNSO, the ALAC, and the GAC as well as Board members, 
    for the purpose of analyzing the practical and technical aspects of 
implementing 
    the WIPO recommendations, and notably the implications for the UDRP; and 
<br>
    <br>
    Further resolved [03.84] that the President and General Counsel are 
directed 
    to investigate and analyze legal aspects of the relationship between 
ICANN's 
    mission and the recommendations conveyed by the 12 February 2003 letter 
from 
    WIPO, and to report to the Board and to the working group formed under 
resolution 
    03.83 on the result of that investigation and analysis. Among topics to be 
    considered should be whether implementation of the WIPO recommendations 
would 
    require ICANN to prescribe adherence to normative rules, not based on 
established 
    laws, for the resolution of competing third-party claims to rights to 
register 
    names. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril </b>clarified that the purpose of the ICANN 
President's 
    working group was not to look at implementation but to study the 
implications, 
    how, if and what, and to map out the question. Difficult legal questions 
arise 
    where protection is sought for matters which are not protected under law at 
    a national level. Six participants from the GNSO are preferable to one, and 
    at least some of those participants should have a legal background in 
international 
    law. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade </b>drew attention to the way WIPO l and WIPO ll had come 
    about. The former was a request for a fast track study with broad 
participation 
    followed by a process in ICANN to determine what outcome should be related 
    to the UDRP. The latter was a study of the implications of the 
recommendations 
    that came from within WIPO itself.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Milton Mueller</b>, proposed:<br>
    <b><br>
    that the GNSO Council requires each constituency to nominate one person to 
    represent the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with 
the 
    WIPO ll recommendations.<br>
    <br>
    The Council unanimously approved the motion.<br>
    <br>
    Decision 2. Each constituency is required to nominate one person to 
represent 
    the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the WIPO ll 
    recommendations.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    </b></font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 4. Discussion of <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm";>Staff
 
    Managers</a> report on UDRP<br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized saying that the report was divided into 
procedural 
    and substantive issues. The Acting General Counsel of ICANN considered that 
    most of the substantive issues and some of the procedural issues would 
extend 
    beyond ICANN's mission.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <b>Procedural Issues:</b><br>
    01. Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to 
administrative 
    panel decisions<br>
    02. Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available<br>
    03. Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or 
supplement 
    their filings? <br>
    04. Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to 
address 
    concerns about potential conflicts of interest? <br>
    05. Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be 
promulgated? 
    <br>
    06. Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?<br>
    07. Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be 
mandatory 
    and standardized? <br>
    08. Should the notice requirements be amended? <br>
    09. Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations 
    be amended?<br>
    10.Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate 
    review?<br>
    <b>Substantive Issues:</b><br>
    11. Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal 
    deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders? <br>
    12. Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for 
non-registered 
    marks? <br>
    13. Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the 
interpretation 
    of "confusing similarity"? <br>
    14. Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration 
    and registrant? <br>
    15. Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes 
    "use"? <br>
    16. Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as 
permissible 
    evidence of bad faith? <br>
    17. Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in 
    order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? <br>
    18. Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?<br>
    19. Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?<br>
    20. Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration ? allowing 
subsequent 
    re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy? <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> supported by <b>Marilyn Cade</b>, proposed that each 
constituency 
    prioritize five issues from the total and then the GNSO Council would ask 
    if they were in ICANN's scope in an answer to Council members who did not 
    agree with the delimitation considered by ICANN that most of the 
substantive 
    issues would extend beyond ICANN's mission and that some of the issues 
could 
    be possible changes but in fact were not solicited by anyone.<br>
    Bruce Tonkin also proposed that after the elements were identified, there 
    should be a discussion with ICANN General Counsel as to the scope of the 
issues 
    within ICANN's mission.<br>
    <b>Thomas Roessler</b>, ALAC Liaison, said that ICANN should certainly not 
    extend the UDRP to take up complex cases better dealt with in court, but 
that 
    -- on the other hand -- it is certainly within ICANN's mission to either 
cut 
    back or fix policy where it has already invaded realms better left to 
courts. 
    On outreach done by the ALAC, it was felt that there was too little time 
for 
    thorough outreach on these complex issues, but that ALAC had some expertise 
    available on UDRP, and would be interested in continuing to participate in 
    the discussion. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Milton Mueller</b>, 
proposed:</font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That the GNSO requests each 
constituency 
    to review the list of issues presented in the Staff Manager's report on 
UDRP 
    and identify the top five issues from the report that the constituency 
believes 
    has the highest priority for policy development. <br>
    This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25. <br>
    <br>
    <b><br>
    The Council unanimously approved the motion.<br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Decision 3</b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> : 
Each 
    constituency is requested to review the list of issues presented in the 
Staff 
    Manager's report on UDRP and identify the top five issues from the report 
    that the constituency believes has the highest priority for policy 
development. 
    This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25. 
</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    </font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 5. Update on WHOIS 
Privacy 
    Steering Group </b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, acting chair of the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee, 
    reported that during the teleconference<b> </b>held on 7/8 August, each<b> 
    </b>member had been asked to identify five top issues in the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/whois-privacy-report-13may03.htm";>Staff
 
    Manager's report on WHOIS privacy issues</a>.<br>
    <br>
    1. Two issues in general received the majority of votes:</font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    5. Are the current requirements that registrars make disclosures to, and 
obtain 
    consent by, registrants concerning the uses of collected data adequate and 
    appropriate? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.4 to 3.7.7.6.) <br>
    10. Are the current means of query-based access appropriate? Should both 
web-based 
    access and port-43 access be required? (RAA § 3.3.1.) <br>
    <br>
    2. The chair, requested as outcome of the streering group, that each 
constituency 
    should formally review the top five issues and report back their positions 
    to the GNSO Secretariat so that the issues could be collated and developed 
    as the terms of reference for one or more task forces.<br>
    <br>
    3. Related to the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee work, the ICANN 
President, 
    Paul Twomey informally chairs a group that coordinates representatives from 
    GAC, RIRs, IETF to identify what issues raised in the WHOIS workshop are 
appropriate 
    for further analysis. The topics discussed included status of the IETF 
CRISP 
    work, documenting uses for each data element collected at the time of 
registration, 
    possibility of classifying types of registrants, and different approaches 
    taken by cctld operators. <br>
    <br>
    4. Work is going on in Internet Engineering Task Force on new registry data 
    access protocol. John Klensin, the IETF liaison on the ICANN Board 
requested 
    input from each GNSO constituency on the requirements of this protocol.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    5. Alick Wilson recommended, that each constituency review the data that 
must 
    be collected by registrars currently, identify which elements should be 
mandatory 
    and, in addition, identify for each of these elements the consequences if 
    the data element was not available. <br>
    <br>
    6. The information gathered is to be shared with the other ICANN Groups.<br>
    <br>
    </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <b><br>
    </b></font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 6. </b>Discussion on 
council 
    structure <br>
    - The <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm";>ICANN 
    nominating committee</a> appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council in June 
2003<br>
    http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm <br>
    - the <a href="http://wwwicann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X";>ICANN by-laws</a> 
    require each constituency to appoint 2 representatives to the GNSO to take 
    up office at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003 <br>
    http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X <br>
    - the <a href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#lV";>ICANN 
by-laws</a> 
    require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following the adoption of the 
ICANN 
    by-laws (15 Dec 2002)<br>
    http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV<br>
    <br>
    </font></li>
  <li><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin 
</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">summarized 
    saying that the ICANN bylaws provide for the appointment of two, and no 
longer 
    three, constituency representatives on the GNSO council after the ICANN 
general 
    meeting in 2003. The bylaws further require a review of the GNSO to be 
initiated 
    no later than 15 December 2003 and to be completed in time for Board 
consideration 
    at ICANN's annual meeting in 2004.<br>
    Members of the Council requested a change as stated in the motion below.<br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard</b>, one of the originators of the motion, along with 
<b>Ken 
    Stubbs</b>, <b>Ellen Shankman</b> and <b>Antonio Harris</b>, stated that 
the 
    essence of the motion was a change in timetable, which called for the 
review 
    first and then an examination whether the change from 3 to 2 
representatives 
    per constituency was necessary.<br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard</b> accepted the motion as <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00051.html";>amended
 
    by Jeff Neuman to Council</a>:<br>
    <br>
    <b>Proposed language by Marilyn Cade </b><br>
    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004, WHICH 
SHOULD 
    INCLUDE AMONG OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA, A RECOMMENDATION 
REGARDING 
    NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY.<br>
    <br>
    <b>was amended by Jeff Neuman to read:</b><br>
    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which 
should 
    include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the 
efficacy 
    of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. 
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b>, stated that he would not vote on the 
resolution 
    as he had been a Board member at the time of the Reform and had voted for 
    2 representatives. <br>
    <b>Milton Mueller</b> supported two representatives and said that with 
possible 
    new constituencies being added in the future, three representatives would 
    make the structure unwieldy.<br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade </b>supported maintaining 3 representatives and an 
assessment 
    from within the Council rather than an outside review process.<br>
    <b>Antonio Harris</b> supported 3 representatives to lessen the work load 
    of representatives and to ensure geographical diversity<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, from an engineering point of view, found advantages in 
    assessing the impact after one year, of the first change made by the three 
    representatives from the nominating committee.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard</b> proposed the motion</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">, 
    as amended by <b>Jeff Neuman</b>:<br>
    <br>
    Whereas, the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three 
    representatives per Constituency on the GNSO Council". <br>
    <br>
    Whereas, ICANN core value 2.4 is: - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed 
    participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity 
    of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making". 
    <br>
    <br>
    Whereas, ICANN core value 2.7 is: - "Employing open and transparent policy 
    development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on 
expert 
    advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the 
    policy development process."<br>
    <br>
    Whereas, by-law article XX.5.8 states: "In the absence of further action on 
    the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select 
two 
    representatives to the GNSO Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003." 
<br>
    <br>
    The GNSO council resolves that: <br>
    <br>
    Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core value 
    2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency as the 
majority 
    of ICANN regions are represented. . Three representatives per Constituency 
    is consistent with ICANN core value 2.7 on well-informed decision making. 
    Experience has shown that three representatives improves the constituencies 
    ability to share the workload of a council member, to be able to 
participate 
    in task forces of the council, and to more effectively communicate with 
multiple 
    regions. <br>
    <br>
    And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in 
its 
    review timetable: <br>
    <br>
    1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per 
constituency 
    on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; <br>
    <br>
    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which 
should 
    include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the 
efficacy 
    of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. 
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>The Council approved the motion by a vote:<br>
    - 21 in favour</b>( proxy votes for Tony Holmes, Lynda Roesch, Ellen 
Shankman) 
    <br>
    <b>-</b> <b>1 Against</b> (Milton Mueller)<br>
    <b>- 4 Abstentions </b>(Amadeu Abril lAbril, Alick Wilson, Demi Getschko, 
    proxy vote carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi)<br>
    <br>
    <b>During the teleconference the following message was received from Chun 
    Eung Hwi and only read after the teleconference. <br>
    GNSO Secretariat </b><br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three 
representatives 
    per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to 
Milton 
    Mueller. <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Decision 4: <br>
    - </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Schedule a joint 
    teleconference with ICANN Board<br>
    - Formally submit the motion as a request for an amendment to the 
Bylaws:<br>
    And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in 
its 
    review timetable: <br>
    1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per 
constituency 
    on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; <br>
    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which 
should 
    include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the 
efficacy 
    of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. 
    <br>
    - GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin to liaise with ICANN President, Paul Twomey on 
    joint ICANN Board teleconference on the topic<br>
    </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard leaves the call, hands proxy to Grant Forsyth</b><br>
    <br>
    <br>
    </font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 7:</b> <b>Budget 
committee 
    report<br>
    Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that the items to be discussed were: <br>
    - the current state of the budget <br>
    - the transition costs of the GNSO website from AFNIC to ICANN 
management<br>
    <b><br>
    Roger Cochetti, GNSO Budget committee chair, joins call.<br>
    <br>
    Roger Cochetti </b>reminded Council that the GNSO budget for 2003 was for 
    six months as ICANN planned to cover the costs for the GNSO after July. The 
    Constituency dues assessments were based on 6<b> </b>months spending.<br>
    On June 30, 2003, the Budget committee met, and by the end of June there 
were 
    no arrangements in place to cover the costs of FISAT Inc. the Secretariat's 
    firm, and AFNIC, the website operator. The budget committee agreed to cover 
    the costs for FISAT Inc. and AFNIC for the month of July if these were not 
    met by ICANN.<br>
    With routine spending the current balance amounts to approximately $26 
700.00..<br>
    The original plan after July was to close off the books and the balance of 
    funds would go to the GNSO for administrative expenses.<br>
    <br>
    Budget Committee recommendations on larger issues:<br>
    Closing out old account - constituency debts over years. Constituency debt 
    was never forgiven so no constituency ever officially subsidized another 
constituency. 
    Council was never supportive of debt forgiveness.<br>
    The budget committee recommends a compromise between debt forgiveness and 
    permanent carrying debts on the ICANN Books<br>
    Once all the expenses for June and July are fully paid, the DNSO/GNSO books 
    would be closed and a new account established for administrative 
miscellaneous 
    expenses.<br>
    The new account would be funded by the balance from the old to the new 
account. 
    The new account would be handled by another form of administration.<br>
    The debt would not be officially forgiven but would be irrelevant and the 
    books closed.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Greg Ruth</b>, proposed:<br>
    1. When all payments had been made the DNSO/GNSO account should be 
closed.<br>
    2. With the closure of the account, the Council budget committee would be 
    disbanded<br>
    3. Balance of funds transferred to new GNSO administration miscellaneous 
account. 
    <br>
    4. Procedure be established for management of the new account.<br>
    <br>
    <b>The Council members unanimously approved the motion </b> <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized the DNSO/GNSO website transition saying that 
    the expectations were for ICANN to take over the management of the 
DNSO/GNSO 
    website by June, 2003. The GNSO secretariat notified the GNSO chair that 
the 
    end of June timetable would not be feasible. Bruce Tonkin spoke to Paul 
Twomey 
    in Montreal and suggested that the current provider, AFNIC continue 
services 
    till the end of the transition in July, 2003.<br>
    The GNSO Secretariat was instructed to verbally speak to the director of 
AFNIC 
    and verbally received the assurance that the services would continue until 
    the end of the transition period. Bruce Tonkin has since spoken to the 
ICANN 
    President who confirmed that the expense had not been budgeted for by ICANN 
    and ICANN did not formally engage the French provider during July.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin,</b> seconded by <b>Ken Stubbs</b>, proposed the following 
    recommendation:<br>
    That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred by AFNIC for 
    the transition of the DNSO/GNSO website to ICANN administration. <br>
    <b>The Council members unanimously approved the motion </b> <br>
    <br>
    <b>Decision 5: That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred 
    by AFNIC.</b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b>, on behalf of 
    the GNSO Council proposed a motion of thanks to <b>Roger Cochetti </b>for 
    his efforts as budget committee chair in the first half of the year, and 
for 
    chairing the committee for two years on a voluntary basis.<br>
    <br>
    <b>The Council members unanimously approved the motion<br>
    </b><br>
    </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 8: Any Other 
Business<br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that <b>Jeff Neuman</b> had raised a problem 
relating 
    to <b>new gTLDs </b><b><br>
    Bruce Tonkin </b>mentioned that it was a software problem that required 
upgrading 
    and education of the public which should be undertaken as soon as possible. 
    It was suggested that ICANN send out an advisory note and that the Internet 
    Engineering Task Force, (IETF) should also be asked to send out an advisory 
    note as well.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed to finalize the document and use all possible 
    council contacts to propagate the message<b><br>
    <br>
    Jeff Neuman </b>proposed;<br>
    - Forming a group to do outreach as soon as possible.<br>
    - That each constituency send one representative to the group.<br>
    - To coordinate with the Security committee and the GNSO Council<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked 
everybody 
    for attending.<br>
    <br>
    The meeting ended: 16:10 CET, 14:10 UTC, </b></font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>00:10, 
    15 August, Melbourne.</b></font> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
teleconference: 
      Thursday September 25, 2003 at 12:00 UTC </b><br>
      see:<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/</a></font>
 
  </li>
</ul>