[council] GNSO Council teleconference 16/17 October - draft minutes

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

[To:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear Council members,

Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held
on16/17 October.
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct03.shtml
(text version below)

If you have any changes that you would like made, please inform me.

Thank you,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council teleconference October 16/17 Draft Minutes
19 October 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. - absent, apologies, proxy to
Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard
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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies,
proxy to Philip Sheppard
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies,
proxy to Philip Sheppard
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Philip Sheppard
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Chun
Eung Hwi
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril

15 Council Members

Paul Twomey - ICANN President
John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel

Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison
Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison

Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Quorum present at 23:07 CET
MP3 recording

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Discussion on meeting with Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and GNSO
Council members, proposed to be held on Sunday 26 October in Carthage at
19:00 (7:00 pm)

Item 1: Approval of the Agenda

Bruce Tonkin summarized:
requested in put from Paul Twomey, ICANN President, on the request for a
policy development process in the area of Registry Services
address the motion before the GNSO Council
"The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report,
consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the
need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry
Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)"
If the motion passes, discussion of issues that should be included in the
Issues report to be issued by the ICANN Staff.

Agenda items for Carthage meeting

Paul Twomey, ICANN President stated that he had drafted a letter to the GNSO
Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin, which was read by John Jeffrey, formally
requesting the GNSO Council to commence a GNSO policy development process
designed to produce recommendations to the Board.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tonkin-20oct03.pdf


Paul Twomey commented that the letter was intended to give input to guiding
issues that came out of the ICANN mission.
The President's request was directed at the dialogue that takes place
between the Registries and the ICANN staff function under the Registry
Agreement. It was not aimed at the establishment of an ongoing process of
policy making.
At the core structure of the Registry agreement, it was important to note
that on behalf of the decision making process, registry service by registry
service, whereby an independent third party makes the decision, the ICANN
staff and the ICANN Board do not consist of parties that would be
competitors with the Registry.
Important issues have emerged around competition such as how does a Registry
introduce a service in a true market environment when confidentiality may be
important for their business needs. Expert advice is needed on how to
achieve the processes of confidentiality.
The rationale as a whole for the President's request for a policy
development process arises from dialogues the President has had since his
installation with the Registries and was thus on the agenda before the
Verisign Sitefinder incident. It is an attempt to outline ICANN concerns and
a process in moving forward, rather than preserving a static format of what
Registries should do.
Milton Mueller asked whether the intention was for the GNSO to give advice
on how to do an advanced process.
Paul Twomey replied that the intent was to address what steps a Registry
would be required to follow to ensure that a service could be introduced and
was consistent with the outline in the letter.
Milton Mueller went on to ask what justification there was for the rapid
process and the priority it received, other than the Sitefinder service.
Paul Twomey responded that Sitefinder and other recent registry services in
.name required amendments to the Registry service agreements which had
affects on people running businesses.
Amadeu Abril l Abril asked whether the Staff Manager was indeed available to
draw up an Issues Report to which Paul Twomey replied that staff resources
were available.
Concern was expressed about the consequences if the policy development
process was not completed in the 90 day policy development process
timeframe.
Paul Twomey stated that the process would affect future services.
Jeff Neuman mentioned that the letter was structured to address all TLD
services while it should be for unsponsored tld services only.
Paul Twomey stated that the definitions in the registry contracts were the
key factors.

Discussion on the motion from Bruce Tonkin, the GNSO Chair and seconded by
Marilyn Cade:
"The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report,
consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the
need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry
Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)"

Jordyn Buchanan stated that there was not enough precision in registry
agreements to make it possible for ICANN to preserve stability and security
of the Internet. Contracts should be rethought in terms of registry
interaction with ICANN.
Bruce Tonkin clarified the process:
The GNSO Council was commissioning an Issues Report
The GNSO Council would meet to determine whether the policy development
process would be appropriate
The terms of reference would be well specified before starting the task
force.
Milton Mueller proposed adding the following amendment:
The Issues Report should consider the advantages and disadvantages of
reviewing new registry services ex post or ex ante; whether rules should be
different for dominant and non-dominant players; and who would make the
initial determination of whether a new service qualified as a registry
service.
Bruce Tonkin suggested separating the two matters and proposed that the
amendment should be taken up in the Issues report.
Milton Mueller expressed further concern about ICANN as a regulator and
stated that regulation by contract was preferable to centralized regulation.

The motion passed with 18 votes in favour, the gTLD Registries constituency
and the Non-commercial Users constituency abstained.

Decision 1:
The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report,
consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the
need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry
Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)

The ICANN President was asked whether a public comment would be appropriate
to assist in collecting data for the Issues Report to which he replied that
council members and experts from other services would be more suitable to
provide information.

Paul Twomey excused himself and left the meeting.

Bruce Tonkin called for suggestions on issues to be raised in the Issues
Report:
Milton Mueller suggested the following:
The Issues Report should consider the advantages and disadvantages of
reviewing new registry services ex post or ex ante; whether better focus of
the gTLD contracts on technical and stability is a better way to address the
problems; whether rules should be different for dominant and non-dominant
players; and who would make the initial determination of whether a new
service qualified as a registry service.
Ken Stubbs stated that a reasonable time was required for accelerated
consultation in the constituencies for input on issues to be raised in the
Staff Managers report. The suggested return date for the input to be sent to
the GNSO Council list: Monday 20 or Tuesday 21 October.
Jeff Neuman added that the input to the issues report should be before the
Councillors' terms end in Carthage. The question should be examined:
What rights did ICANN have in the agreement in the interruption of Registry
services.

Bruce Tonkin proposed the following schedule:
GNSO Council members should have the opportunity to read through the ICANN
President's letter.
GNSO Council members and liaisons should contribute suggestions, individual
submissions, that could be gathered and incorporated in the Staff Manager's
report.
Timing for the Staff Manager's Report, 15 days which brings the date to
October 31.

Action:
Bruce Tonkin proposed talking to Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey about the
consultation and input that Council members would like from their
constituencies.


Item 2: Any Other Business

1. Proposed Meetings in Carthage:

Bruce Tonkin proposed that constituencies discuss possible issues for the
Staff Manager's report.

Marilyn Cade reported on an open informational meeting on Monday afternoon,
October 27, 2003
Discussion topics:
- Briefing on Wildcards
- Tutorial on Domain Name System (DNS )

Clarification on Cross Constituency meeting.
Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property Interests, and Internet
Service and Connectivity Providers Constituencies meet
together often with invited guests from the At Large Advisory Committee and
the ccNSO and other groups.

2. Agenda Topics for Carthage:
- UDRP
- WHOIS Steering group terms of reference for task forces

Marilyn Cade requested information on the status of the GNSO Council
request: arising from the GNSO Council meeting on August 14, 2003 where a
decision was taken to:
- 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.

Bruce Tonkin proposed sending a formal request to the Board enquiring on the
status of allowing 3 representatives per constituency.

3. Status of Elections in the Constituencies
1. gTLD Registries Constituency: 2 Representatives elected: Cary Karp
elected for a 2 year term, Ken Stubbs elected for a 1 year term.
2. Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC): 3 Representatives
elected: Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth.
3. Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): Election due to start on 20
October and finish on 31 October 2003.
4. Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency : Elections have
not commenced, planned for after Carthage.
5. Registrars Constituency: Election has been held and the results were
being finalised
6. Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: No representative present
to report

Jeff Neuman asked whether the constituencies had elected two or three
representatives?
The Non-Commercial Users Constituency planned to elect two and have another
election if a third representative was needed.
The Commercial and Business Users Constituency had elected three.

Marilyn Cade proposed forming a committee of the present councillors that
could focus on the specific Registry Service issue in order to meet the
necessary timelines in the policy development process.


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

The meeting ended: 00:45 CET, 22:45 UTC, 08:45, 17 October, Melbourne.

Next GNSO Council meeting to be held at the Carthage Palace Hotel in
historic Carthage, Tunisia. : Wednesday October 29, 2003 at 14:00 local
time, 13:00 UTC
see:http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/