[council] GNSO Council draft minutes December 18, 2003

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

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council members,

Please find attached and in text version the GNSO Council draft minutes of
the teleconference held on December 18, 2003.

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

Thank you very much.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

18 December 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 - absent, apologies, proxy Antonio Harris
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Antonio Harris
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent,
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C.- absent, apologies,
proxy to Philip Sheppard
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies,
proxy to Philip Sheppard
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C.
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk
Woo
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko - absent
Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent

12 Council Members

Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President of Business Operations
Barbara Roseman - Staff Manager


Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison

The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.
Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair

Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 recording

Quorum present at 12:15 UTC,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
Item 1: Approval of the Agenda

Item 2: Summary of last meetings:
November 20, 2003
December 2, 2003

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the November 20, 2003 minutes.
The motion was carried. Alick Wilson and Marilyn Cade abstained (absent at
the meeting)
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the December 2, 2003 minutes.
The motion was carried. Tom Keller abstained. (absent at the meeting)

Decision 1: Minutes of the November 20 and December 2 meetings adopted.

Item 3: Update from WHOIS task forces
- report on appointments of chairs and timelines for work program
Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes -
chair - Jeff Neuman
Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed - chair - Jordyn
Buchanan
Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair - Brian Darville

Jeff Neuman, WHOIS Task Force 1 chair, reported that the task was to collect
information on the needs and justifications for non-marketing uses of WHOIS
information and to look at the measures that are already in place or being
developed to prevent data mining. In order to do this information, already
available from the WHOIS workshops, surveys and former studies was being
collected by the ICANN staff. A further task was the identification of
"non-marketing groups" and soliciting their input on the needs and
justification for the non-marketing uses of WHOIS data.

Jeff Neuman requested that the GNSO Council accept the proposed time line
stating that it was particularly aggressive to keep within the policy
development process timelines and complete a Final Report. by March 1, 2004
for the ICANN Meeting in Rome.:
1) December 23, 2003: Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS workshop materials
related to our specific issues and identification of non-marketing groups
that use Whois Data.
2) January 5, 2004: First draft of Notice to non-marketing groups soliciting
input on Task Force issues due to the Task Force
3) January 6, 2004: First draft of "needs and justifications" chart due
(compiled from pre-existing data)
4) January 12, 2004: Send out Notice to non-marketing groups on "needs and
justifications" for Whois data and for soliciting comments on "technical
measures adopted for preventing data mining"
5) January 26, 2004: Due date for comments from "non-marketing groups" and
"technical measures adopted for preventing data mining"
6) February 1, 2004: Constituency Statements due
7) February 9, 2004: Preliminary data due from ICANN, Registries and
Registrars on "changes to agreements" to implement technical measures
8) March 1, 2004: Completion of a Final Report.
The ICANN Rome meeting being the deadline for the preliminary report.

Bruce Tonkin asked for clarification on "preliminary report", defined in the
policy development process as the collection of constituency statements,
information and public comments which were then discussed and later formed
the task force report that was put out for public comment for a period of 20
days.

Bruce Tonkin proposed that the timeline for the WHOIS task force I, which
was an extension from the policy development process timeline be presented
to the ICANN Board for approval.

Ken Stubbs commented that time lines were too aggressive with the holiday
period.

Brian Darville, WHOIS Task Force 3 chair, reported that task force 3 was
looking at current techniques that registrars are using to verify their
WHOIS data. Questions would be sent to the Registrars on January 5 and they
would have till January 15 to respond as that information would be a driver
for other information needed. A preliminary report was planned for March 16,
just after the ICANN Rome meeting.

Kurt Pritz commented that additional data gathering time would be required
to receive all the registrar responses.

Bruce Tonkin suggested a two pronged approach for gathering the registrar's
data, sending question to individual registrars and to the registrar's
constituency.

Kurt Pritz asked whether a statistical sample of data gathering was
possible, to which Bruce Tonkin, from a registrars point of view, responded
that it would depend on the questions asked.

Marilyn Cade commented that there would be multiple and overlapping requests
for data to ccTLDs, and third parties and as far as possible these should be
coordinated.

Bruce Tonkin made the distinction between collecting opinions and data
collection and commented that the policy development process did not make
provision for data collection. Past practice proved that opinions were
better informed if they were based on shared data.

Bruce Tonkin proposed working with the GNSO Secretariat and ICANN staff to
produce a spreadsheet of the policy development process based on the
milestones in the ICANN bylaws and draw a comparison with the dates that
were proposed by the 3 task forces. It would indicate where activities
needed to be synchronized and would serve to make a joint statement to the
ICANN Board where extra time was needed in the ICANN community.

Bruce Tonkin explained that the GNSO Council would formally have to vote on
the recommendation for an extension of time and the ICANN Board would have
to approve it as is specified in the ICANN bylaws:
Section 7, Task Forces (b) 2. the specific timeline that the task force must
adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a
compelling reason to extend the timeline;

Marilyn Cade commented on a resource issue that affected the timing and
suggested that appointing an expert within the task force or retaining a
neutral person to do data gathering could be very helpful to the task force
process. Bottlenecks could be created in the timing as too much work would
depend on one person. The task forces should come up with a relatively
consistent timeframe, as the GNSO council would still have to unify policy
changes after the task force work was completed.

Kurt Pritz responded that the subject of hiring experts had been discussed
and would be approached when statements of work were specifically set out.

Tom Keller expressed concern that appointing such a person could lead to
subjective data gathering.

Jordyn Buchanan remarked that given the alignment in dates for task force 2
and 3 there could be an increased burden on ICANN staff and constituencies
towards the phase of the final report.

Bruce Tonkin commented that a preliminary or draft report, should be
completed by the ICANN Rome meeting.
He suggested deferring the signing off date on a set of time lines for the 3
task forces until the GNSO Council meeting in January when the Council
decision could be forwarded to the Board for approval In the mean time, in
consultation with the task forces, the GNSO Secretariat and the ICANN staff
he suggested doing a reiteration of timeframes that looked at sufficient
time for data collection, ensuring input at the Rome meeting, and
coordinating the questionnaire distribution.
Bruce Tonkin stated that clarification had been sought on the role of
alternates in participation on task force calls.
At its meeting on 20 November, the GNSO Council decided: "That for the
purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more
than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the
mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is
only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's
views."

Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following approach:
"We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational
interest. The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and
analyzing information. Many of the alternates, some of whom have significant
ICANN experience and historical knowledge, can contribute significantly in
furthering the Task Force's work by simply providing historical information
or indicating the availability of other information germane to the issues
the Task Force is addressing. Of course, under no circumstances will any
alternate be allowed to represent the views of the constituency or provide
the vote of any constituency (unless the designated representative is absent
on the call)."

Philip Sheppard suggested that any constituency with more than one
representative could decide for a particular call to designate the
alternative as spokesman if that person had particular expertise to offer.
It could be left to the discretion of the task force chair to decide which
information should be accepted and to stop abuse of multiple interventions.

Marilyn Cade added that in previous task forces, the Transfers and WHOIS,
where there had been several representatives from one constituency,
different people could contribute to the work of the task force but only one
person was allowed to speak on a constituency view point and only one person
was allowed to vote.

Jeff Neuman suggested that a directive from the GNSO Council would be useful
for the future.

Bruce Tonkin proposed posting a directive to Council and the task forces
making the distinction between an opinion, where there should be only one
per constituency and factual information where the task force chair
exercises discretion. . There was general agreement to this approach.

Marc Schneiders commented that fact and opinion were not always clearly
defined.

Bruce Tonkin responded that if a constituency had an issue with
participation by another constituency they could raise it with the chair of
the task force, and if the issue could not be resolved, the constituency
could raise the issue with the Council.

Elisabeth Porteneuve, as a liaison from the ccTLD group, announced that
WHOIS and WHOIS-related services would be dealt with at the next CENTR
General Assembly, in mid-February 2004 in Salzbourg. The CENTR Secretariat
was about to start the research and a survey would take place. If the GNSO
Council or Whois TF 3 had specific questions on Whois data accuracy, they
should be sent to the secretariat who would be happy to include them in
CENTR survey. The CENTR plans to start the survey probably by 16 January,
and close it two weeks later. An additional two weeks are necessary to write
the report. The collected information/results will be available for the
Salzburg meeting.

Item 4: Preliminary views from constituencies on the Procedure for use by
ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments
to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry
- the intent of this discussion is to share any preliminary views from
constituencies as they develop their constituency statements Item

The GNSO secretariat gave an update on the person for each constituency
coordinating the constituency statements:

Grant Forsyth - for the Commercial & Business users constituency.
Antonio Harris for the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers
constituency
Jordyn Buchanan for the gTLD registries constituency
J. Scott Evans for Intellectual Property Interests constituency
Marc Schneiders for the Non Commercial users constituency
Registrars constituency - not certain
All constituencies reported that it was probable the deadline of 12 January
would be met for constituency statements. The constituency statements would
then be collated into a single document.
Bruce Tonkin proposed calling a GNSO Council meeting toward the end of
January to conclude an initial report.

Barbara Roseman commented that information should be solicited from other
supporting organizations or advisory committees, to which Marilyn Cade added
the ccNSO.
Bruce Tonkin, as the GNSO Council chair, proposed formally requesting input
from the Security Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization,
and the At Large Advisory Committee and the ccNSO.

Item 5 Any Other Business

Philip Sheppard raised the need, especially for communication purposes, to
have a short title for:
The Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and
related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or
operation of a gTLD registry.

Barbara Roseman proposed working on a short title for communications.

Philip Sheppard, who had been involved in preparing the original policy
development process, proposed a guide for future Issues Reports in the light
of experience that had been gained along the process.

Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report -version 1
Background The staff manager's issue report is the precursor to the GNSO
policy development process (PDP).

The PDP is relatively new and there has been a high degree of variation in
the quality, length and usefulness of the issues reports so far. This is not
surprising since Council and staff are still developing procedures.
Therefore, Council proposes guidelines to provide structure for future staff
manager issue reports. The goal is to ensure that the materials are directly
useful to the work of the Council.

Objective An issue report has three objectives: - Relevance: to confirm an
issue is within ICANN's mission, - Description: to explain what the issue
is, who it affects, what support there is to address the issue, -
Recommendation: to recommend whether or not the GNSO should start a PDP.

The by-laws lay down a structure as to how the above objectives may be met.
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA

What SHOULD NOT be in the issues report The report has a short time frame
(15 calendar days).
This tells us that it is NOT intended to contain:
- options for solutions,
- options for how the Council may proceed,
- responses to a formal consultation of constituencies (this comes later if
the PDP goes ahead),
- nor should it be necessary to supplement it with documents such as FAQs.

What SHOULD the issues report look like?
It should be the primary document needed for the Council to make a decision
whether to proceed or not with a PDP. It should include links to existing
documents that provide directly relevant background.

The report must be clear in its recommendation to Council. Past reports have
not had this clarity and the GNSO chairman has been obliged to draft terms
of reference for a Council WG in an attempt to provide such clarity. It
would be more appropriate if the report itself proposed such terms of
reference (recognising that Council may choose to modify them). Therefore
all future issues reports should contain: - proposed terms of reference for
a Council working group drafted in a practical and manageable way and
reflecting a possible priority of sub-issues. The length of an issues report
will be guided by the topic. Some issues reports may be very short; others
may be lengthier but none need be long.

Summary of guidelines
The issue report should:
1. Describe an issue but NOT explore options.
2. Provide directly relevant background and links.
3. Recommend whether to proceed or not.
4. Propose terms of reference for a Council WG.
5. Be provided to Council within the 15 day time frame laid out in the by-

Bruce Tonkin thanked Philip Sheppard for the contribution and suggested that
Council members read the document which would be discussed at a later GNSO
Council meeting.

Marilyn Cade commented to Kurt Pritz on the change in the schedule for the
Rome meeting which could present an imposition on the community that would
like to be there during the whole process.

Kurt Pritz responded that there had been much discussion on the issue and
that community feedback was useful.

Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending
and wished everyone a happy holiday season.
The meeting ended: 13:23 UTC
Next GNSO Council teleconference: TBD
see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/





<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="18 December2003"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference 
Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">18 December 2003. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-29oct03.shtml";>agenda 
  and related documents</a> <br>
  <a 
href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-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. - absent, apologies, proxy 
  to Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Antonio Harris<br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Antonio Harris<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars <br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries<br>
  Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD registries<br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD registries<br>
  Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent, <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C.- absent, apologies, 
proxy 
  to Philip Sheppard<br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy 
  to Philip Sheppard<br>
  Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C.<br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. <br>
  Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk 
  Woo <br>
  Alick Wilson <br>
  Demi Getschko - absent<br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril </font>- <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">absent</font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">12 Council Members <br>
  <br>
  Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President of Business Operations <br>
  Barbara Roseman - Staff Manager<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christopher Wilkinson - GAC 
Liaison<br>
  Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
  Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison<br>
  <br>
  The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.<br>
  Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair<br>
  Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO 
Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20031218.mp3";>MP3 recording<br>
  </a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Quorum present at 12:15 UTC,</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 
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-18dec03.shtml";>Agenda</a></b></font><font
 face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    </font> 
    <p> 
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of last 
meetings:<br>
    </b><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml";>November</a> 
    20, 2003<br>
    <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-02dec03.shtml";>December</a> 
    2, 2003<br>
    <br>
    <b>Ken Stubbs</b> moved the adoption of the November 20, 2003 minutes.<br>
    The motion was carried. Alick Wilson and Marilyn Cade abstained (absent at 
    the meeting)<br>
    <b>Ken Stubbs</b> moved the adoption of the December 2, 2003 minutes.<br>
    The motion was carried. Tom Keller abstained. (absent at the meeting)<br>
    <br>
    <b>Decision 1: Minutes of the November 20 and December 2 meetings 
adopted.<br>
    <br>
    </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    </font></li>
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> Item 3:</b></font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
    <b>Update from WHOIS task forces </b><br>
    - report on appointments of chairs and timelines for work program <br>
    Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes - 
chair 
    - Jeff Neuman<br>
    Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed - chair - Jordyn 
Buchanan 
    <br>
    Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair - Brian 
Darville<br>
    <br>
    <b>Jeff Neuman</b>, WHOIS Task Force 1 chair, reported that the task was to 
    collect information on the needs and justifications for non-marketing uses 
    of WHOIS information and to look at the measures that are already in place 
    or being developed to prevent data mining. In order to do this information, 
    already available from the WHOIS workshops, surveys and former studies was 
    being collected by the ICANN staff. A further task was the identification 
    of &quot;non-marketing groups&quot; and soliciting their input on the needs 
    and justification for the non-marketing uses of WHOIS data.<br>
    <b>Jeff Neuman</b> requested that the GNSO Council accept the </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">proposed 
    time line stating that it was particularly aggressive to keep within the 
policy 
    development process timelines and complete a Final Report. by March 1, 2004 
    for the ICANN Meeting in Rome.:<br>
    1) December 23, 2003: Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS workshop 
materials 
    related to our specific issues and identification of non-marketing groups 
    that use Whois Data. <br>
    2) January 5, 2004: First draft of Notice to non-marketing groups 
soliciting 
    input on Task Force issues due to the Task Force <br>
    3) January 6, 2004: First draft of "needs and justifications" chart due 
(compiled 
    from pre-existing data) <br>
    4) January 12, 2004: Send out Notice to non-marketing groups on "needs and 
    justifications" for Whois data and for soliciting comments on "technical 
measures 
    adopted for preventing data mining" <br>
    5) January 26, 2004: Due date for comments from "non-marketing groups" and 
    "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining" <br>
    6) February 1, 2004: Constituency Statements due <br>
    7) February 9, 2004: Preliminary data due from ICANN, Registries and 
Registrars 
    on "changes to agreements" to implement technical measures <br>
    8) March 1, 2004: Completion of a Final Report. <br>
    The ICANN Rome meeting being the deadline for the preliminary report. 
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> asked for clarification on &quot;preliminary 
report&quot;, 
    defined in the policy development process as the collection of constituency 
    statements, information and public comments which were then discussed and 
    later formed the task force report that was put out for public comment for 
    a period of 20 days.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed that the timeline for the WHOIS task force I, 
    which was an extension from the policy development process timeline be 
presented 
    to the ICANN Board for approval. <br>
    <b>Ken Stubbs</b> commented that time lines were too aggressive with the 
holiday 
    period. <br>
    <b>Brian Darville</b>, WHOIS Task Force 3 chair, reported that task force 
    3 was looking at current techniques that registrars are using to verify 
their 
    WHOIS data. Questions would be sent to the Registrars on January 5 and they 
    would have till January 15 to respond as that information would be a driver 
    for other information needed. A preliminary report was planned for March 
16, 
    just after the ICANN Rome meeting.<br>
    <b>Kurt Pritz</b> commented that additional data gathering time would be 
required 
    to receive all the registrar responses.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested a two pronged approach for gathering the 
registrar's 
    data, sending question to individual registrars and to the registrar's 
constituency. 
    <br>
    <b>Kurt Pritz</b> asked whether a statistical sample of data gathering was 
    possible, to which Bruce Tonkin, from a registrars point of view, responded 
    that it would depend on the questions asked.<br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented that there would be multiple and overlapping 
    requests for data to ccTLDs, and third parties and as far as possible these 
    should be coordinated.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>made the distinction between collecting opinions and 
data 
    collection and commented that the policy development process did not make 
    provision for data collection. Past practice proved that opinions were 
better 
    informed if they were based on shared data. <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed working with the GNSO Secretariat and ICANN 
staff 
    to produce a spreadsheet of the policy development process based on the 
milestones 
    in the ICANN bylaws and draw a comparison with the dates that were proposed 
    by the 3 task forces. It would indicate where activities needed to be 
synchronized 
    and would serve to make a joint statement to the ICANN Board where extra 
time 
    was needed in the ICANN community.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> explained that the GNSO Council would formally have to 
    vote on the recommendation for an extension of time and the ICANN Board 
would 
    have to approve it as is specified in the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-26jun03.htm#AnnexA";>ICANN
 
    bylaws</a>:<br>
    Section 7, Task Forces (b) 2. the specific timeline that the task force 
must 
    adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a 
    compelling reason to extend the timeline; <br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented on a resource issue that affected the timing 
    and suggested that appointing an expert within the task force or retaining 
    a neutral person to do data gathering could be very helpful to the task 
force 
    process. Bottlenecks could be created in the timing as too much work would 
    depend on one person. The task forces should come up with a relatively 
consistent 
    timeframe, as the GNSO council would still have to unify policy changes 
after 
    the task force work was completed.<br>
    <b>Kurt Pritz </b>responded that the subject of hiring experts had been 
discussed 
    and would be approached when statements of work were specifically set 
out.<br>
    <b>Tom Keller</b> expressed concern that appointing such a person could 
lead 
    to subjective data gathering.<br>
    <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> remarked that given the alignment in dates for task 
    force 2 and 3 there could be an increased burden on ICANN staff and 
constituencies 
    towards the phase of the final report.<br>
    Bruce Tonkin commented that a preliminary or draft report, should be 
completed 
    by the ICANN Rome meeting</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">.<br>
    He suggested deferring the signing off date on a set of time lines for the 
    3 task forces until the GNSO Council meeting in January when the Council 
decision 
    could be forwarded to the Board for approval In the mean time, in 
consultation 
    with the task forces, the GNSO Secretariat and the ICANN staff he suggested 
    doing a reiteration of timeframes that looked at sufficient time for data 
    collection, ensuring input at the Rome meeting, and coordinating the 
questionnaire 
    distribution.<br>
    Bruce Tonkin stated that clarification had been sought on the role of 
alternates 
    in participation on task force calls.<br>
    At its <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml";>meeting 
    on 20 November</a>, the GNSO Council decided: "That for the purpose of the 
    WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one 
person 
    to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but 
    in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person 
    from the constituency to represent the constituency's views." </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following 
approach: 
    "We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational 
interest. 
    The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and analyzing 
information. 
    Many of the alternates, some of whom have significant ICANN experience and 
    historical knowledge, can contribute significantly in furthering the Task 
    Force's work by simply providing historical information or indicating the 
    availability of other information germane to the issues the Task Force is 
    addressing. Of course, under no circumstances will any alternate be allowed 
    to represent the views of the constituency or provide the vote of any 
constituency 
    (unless the designated representative is absent on the call)." <br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard</b> suggested that any constituency with more than one 
    representative could decide for a particular call to designate the 
alternative 
    as spokesman if that person had particular expertise to offer. It could be 
    left to the discretion of the task force chair to decide which information 
    should be accepted and to stop abuse of multiple interventions.<br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade</b> added that in previous task forces, the Transfers and 
    WHOIS, where there had been several representatives from one constituency, 
    different people could contribute to the work of the task force but only 
one 
    person was allowed to speak on a constituency view point and only one 
person 
    was allowed to vote.<br>
    <b>Jeff Neuman </b>suggested that a directive from the GNSO Council would 
    be useful for the future.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed posting a directive to Council and the task 
forces 
    making the distinction between an opinion, where there should be only one 
    per constituency and factual information where the task force chair 
exercises 
    discretion. . There was general agreement to this approach.<br>
    <b>Marc Schneiders </b>commented that fact and opinion were not always 
clearly 
    defined.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>responded that if a constituency had an issue with 
participation 
    by another constituency they could raise it with the chair of the task 
force, 
    and if the issue could not be resolved, the constituency could raise the 
issue 
    with the Council. <br>
    <b>Elisabeth Porteneuve</b>, as a liaison from the ccTLD group, announced 
    that WHOIS and WHOIS-related services would be dealt with at the next CENTR 
    General Assembly, in mid-February 2004 in Salzbourg. The CENTR Secretariat 
    was about to start the research and a survey would take place. If the GNSO 
    Council or Whois TF 3 had specific questions on Whois data accuracy, they 
    should be sent to the secretariat who would be happy to include them in 
CENTR 
    survey. The CENTR plans to start the survey probably by 16 January, and 
close 
    it two weeks later. An additional two weeks are necessary to write the 
report. 
    The collected information/results will be available for the Salzburg 
meeting.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 4: Preliminary views from constituencies on the Procedure for use 
    by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual 
amendments 
    to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry <br>
    - the intent of this discussion is to share any preliminary views from 
constituencies 
    as they develop their constituency statements Item <br>
    <br>
    </b>The GNSO secretariat gave an update on the person for each constituency 
    coordinating the constituency statements: <br>
    <br>
    Grant Forsyth - for the Commercial &amp; Business users constituency. <br>
    Antonio Harris for the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers 
constituency 
    <br>
    Jordyn Buchanan for the gTLD registries constituency <br>
    J. Scott Evans for Intellectual Property Interests constituency <br>
    Marc Schneiders for the Non Commercial users constituency <br>
    Registrars constituency - not certain<br>
    All constituencies reported that it was probable the deadline of 12 January 
    would be met for constituency statements. The constituency statements would 
    then be collated into a single document.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed calling a GNSO Council meeting toward the end 
    of January to conclude an initial report.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> commented that information should be solicited from 
    other supporting organizations or advisory committees, to which <b>Marilyn 
    Cade</b> added the ccNSO.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin,</b> as the GNSO Council chair<b>,</b> proposed formally 
requesting 
    input from the Security Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting 
Organization, 
    and the At Large Advisory Committee and the ccNSO.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 5 Any Other Business</b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard</b> raised the need, especially for communication 
purposes, 
    to have a short title for:<br>
    The Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and 
related 
    contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of 
    a gTLD registry. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> proposed working on a short title for 
communications.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Philip Sheppard,</b> who had been involved in preparing the original 
policy 
    development process, proposed a guide for future Issues Reports in the 
light 
    of experience that had been gained along the process.<br>
    <br>
    Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report -version 1 
    <br>
    Background The staff manager's issue report is the precursor to the GNSO 
policy 
    development process (PDP). <br>
    <br>
    The PDP is relatively new and there has been a high degree of variation in 
    the quality, length and usefulness of the issues reports so far. This is 
not 
    surprising since Council and staff are still developing procedures. 
Therefore, 
    Council proposes guidelines to provide structure for future staff manager 
    issue reports. The goal is to ensure that the materials are directly useful 
    to the work of the Council. <br>
    <br>
    Objective An issue report has three objectives: - Relevance: to confirm an 
    issue is within ICANN's mission, - Description: to explain what the issue 
    is, who it affects, what support there is to address the issue, - 
Recommendation: 
    to recommend whether or not the GNSO should start a PDP.<br>
    <br>
    The by-laws lay down a structure as to how the above objectives may be met. 
    http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA <br>
    <br>
    What SHOULD NOT be in the issues report The report has a short time frame 
    (15 calendar days). <br>
    This tells us that it is NOT intended to contain: <br>
    - options for solutions,<br>
    - options for how the Council may proceed,<br>
    - responses to a formal consultation of constituencies (this comes later if 
    the PDP goes ahead), <br>
    - nor should it be necessary to supplement it with documents such as FAQs. 
    <br>
    <br>
    What SHOULD the issues report look like? <br>
    It should be the primary document needed for the Council to make a decision 
    whether to proceed or not with a PDP. It should include links to existing 
    documents that provide directly relevant background. <br>
    <br>
    The report must be clear in its recommendation to Council. Past reports 
have 
    not had this clarity and the GNSO chairman has been obliged to draft terms 
    of reference for a Council WG in an attempt to provide such clarity. It 
would 
    be more appropriate if the report itself proposed such terms of reference 
    (recognising that Council may choose to modify them). Therefore all future 
    issues reports should contain: - proposed terms of reference for a Council 
    working group drafted in a practical and manageable way and reflecting a 
possible 
    priority of sub-issues. The length of an issues report will be guided by 
the 
    topic. Some issues reports may be very short; others may be lengthier but 
    none need be long.<br>
    <br>
    Summary of guidelines <br>
    The issue report should: <br>
    1. Describe an issue but NOT explore options. <br>
    2. Provide directly relevant background and links. <br>
    3. Recommend whether to proceed or not. <br>
    4. Propose terms of reference for a Council WG. <br>
    5. Be provided to Council within the 15 day time frame laid out in the by- 
    <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> thanked Philip Sheppard for the contribution and 
suggested 
    that Council members read the document which would be discussed at a later 
    GNSO Council meeting.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented to Kurt Pritz on the change in the schedule 
    for the Rome meeting which could present an imposition on the community 
that 
    would like to be there during the whole process.<br>
    <b>Kurt Pritz r</b>esponded that there had been much discussion on the 
issue 
    and that community feedback was useful.<br>
    <br>
    </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> 
<b>declared 
    GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending and wished everyone a 
    happy holiday season.<br>
    The meeting ended: 13:23 UTC</b></font> </li>
</ul>
<ul>
  <li>
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
teleconference: 
      TBD </b><br>
      see:<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";> 
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/</a></font> 
  </li>
</ul>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<!--#include virtual="../footer.shtml"--> </font>