[council] Revised draft Minutes, GNSO Council teleconf 19 February 2004

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

Please find the GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes,  February 19,  as
revised by Alejandro Pisanty.
Please let me know whether there are other changes you would like made.

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="19 February 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">21 February 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.<br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business users C. <br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent, <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, apologies, proxy to Marc 
Schneiders<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>- <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
absent, 
  apologies, proxy</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">to</font> 
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Demi Getschko</font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
  <br>
  Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
  Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President, Business Operations </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christopher Wilkinson - GAC 
Liaison<br>
  Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
  <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>
  Alejandro Pisanty - ICANN Board member seat # 13<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.20040219.mp3";>MP 3 
recording</a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Quorum present at 19:09 UTC,<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>and <b>Philip Sheppard</b> chaired this teleconference. 
  <br>
  <b><br>
  Ken Stubbs</b> proposed that since there was a quorum of 16, <b>Philip 
Sheppard</b> 
  chair the meeting while waiting for Bruce Tonkin.<br>
  Unanimous approval<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 
  2: Summary of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-22jan04.shtml";>minutes 
  January 22</a>:<br>
  <br>
  Ken Stubbs</b>, seconded by <b>Demi Getschko</b> moved the adoption of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-22jan04.shtml";>January 
  22 minutes</a>.<br>
  The motion was carried.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 1: <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-22jan04.shtml";>Minutes</a> 
  of the January 22 meeting adopted.<br>
  <br>
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 
  5: Planning for <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/meetings/rome/#ScheduleandAgenda";>ICANN 
  meeting in Rome</a><br>
  - proposed four PDP workshops<br>
  - Council breakfast and invitation to Board <br>
  - Council meeting and invitation to Board <br>
  - WSIS presentation <br>
  </b><br>
  <b>The GNSO Secretariat</b> reported that on: <br>
  <b>Monday March 1</b>, at 18:30 to 19:00 there was a prep meeting for the 3 
  Whois task force participants, followed by a prep meeting of the GNSO Council 
  committee for the &quot;Approval Process for gTLD Service Changes&quot;. The 
  meeting room would be confirmed. <br>
  <b>Tuesday March 2</b>, there is the GNSO Council informal breakfast meeting 
  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. Invitations have been sent 
  to the GNSO Council and a formal reminder sent to the ICANN President and 
Board 
  members.<br>
  Constituencies would meet all day. <br>
  The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the GNSO Council would meet in 
the 
  late afternoon in the Murillo room.<br>
  <b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> requested that it be earlier than 17:30. so 
16:30 
  was agreed upon.<br>
  <b>Wednesday March 3</b>, GNSO PDP Workshops <br>
  Workshop on the GNSO PDP: Approval Process for gTLD Service Changes (08:00 - 
  09:30) (Goya)<br>
  Workshop on the GNSO PDP: Whois Task Force 1 -- Restricting Access (09:45 - 
  11:15) (Goya) <br>
  Workshop on the GNSO PDP: Whois Task Force 2 -- Review of Data Collected and 
  Displayed (11:30 - 13:00) (Goya) <br>
  Workshop on the GNSO PDP: Whois Task Force 3 -- Improving Accuracy of 
Collected 
  Data (13:15 - 14:45) (Goya) <br>
  GNSO Council Meeting (16:00 - 18:00) (Goya) <br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> joined the meeting and took the chair from <b>Philip 
Sheppard<br>
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Thursday morning March 4</b> a proposed meeting for drafting an initial 
Approval 
  Process for gTLD Service Changes that could form the Initial report prior to 
  public comment. <b><br>
  Marilyn Cade </b>suggested starting at 8:30 going to 10:30. to accommodate 
the 
  WSIS Open Session planned from 11:00 - 13:00 in the Goya room.<br>
  <b>Thursday morning March 4</b><b>, Marilyn Cade</b> reported that there was 
  a WSIS Open Session planned from 11:00 - 13:00 in the Goya room to which all 
  the constituency chairs and the community had been invited.<br>
  An informal meeting with ICANN staff and the GNSO Council members was 
proposed 
  for a time to be determined by Kurt Pritz and the GNSO Secretariat.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 3: Approve timelines for WHOIS task forces</b></font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs: Brian Darville, Jeff 
Neuman, 
  Jordyn Buchanan <br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported on the second joint meeting held with the Whois 
  task force chairs.<br>
  Approved timelines for: <br>
  - March 19, 2004 Submission of constituency statements<br>
  - April 9, 2004 prepare the preliminary report<br>
  - April 29, 2004 Public comment period closes<br>
  - May 20, 2004 Final report<br>
  - June the GNSO Council could consider the report and the ICANN Board could 
  consider the report at the Kuala Lumpur meeting<br>
  Bruce Tonkin proposed that the GNSO Council members endorse the dates as 
agreed 
  upon by the task force chairs.<br>
  All in favour of endorsing the dates <br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 2: Timelines approved for the 3 Whois task forces policy 
development 
  process. <br>
  </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>
  </b></font><b><br>
  Jeff Neuman</b>, task force 1 chair, on restricting access, reported that the 
  questionnaire had been distributed and 5 or 6 good responses had been 
received. 
  He urged the constituencies to take a look at the survey and gather as many 
  responses as possible and prepare constituency position statements. With the 
  information, it would be possible for the task force to discuss issues 
regarding 
  restricting access, and port 43 access to Whois information.<br>
  The task force was in the process of compiling a needs and justifications 
chart, 
  a milestone in the terms of reference, which would set out all the needs and 
  justifications that the different organizations had for Whois data. This 
would 
  be presented as an interim report at the Rome workshops. The task force was 
  making good progress.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Brian Darville</b>, task force 3 chair, on data accuracy, reported that 
the 
  Registrars survey was complete. The ccTLD survey by CENTR and the ccNSO 
distribution 
  had not yet been responded to while the survey to other industries had been 
  distributed and responses were trickling in. The task force would circulate 
  a draft report by Wednesday 25.<br>
  Bruce Tonkin requested council members to contact their relevant ccTLD 
managers 
  and encourage them to respond to the survey.<br>
  He undertook to contact the the .au manager in this connection, while Jeff 
Neuman 
  committed himself to doing it for .us. <br>
  <b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> expressed the opinion that the ccTLDs would go 
  back to their national authorities for responses.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display, 
  reported questionnaires had been distributed to each of the GNSO 
constituencies, 
  ccTLDs through the ccNSO, and CENTR and to the GAC. The return date for the 
  responses had been extended. Some data had been received which would be 
compiled 
  into a readable format over the next month. Three sub groups in the task 
force 
  had been identified to develop a methodology as well as templates for the 
data 
  analysis which would be reported on at the Rome workshops.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> urged the GNSO Constituencies to start drafting 
constituency 
  statements in their various fora in Rome so that the statements would be 
prepared 
  for submission on March 19.<br>
  In addition all GNSO Council members were requested to solicit as many 
responses 
  as possible to the questionnaires in their constituencies and their circles 
  of contact.<b><br>
  Christopher Wilkinson</b> reported that the GAC had received the surveys and 
  would be discussing the matter but that it could not be predicted how 
countries 
  would respond. In terms of European legislation one reply should be 
forthcoming 
  from all the countries under the European Parliament Directive.<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 </b><br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> referred to<b> Barbara Roseman's</b> <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/statement-summary-06feb04.shtml";>summary
 
  </a><br>
  All of the statements submitted agreed that the development of a defined, 
transparent, 
  predictable process for the consideration of changes to gTLD registry 
services 
  is within ICANN's purview, and will be beneficial for the community. <br>
  Areas of agreement about the process specified by two or more constituencies: 
  <br>
  Timeliness: the process should not hinder innovations from being introduced 
  <br>
  "Quick-Look," or "Fast-Track": the process would benefit from having a 
two-track 
  or multi-track review that would allow certain types of changes to be 
implemented 
  without difficulty<br>
  Transparency: the process should be transparent, and that there should also 
  be mechanisms for preserving proprietary information Predictability: the 
process 
  should be defined and predictable with clear criteria of evaluation <br>
  Definitions and Criteria: <br>
  defining terms and criteria for evaluation is essential to producing a useful 
  process 3rd Party <br>
  Review: self-assessment by a Registry is insufficient to determine the scope 
  of technical or competition harm <br>
  Review Process Reporting: the process should include reporting mechanisms 
that 
  show the reasoning and rationale for a given decision Remedies: the Registry 
  should be given concrete recommendations on remedies to offset identified 
technical 
  and/or competition harm <br>
  Specific Timeline: there should be a defined a timeline for the review 
process 
  <br>
  Appeals: there should be an appeals process for decisions regarding approval 
  <br>
  Community Participation: where appropriate, the ICANN community should be 
participants 
  in the review process <br>
  <br>
  For all of the above areas of agreement, there are still some considerable 
differences 
  between the constituencies on the specifics of the issues involved. While all 
  may agree that the process should be timely, most have different views on 
what 
  that means. Also, there were some issues raised by a single constituency and 
  not addressed at all by others, such as how much it will cost to implement a 
  new process (CBUC), what recourse will exist for ICANN and the community if 
  an evaluation fails to accurately assess harm (ISPCP), and whether the 
process 
  should be different for dominant/non-dominant TLDs (NCUC).<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> called for comments.<br>
  Comments indicated that more detail was required before any significant work 
  could go forward.<br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented further that it was important to understand 
what 
  was needed to advance the work in terms of deliverables and dates, to which 
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that there was no documented process as to the 
  interaction with the ICANN staff support and the task force chairs.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed the following plan for the Rome workshop: <br>
  - State the problem, outline the purpose of the policy development process, 
  summary of the issues <br>
  -Summary of constituency input<br>
  - invite public comments form the floor<br>
  Formal workshop proceedings: draft the process based on contributions, put up 
  decisions, criteria for decisions, and if no convergence is reached to carry 
  on the process on Thursday morning<br>
  <b><br>
  Item 6: Expectations on ICANN staff manager for GNSO policy support <br>
  - guidelines for producing issues report <br>
  - preliminary reports <br>
  - timelines for deliverables <br>
  - reporting structure Item </b><br>
  <br>
  <b>Philip Sheppard</b> commented that some guidance was given in the ICANN 
bylaws 
  on the policy development process but that the expectations in the content 
were 
  missing and referred to the following set of <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00417.html";>guidelines</a>
 
  he had drawn up and welcomed by ICANN General Counsel:<br>
  <br>
  Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report -</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 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. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Objective<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An issue report has three 
objectives:</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Relevance: to confirm an issue is 
  within ICANN's mission,<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Description: to explain 
what 
  the issue is, who it affects, what support there is to address the 
issue,</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Recommendation: to recommend 
whether 
  or not the GNSO should start a PDP.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The <a 
href="%3Cfont%20face=%22Arial,%20Helvetica,%20sans-serif%22%3Ehttp://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA%20";>by-laws</a>
 
  lay down a structure as to how the above objectives may be met. 
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What SHOULD NOT be in the issues 
  report<br>
  The report has a short time frame (15 calendar days). 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>
  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. 
  <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:<br>
  - proposed terms of reference for a Council working group drafted in a 
practical 
  and manageable way and reflecting a possible priority of sub-issues. <br>
  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>
  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-laws. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that the object of the issues report was to 
identify 
  the issues and establish the terms of reference. As far as the constituency 
  statements were concerned, it was a question of having the right amount of 
detail 
  for the Staff to work on.<br>
  Barbara Roseman welcomed having guidelines on the issues report and made the 
  distinction between an issues report requested from the Board and one 
requested 
  from the GNSO Council. The concern was to not to over summarize for fear of 
  being misinterpreted.<br>
  Marilyn Cade mentioned that there were tools available for making summaries 
  and that the importance of ICANN staff in the process was the neutrality 
aspect 
  in providing structural support. In addition she urged that the GNSO 
secretariat 
  and Barbara Roseman document the timelines. In addition there should be 
cognition 
  that some of the deliverables may not be achievable as there is no base of 
extensive 
  knowledge to work from.<br>
  <b>Grant Forsyth</b> proposed:<br>
  - a diagram of each process,<br>
  - the time frames each constituency proposed for each process<br>
  - where the decision point would be in each process<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> dropped off the call momentarily.<br>
  <b>Alejandro Pisanty</b> joined the call at 8:55<br>
  <br>
  <b>Philip Sheppard </b>took over the chair in the absence of Bruce Tonkin.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Philip Sheppard</b> moved for the adoption of the Proposed guidelines for 
  the ICANN staff manager's issue report, seconded by <b>Ross Rader</b>.<br>
  <br>
  Resolution carried unanimously, 26/27 votes, 1 absent.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Bruce Tonkin re-joined the call 
  and resumed the chair. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 3: </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
Adoption 
  of the Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report<br>
  Grant Forsyth </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">suggested 
  that if there were to be a revision of the staff manager's summary report, 
the 
  following categories would be useful:<br>
  - Timelines - multiple if necessary<br>
  - Decision type - tree to reflect the process <br>
  - Side by side comparison of the key components<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>commented that when discussing the timelines with the 
ICANN 
  Board at the informal breakfast meeting, he would emphasize that data 
collection 
  was an important phase.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 5: Election process for ICANN Board seat #13 <br>
  - review nominations received - confirm timeline for voting </b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin referred to the timely reminder for the ICANN Board election, 
seat 
  #13 and the 2 week nomination period ending 19 February which he had 
announced 
  to the GNSO Council.<br>
  ICANN General Counsel confirmed that Alejandro Pisanty was eligible for 
re-election. 
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00389.html";>notified
 
  Council</a> that nominations were open until 19 February.<br>
  There was one<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00405.html";> 
  nomination</a> for Alejandro Pisanty by Cary Karp, <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00406.html";>seconded</a>
 
  by Amadeu Abril l Abril during the period ending 19/20 February.<br>
  The GNSO Council members approved the 14 day period for 
nominations</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  and </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">accepted the one 
nomination.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Alejandro Pisanty was invited to join the GNSO Council teleconference and 
made 
  the following statement: <br>
  He had been waiting for formal approval of the process and thanked the GNSO 
  Council for the invitation to make a statement. It was his intention to 
continue 
  for one more period as an ICANN board Director after which the bylaws made it 
  impossible to stay longer so assuring the necessary rotation and refreshing 
  the population on the Board. He committed himself to strengthen ICANN, make 
  it receptive and put it more in contact with other organizations that were 
vying 
  for roles in the future ICANN, He is one of the most insistent Board members 
  keeping ICANN to its set mission and avoiding temptations to step out of its 
  mission. There has been pressure from the World Summit Information Society 
(WSIS) 
  to enter discussions with other organizations all over the world. This 
presents 
  an extraordinary challenge for ICANN. The way ICANN is working should serve 
  as an example of what the ICANN community, that embraces among other, the At 
  large and non commercial communities, can do. </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  There are other organizations like the World Intellectual Property 
Organization 
  (WIPO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and governments 
  that try to bring a more governmental approach to ICANN. A long term strategy 
  is needed.<br>
  There is room for a number of improvements internally:<br>
  Going forward with the full incorporation of ICANN, with the full inclusion 
  of the RIRs and the start of operation of the ccNSO.</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  Improving the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) operations. <br>
  He felt that the GNSO was the most active and thoroughly constituted 
supporting 
  organization which acted as a barometer for improvements.<br>
  Areas to be worked and which needed a lot of communication and information 
included 
  the gTLDs and the international domain names. <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented from a registrar's point of view that in some 
  of the processes within ICANN, it was doing well in liaising with adhoc 
bodies 
  such as the ccTLDs and the ITU. It would be useful to have metrics and 
performance 
  guidelines in response to implementing policies created by the GNSO 
Council.<br>
  <b>Alejandro Pisanty</b> expressed the desire to work closely on a one to one 
  base with Bruce Tonkin and other Council members on these issues starting as 
  soon as possible.<br>
  The nomination came from a GNSO Council member, the period was officially 
closed 
  and <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed moving to the vote seconded by<b> Philip 
Sheppard</b>.<b> 
  Ken Stubbs</b> called the question.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Alejando Pisanty</b> left the call.<br>
  <br>
  The GNSO Council voted on the motion.<br>
  <br>
  The motion carried unanimously, 26 votes, one absent<br>
  <br>
  <b>Alejandro Pisanty</b> fills the ICANN Board seat #13 for one term. <br>
  <b>Alejandro Pisanty</b> was re-elected for this third and final term in 
accordance 
  with the ICANN <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-26jun03.htm";>bylaws</a>,
 
  and this term is to run through 6 months following the ICANN annual meeting 
  in 2006.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 4 : Alejandro Pisanty fills the ICANN Board seat #13 for one 
term. 
  Alejandro Pisanty was re-elected for this third and final term in accordance 
  with the ICANN <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-26jun03.htm";>bylaws</a>,
 
  and this term is to run through 6 months following the ICANN annual meeting 
  in 2006. <br>
  </b><b><br>
  Any Other Business:</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> 
commented 
  that the GAC would spend increasing time with high priority on policies for 
  new gTLDs. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked Philip Sheppard 
  for chairing in his absence and everybody for attending.<br>
  The meeting ended: 20:25 UTC</b></font> </p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council meeting 
      in Rome on March 3, 2004, at 16:00 local time</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>