[council] GNSO Council teleconference Jan. 22 Draft minutes

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

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

Dear Council members,

Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO COuncil teleconference
held on January, 22, 2004.

If there are any changes that you would like made, kindly let me know.

Thank you,

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat.

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="22 January 2004"-->
<!--#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">23 January 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22jan04.shtml";>agenda 
  and related documents</a><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. absent, apologies, proxy to 
  Grant Forsyth/Philip Sheppard<br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business users C. <br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Tony Holmes<br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC <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 <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C<br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. <br>
  Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent<br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. <br>
  Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc 
Schneiders<br>
  Alick Wilson <br>
  Demi Getschko <br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril </font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
  <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-Council.20040122.MP3";>MP3 
recording</a><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Quorum present at 19:08 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"><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22jan04.shtml";>Agenda</a><br>
    Added to the agenda<br>
    <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00364.html";>Call 
    for TOR change</a> for "Approval Process for gTLD Service Changes" <br>
    </font> 
    <p> 
  <li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18dec03.shtml";>last 
    meeting</a>, December 18, 2003:<br>
    <br>
    Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Philip Sheppard</b> moved the adoption of 
    the<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18dec03.shtml";> 
December 
    18, 2003 minutes</a>.<br>
    The motion was carried. Lucy Nichols, Niklas Lagergren, Kiyoshi Tsuru 
abstained 
    (absent at the December 18, 2003 meeting)<br>
    <br>
    <b>Decision 1: Minutes of the December 18 meeting adopted.<br>
    <br>
    </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 3: Approve 
timelines 
    for WHOIS task forces</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
    <br>
    <b>Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs: <br>
    Jeff Neuman - Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing 
    purposes<br>
    Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed <br>
    Brian Darville - Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair 
    - Brian Darville Brian Darville, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan <br>
    <br>
    Approve timelines for: Submission of constituency statements <br>
    Distribute Preliminary Task Force Report <br>
    Publish Task Force Report (Initial Report) <br>
    Publish Final Report <br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> reported that the three task force chairs, the GNSO 
    Chair and the Staff Manager had met on Thursday, January 15 to develop a 
timeline 
    to coordinate the task forces' work. The goal was to attempt finishing the 
    work by the end of May, in sufficient time for the ICANN Board to consider 
    the final report at the ICANN Board meeting in June, and if additional work 
    or modifications were necessary, these could be undertaken before the ICANN 
    July meeting in Kuala Lumpur where the ICANN Board would have the 
opportunity 
    to adopt the final report or not. <br>
    <br>
    In presenting the timeline to the task forces, concern was expressed on the 
    constituency statement timing. It was felt that the constituencies should 
    have the new data available to review before submitting their statements. 
    It was suggested that the constituency statement timing be delayed till 
late 
    March to allow for sufficient review of the additional data without 
disrupting 
    the general timelines. <br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> proposed another round of task force meetings before 
    signing off on the dates for the GNSO Council to approve on the February 5 
    meeting before being sent to the ICANN Board for approval.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized that the aim was to complete the work of the 
    3 Whois task forces in time for the Board to approve the policy 
recommendations 
    in its Kuala Lumpur meeting in July. The GNSO Council will need to approve 
    the recommendations one month before that date.<br>
    Planning for the coming months and the main dates the task forces have to 
    sign off on:<br>
    Plan the work for the ICANN meeting in Rome<br>
    Schedule time for when the constituency statements are due<br>
    Schedule time for completion of the preliminary task force report which 
would 
    contain the outcome of the constituency statements<br>
    Date for publishing the report<br>
    20 Day public comment period<br>
    Final report<br>
    GNSO Council meets to discuss final report<br>
    <br>
    <b>Jeff Neuman</b>, task force 1 chair, on restricting access, reported 
that 
    a questionnaire had been developed to send out to a list of non-marketing 
    users of Whois information, asking questions such as: where they obtained 
    their Whois data, whether is was from web based or port 43 access, whether 
    there were alternate sources for the data they were seeking and what would 
    be the effect on their organization if port 43 was shut down? A call, 
soliciting 
    constituency statements, would go out week beginning 26 January, 2004. The 
    task force was also compiling a needs and justifications chart which would 
    contain information gathered from the survey, past ICANN workshops and 
testimony 
    gathered from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Organization for 
Economic 
    co-operation and development (OECD). There was an interim report 
anticipated 
    for the ICAO Rome meetings which would be an extension of the needs and 
justifications 
    chart, as well as good information to discuss at the workshop, basically to 
    start gathering feedback information for policy recommendations. The task 
    force was progressing well.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Brian Darville</b>, task force 3 chair, on data accuracy, reported that 
    with regard to milestone 1, Registrars had been formally contacted, 
surveyed 
    and the results summarized on their current techniques for collecting and 
    verifying if the data was accurate. Questions were drawn up for inclusion 
    in a ccTLD survey by CENTR and were also submitted to ICANN staff for 
distribution 
    to other ccTLDs. Questions were prepared to send to companies and other 
industries 
    (the list is in preparation) which undertake business transactions online 
    for their methodology for verification of their customer data. These 
questions 
    should go out at the beginning of the week, 26 January and the responses 
should 
    be returned by February 16 to be included in an interim report that should 
    be completed a week before the ICANN meetings in Rome, on February 25. 
Significant 
    progress has been made. Call for constituency statements would be made 
during 
    the week, 26 January, however the task force, as whole, believed that 
meaningful 
    information from the constituencies was not likely unless they had had the 
    opportunity to comment on the data gathered from the survey, thus the 
return 
    date was scheduled for March 12.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that the constituencies could put it on their 
    agenda for Rome so that they could start developing their main 
statements.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display, 
    reported that a number of questions had been put together that would be 
sent 
    out, coordinated through the ICANN Staff to:<br>
    all the constituencies, in terms of how the constituency members make use 
    of data elements, whether or not specific data elements are required used 
    widely to determine whether they remain in the public domain and public in 
    the Whois<br>
    the Registrars constituency in particular who are responsible for doing 
more 
    with Whois than any other group,<br>
    ccTLDs, who are conducting a survey of their own and the ccNSO launching 
group 
    and <br>
    the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to get an understanding of the 
privacy 
    legislation and policy in the different countries that may be relevant to 
    the display and collection of Whois data.<br>
    The basic work for the questionnaires is complete. The available data from 
    the Organization for Economic co-operation and development (OECD) and 
Electronic 
    Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is being studied to find out how data is 
    being used.<br>
    The task force circulated a schedule that was longer than the current 
proposed 
    timeframe for the other two task forces, but it was thought necessary in 
the 
    light of the milestones to be covered and there should be sufficient time 
    to develop good policy positions.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that different advisory bodies would comment 
    formally during the public comment period, but task forces could notify the 
    various advisory committees and allow them to pass surveys onto their 
members 
    if appropriate. The individual members would then respond directly to the 
    task force.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> commented that it would be useful to see the 
    questionnaires to understand the questions and sound the GAC working group. 
    He mentioned that it was not sure what the GAC response would be and that 
    some members were reluctant to respond country by country, while the GAC 
would 
    want to advise the ICANN Board on the outcome of the process.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Elisabeth Porteneuve</b> commented that she would undertake to 
distribute 
    the questionnaire to all the ccTLDs.<br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> requested that all responses be sent in simple text 
    form to facilitate data coordination.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 4: Discuss constituency statements 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 provide input to the Staff Manager to 
    allow production of a Preliminary Report. </b><br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> referred to the Business Constituency's request to 
alter 
    the terms of reference.<br>
    <b>Grant Forsyth</b> addressed the subject referring to the Commercial and 
    Business Users Constituency's <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00364.html";>e-mail</a>
 
    to the GNSO Council which stated that it was not until responding that the 
    constraints found, built into the terms of reference by those matters 
considered 
    to be out-of scope, were inappropriate. There was the question as to the 
dual 
    relationship of ICANN with the Registries. ICANN is a contracting party and 
    party to &quot;the&quot; contract with the registries, but ICANN also 
performs 
    a much wider role and it is in the fulfillment of its wider role that it is 
    suggested it should not be constrained by whatever is in the contract. <br>
    Grant Forsyth, on behalf Commercial and Business Users Constituency 
suggested 
    that the two constraints in the &quot;Out-of-Scope&quot; be removed, 
viz.<br>
    A) Changes to the nature of the agreements between ICANN and the registry 
    operators <br>
    B) Additional obligations on registry operators or gTLD sponsors beyond 
what 
    is already specified in their existing agreements.<br>
    <b><br>
    Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized saying that not changing the Registry contracts 
    was seen as the constraint. <br>
    <b>Ken Stubbs</b> and <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> spoke out strongly against 
changing 
    the terms of reference, referring to a vote against further deliberation of 
    the terms of reference during the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-02dec03.shtml";>December 
    2, 2003,</a> GNSO Council teleconference and the fact that it would pervert 
    the timeline for the process.<br>
    &quot;Cary Karp, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan proposed a procedural motion: 
    To defer the vote to initiate the policy development process for a period 
    of 14 days for further refinement of the terms of reference.<br>
    The motion failed with 21 votes against and 6 registry constituency votes 
    in favour. &quot;<br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> commented that changing the terms of reference was 
    not advisable at this stage as constituency statements had already been 
submitted 
    and that it was possible to draft a process that would be independent of 
specific 
    contracts.<br>
    <b>Tony Holmes</b> added that if a substantial issue came to light, it 
should 
    not be ignored, but focussed on and result in an open ended call for 
review<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> observed from a process point of view that the terms of 
    reference were to assure convergence on a policy outcome rather than imply 
    covering everything in the policy. It would be appropriate for a 
constituency 
    statement to indicate the current views of the constituency taking into 
account 
    the terms of reference. If wider issues were raised, nothing in the policy 
    development process constrained these and the statements could be included. 
    The options open to accommodate such suggestions were:<br>
    to incorporate the suggestion in the constituency statements, if there was 
    a consensus opinion it could form a consensus policy <br>
    or suggest scheduling a separate follow up policy development process.<br>
    This process was generally supported by all the Council members and the 
liaisons.<br>
    Grant Forsyth, chose not to put a motion forward to change the terms of 
reference, 
    thanked fellow councillors for their willingness to discuss the matter and 
    would include additional comments in the Commercial and Business Users 
constituency 
    statement.<br>
    <b><br>
    Christopher Wilkinson</b>, commented that it was useful to have a stable 
terms 
    of reference and it was necessary to have discussion material for the ICANN 
    meetings in Rome.<br>
    Before leaving the call, a meeting between the Government Advisory 
Committee 
    (GAC) and the GNSO Council, to discuss current work projects, was suggested 
    on Tuesday, 2 March, at 17:30 to 18:30 (5:30 pm to 6:30 pm). It would be a 
    closed session but consistent with previous meetings, the GNSO Chair 
invited 
    all GNSO council members to be present. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 4: Discuss constituency statements 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 provide input to the Staff Manager to 
    allow production of a Preliminary Report. <br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> requested a summary from each constituency on their 
draft 
    statement submitted on the Approval Process for gTLD Service Changes.<br>
    <b>Marc Schneiders,</b> reported for the Non Commercial Users constituency 
    (NCUC) stating that there had been very little time to draft a statement. 
    The NCUC believed that there was a distinction between different aspects of 
    the issues: <br>
    1. technical coordination such as in the case of Sitefinder and <br>
    2. consumer protection where ICANN did not contribute very much. There 
should 
    be clear guidelines as to what issues could be dealt with by ICANN staff 
and 
    what issues need to go through the constituency process.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Niklas Lagergren</b> reported for the Intellectual Property Interests 
constituency 
    supporting the conclusions of the Staff Manager that the current informal 
    process had led to inconsistent decisions and insufficient justification 
for 
    those decisions. The NCUC comments tried to out line what a formal process 
    would look like. Key factors were considered to be efficiency, openness and 
    transparency through a three-tiered approach to assure the certainty needed 
    by the registry community. <br>
    Requests by a registry operator would go through an initial review, to 
determine 
    whether the proposed change:<br>
    1) is consistent with the current registry contract; <br>
    2) requires a contract modification; or<br>
    3) requires ICANN approval. <br>
    If the answer to 2 and 3 were yes, it would go to the second tier, 
&quot;quick-look&quot; 
    analysis that would determine:<br>
    1. Will implementation of the registry operator's requested change harm the 
    legitimate interests of third parties?<br>
    2. Will implementation of the registry operator's requested change threaten 
    stability or security of the Internet? <br>
    3. Will implementation of the registry operator's requested change violate 
    an existing ICANN policy? <br>
    If the answers were affirmative it would proceed to the third tier :<br>
    Evaluation and consultation, where the Final Evaluation Notification report 
    would contain a call for all affected stakeholders to appoint designated 
representatives, 
    and outside experts to participate in a task force to further evaluate and 
    consider the issues therein. This task force would produce a report which 
    would be sent to the ICANN &uml;President setting out the 
recommendations.<br>
    A suggested timeline for the process has been included.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>commented that there were no external experts called on 
    in the second tier.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Tony Holmes</b> reporting for the Internet Service Providers and 
Connectivity 
    Providers Constituency (ISPCP) stated that the constituency welcomed the 
call 
    for considering a deterministic, well-defined process for changes in the 
names 
    space. Recent events had clearly shown that solely relying on negotiation 
    and implementation of contracts with key operators of names related 
services 
    in the Internet to achieve this goal, were insufficient and could not 
guarantee 
    success. All stakeholders were affected.<br>
    Under no circumstances should a registry be allowed to determine ? on their 
    own ? whether a new ?service? was compliant with existing contracts or 
policies, 
    or determine if a new ?service? would have any impact on the stability and 
    reliability of the Internet. <br>
    Transparent Consideration - Those suggesting fundamental changes to the 
architecture 
    or behaviour of the Internet must give prior, effective, disclosure and 
allow 
    examination by the responsible technical bodies. <br>
    Recommendation:<br>
    Quick Look <br>
    The ISPCP believed that the ?Quick Look? provision of the Staff Manager?s 
    report currently raised a number of concerns. <br>
    In particular, the ISPCP would like to make the following suggestions: <br>
    ? The ?Quick Look? process needs to be explicitly spelled-out so that all 
    parties have a common understanding of exactly what ?Quick Look? means. <br>
    ? Any ?Quick Look? process should give a full explanation of what role the 
    gNSO plays in the ?Quick Look? activity. <br>
    ? The ?Quick Look? process should have agreed and effective reporting 
mechanisms 
    in the interest of transparency. <br>
    ? In the event that the ?Quick Look? process fails to accurately assess the 
    impacts of a new service on the Internet, there must be an effective form 
    of recourse for ICANN and the community. <br>
    ? Some metric needs to be established that effectively and 
deterministically 
    decides if a service proposal is eligible for the ?Quick Look? procedure. 
    This metric should be based on full community consultation. <br>
    Finally, any process must have a process for appeals.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Grant Forsyth </b>reported that the Commercial and Business Users 
constituency 
    (BC) report was not completed due to internal consultation that was 
ongoing. 
    In addition, the specific responses to the 4 main tasks identified in the 
    terms of reference were not yet complete and would be posted when 
consultation 
    closed. The BC statement however seemed to be along the lines of the other 
    statements that were submitted.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Jordyn Buchanan </b>stated that the gTLD Registries constituency had not 
    yet submitted a formal response as it was an important issue with high 
priority 
    and needed thorough deliberation. <br>
    <b>Ken Stubbs</b> added that due to the executory proposals in the terms of 
    reference there had been a desire to step back and look more closely at 
what 
    could be commented on.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Thomas Roessler</b>, reporting on the At Large Advisory Committee's 
(ALAC) 
    proposals stated that it was a preliminary statement, comments were being 
    solicited and it was primarily analytical in nature. Three main points 
could 
    be identified: <br>
    On the procedural side, an accountable, transparent and objective processes 
    that ensured that policy was applied in a neutral manner was important. In 
    particular, the process should provide opportunities for all relevant 
parties 
    (including GNSO constituencies and Advisory Committees) to get involved, 
and 
    should, in particular, incorporate opportunities for meaningful and early 
    public comment. <br>
    It was considered helpful to ask in the quick look analysis whether the 
success 
    of a new registry service was observable. Would it be possible to use 
market 
    feedback to assess success. Where the community's interest is measurable in 
    market terms, "regulatory" decisions can and should be avoided. <br>
    Conversely, where market feedback could not accurately define the 
community's 
    interest because of the absence of a competitive market, or because of the 
    imposition of spillover costs, the community's interest must be defined in 
    another way. For example, imagine that a registry imposed a change in 
behavior 
    affecting all incumbent registrants. Those registrants would have to incur 
    high switching costs in order to change to another TLD; that fact would 
distort 
    the market's response to the registry change.<br>
    Where a proposed change failed this test, it should be the registry's 
burden 
    to prove that no harm is caused by the proposed change. <br>
    The focus was on three areas of significant harm that could be caused by 
changes 
    to registry architecture or operations: <br>
    Changes that affected the network's openness for innovation; <br>
    changes that caused cost at the edges but benefits for the registry; and 
<br>
    changes that enabled registries to leverage their monopoly position into 
different 
    markets where they could then compete unfairly. <br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that the Registrar constituency were in the 
process 
    of voting on a draft constituency statement. The current draft basically 
listed 
    some of the areas in the contract that required consent. One of the key 
points 
    that the registrars made was that the definition of Registry services 
should 
    be clear and consistent across all registries so that in terms of the 
definition 
    there would be no distinction between sponsored and unsponsored registry 
services. 
    In terms of the issues that ICANN would need to consider, the constituency 
    constrained itself to what was in the ICANN mission and core values, 
namely:<br>
    - Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, 
security, 
    and global interoperability of the Internet. <br>
    - Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote 
    and sustain a competitive environment. <br>
    - Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names 
    where practicable and beneficial in the public interest <br>
    Changes to reports to ICANN, changes to specification data were seen as 
potentially 
    possible for a fast track process whereas changes that changed the nature 
    of the registrar/registry agreement or changes that related to registry 
services 
    would require a more extensive review. <br>
    Use of external experts were recommended to decide whether there were 
issues 
    in operational stability or reliability. It was suggested that those terms 
    be more clearly defined so that there would be better understanding of what 
    operational stability and reliability meant.<br>
    In terms of the appeal process, it was noted that there was an existing 
appeal 
    procedure within the ICANN bylaws that could be used, but there was not yet 
    agreement in the Registrars constituency whether that process should be 
shorter.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested that the Staff Manager summarize and 
highlight 
    the commonalties in the constituency statements for Wednesday 28 January so 
    that the report may be studied before the next GNSO Council meeting on 
February 
    5, 2004.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 5: Planning for ICANN meeting in Rome<br>
    - proposed four PDP workshops<br>
    - Council breakfast and invitation to Board <br>
    - Council meeting and invitation to Board <br>
    </b><br>
    <b>Barbara Roseman</b> reported that Wednesday, March 3 had been set aside 
    for Whois task forces 1, 2 and 3 policy development process <br>
    <b>The GNSO Secretariat </b>would formally request that the ICANN Board be 
    informed of the workshops and the GNSO Council meeting which would follow 
    the workshops on Wednesday March 3, 2004.<br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that it was the custom for the GNSO Council, 
ICANN 
    President, ICANN Board members and certain staff to meet informally before 
    the constituency meetings to discuss policy related matters.<br>
    <b>The GNSO Secretariat</b> reported that the informal breakfast meeting 
had 
    been arranged for Tuesday 2 March, in the "La Sughereta Restaurant" close 
    to the main lobby of the meeting venue, Hotel Melià Roma Aurelia Antica, at 
    7:30 to 9:00. <br>
    Invitations would go out in due course to the GNSO Council and a formal 
reminder 
    sent to the ICANN President and Board members.<br>
    <br>
    </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Thomas Roessler</b> 
suggested 
    informing the GAC of the planned schedule for the policy development 
process 
    workshops on Wednesday March 3.<br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 6: WSIS <br>
    - Marilyn Cade to report on outcomes of WSIS and any recommendations for 
action 
    by ICANN </b><br>
    Deferred in the absence of Marilyn Cade<br>
    <br>
    <b>Item 7: Any other business</b><br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested deferring <b>Philip Sheppard's</b> proposed 
    &quot;Guidelines for producing an Issues report&quot; the GNSO Council 
meeting 
    agenda on February 5, 2004.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><br>
    <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for 
    attending.<br>
    The meeting ended: 20:55 UTC</b></font> </li>
</ul>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
teleconference: 
      February 5, 2004</b><br>
      see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>Calendar</a></font><br>
    
  </li>
</ul>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<!--#include virtual="../footer.shtml"--> </font>