[council] GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes April 1, 2004

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

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

Dear Council members,

Please find the draft minutes of the last GNSO Council meeting held on April
1, 2004 in text and html version.

If you would like any changes to be made, please contact me.

Thank you very much,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
****************************************************************************
*************************************
01 April 2004.

Proposed agenda and related documents


List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc
Schneiders
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko - absent
Amadeu Abril I Abril


17 Council Members

Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President, Business Operations
Paul Verhoef - Vice President Policy Development Support
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel


Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Christopher Wilkinson - Alternate GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison


The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.
Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2
Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair absent


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP 3 recording
Quorum present at 20:08 UTC,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Marilyn Cade added a request to discuss the importance of staff support for
the new gTLD issue.
Agenda approved


Item 2: Summary of the March 3 minutes :

Ken Stubbs, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the March 3
minutes
The motion was carried. Amadeu Abril I Abril and Lucy Nichols abstained.

Decision 1: Minutes of the March 3 meeting adopted.

Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn
Buchanan, Brian Darville
- status of constituency statements
- next steps
- possible recommendations

Jordyn Buchanan, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display,
reported that the task force appeared to be on the same timeline as the
other task forces and requested an additional 10 day extension for receiving
the constituency statements. The due day for constituency statements, March
29 was past and only one statement from the At Large Advisory Committee
(ALAC) had been received which delayed the task force in meeting the
deadline for the preliminary report on April 19. Limited input had been
received during the data collection process, but substantial data from other
sources was available. Since the policy development process does not take
data gathering into account, the constituency statements would not benefit
from the data gathered, however it was hoped that there would be a
significant input of data during the public comment period and that the
final report might differ from the preliminary report. The task force was
running pretty close to the extended schedule despite the delays.

Jeff Neuman, task force 1 chair, being absent Bruce Tonkin read his report,
stating that task force 1 had only received 7 or 8 responses to the
questionnaire that was sent out in February and constituency statements from
only two constituencies, viz. At Large Advisory Committee, Noncommercial
Users and Intellectual Property and none from the gTLD Registries,
Registrars, Business or Internet Service Providers Constituencies. He said
that it would be difficult to have a Preliminary Report by April 9, 2004. In
summary, progress was being made, there were some preliminary
recommendations but they believed that drafting the report would take more
time and requested whether the due date for the Preliminary Report could be
moved out a few weeks.

Ross Rader, in Brian Darville's, absence reported on task force 3, data
accuracy, saying lack of data was the primary concern, but that 3 or 4
constituency statements had been received and some had been sent back to the
constituencies for further refinement. He was optimistic that there could be
a preliminary report by April 9, 2004.

Barbara Roseman suggested that an extra two weeks would be helpful in
allowing constituencies to submit statements.
Marilyn Cade commented that the policy development process was still a
learning process and had not been field tested, so concern was expressed
that there would not be adequate time for the public comment period if the
constituency statement period were extended.
A time extension would not affect the specified 20 public comment period.
The task forces were urged to proceed with writing the preliminary reports
whether or not the constituency statements had been received.
Marc Schneiders commented that the Noncommercial Users Constituency,
composed of volunteers, usually endeavored to meet deadlines which should
not be prolonged each time as it appeared that there was a lack of interest
in the issue, but urged all constituencies to make the same effort.
Marilyn Cade, speaking for the Commercial and Business Users Constituency,
said they were making an active effort to develop input, they were working
on a draft report that was being brought to closure, and the fact that
people were extremely busy, all volunteers and doing their best for policy
development should not be characterized as being a lack of interest.
Barbara Roseman urged constituencies to submit any draft statements for the
task forces to work on and if voting in the constituency would change the
statement, the task forces would take that into consideration.
Bruce Tonkin agreed with Marc Schneiders that in future timelines should be
improved.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marc Schneiders proposed a motion extending the
deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois
task forces to APRIL 16, 2004, and extending the deadline for the
preliminary reports to MAY 6, 2004.

The motion carried unanimously

Decision 2: The deadline for the submission of constituency statements to
the three Whois task forces extended to APRIL 16, 2004 and the deadline for
the Preliminary Reports extended to MAY 6, 2004.

Item 4: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes
Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin)

Bruce Tonkin reported that the Council Policy Development Process committee
for the approval process for gtld registry changes met on March 29, 2004.
1. Some minor changes to diagram 1, diagram 2 and diagram 3 were proposed
and
2. Scheduling a teleconference with General Counsel, around the selection
criteria, developed during the Rome meeting,
-- to have input on which of these were in or out of the scope of ICANN's
mission, to have wording that could be used a legal base
-- to clarify whether the Board should approve changes in contracts and if
so, the public comment periods should be aligned to prevent duplication
-- to have clarity on the Reconsideration and Review mechanisms in the ICANN
bylaws.

Philip Sheppard, absent during the call, enquired how the gTLD registries
constituency, viewed the process which appeared to move forward in a spirit
of consensus and agreement.
Ken Stubbs commented that there was agreement on the framework, but staff
support was needed to ensure that the suggestions and proposed wording were
practical from a legal stand point and that a process motivating free and
open communication between the registry and ICANN should be encouraged while
time lines and confidentiality caused concern.
It was proposed that Barbara Roseman formulate the questions and post them
to John Jeffrey with a copy to the reg-com mailing list and a call be set up
during the week beginning April 12, 2004.

Item 5: Re-assignment of .net
- recommend establish a subcommittee of the Council
- establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN
staff manager)
- review Namescouncil recommendations with respect to .org
- collect constituency statements

Bruce Tonkin reported that Paul Verhoef, in a letter, had formally requested
the GNSO Council to consider the .net reassignment.
Kurt Pritz stated that there were weekly meetings at ICANN in Marina del Rey
to discuss the .net succession plan. The goal was to publish the process for
selecting a registry operator by June 30, 2004 and it would include the GNSO
effort which would have to be accomplished rapidly but could be after June
30, 2004. The scope of the GNSO was to develop criteria for independent
evaluators to use in deciding who the registry operator should be.
Bruce Tonkin stated that the .org statement made by the DNSO Names Council
on 17 January 2002 could be a useful starting point but the focus of .dot
org would be slightly different from that of .net.

Council had 3 options how to handle the situation:
1. Council committee as a whole
2. Council sub committee formed by one representative per constituency on
the GNSO council
3. Initiate a policy development process and form a task force

Grant Forsyth asked how the GNSO Council contribution would it be considered
if it was delivered after June 30, 2004.
Dan Halloran explained that on day X the draft proposal, which would include
mention of criteria proposed by the GNSO, would be published but in fact the
criteria could be submitted at a later date.
Marc Schneiders commented that as price was important, any process should
take criteria for offering services at a lower price into consideration.
Kurt Pritz, responding to the tender date, said that at least 9 months was
foreseen which would include the GNSO process, 3 months solicitation, 3
months evaluation, 3 months negotiations and awards and transition period.

Christopher Wilkinson excused himself and dropped off the call

Suzanne Sene, for the Government Advisory Committee, (GAC) commented that
the GAC had recently created a new GNSO working group which combined the
gTLD and Whois working groups and she would convey the .net reassignment
question to the group for their input.

Bruce Tonkin proposed forming a sub committee of the GNSO Council, with 1
representative per constituency of the Council, to review the .org material,
draft a set of terms/conditions and criteria for .net consistent with the
ICANN mission and core values, seeking constituency input via the mailing
lists and having a draft report for consideration by the Council at its May
6 meeting with the final report to meet the June 30, 2004 deadline.
By April 9, 2004, Council members should have notified the GNSO secretariat
of the constituency representatives and a meeting would take place in the
week beginning April 12, 2004.

There was general support for a sub-committee of the GNSO Council with the
possible inclusion of experts on the committee.

Item 6: new gtlds
- establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN
staff manager)
- collect constituency statements
- consider establishing a task force

>From the MOU with the US Dept of Commerce:
"Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which
process shall include consideration and evaluation of:
a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and
Internet stability;
b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and
existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process,
selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions ;
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a
competitive environment for TLD registries; and,
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or
organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual
property issues.
Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using
straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the
stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September
30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004)."
Marilyn Cade reminded the participants that the purpose of the GNSO Council
was to develop and advise on policy related to gTLDs and that the ICANN
Board had, via a resolution, indicated intent to move forward on examining
the process which would guide this. She suggested that Council consult the
Board guidelines and the MOU and establish a process which would fulfill its
responsibilities and develop the appropriate policy to guide the ICANN
Board.
Paul Verhoef suggested that Council members address specific issues to
himself or the the ICANN Staff Manager, Barbara Roseman within the next two
weeks so that they could be included in an Issues Report.
Bruce Tonkin suggested aiming for a short issues report (following Philip
Sheppard's guidelines) on new gTLDs for the July ICANN meeting in Kuala
Lumpur.

Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.
The meeting ended: 22:20 UTC

Next GNSO Council teleconference on May 6, 2004, at 12:00 UTC
see: Calendar




<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="01 April 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">01 April 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-01apr04.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<br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth<br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader<br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries<br>
  Philip Colebrook - 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 - absent<br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril</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 <br>
  Paul Verhoef - Vice President Policy Development Support<br>
  Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison<br>
  Christopher Wilkinson - Alternate GAC Liaison <br>
  Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.<br>
  Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2<br>
  Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies<br>
  Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair absent<br>
  <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-20040401.mp3";>MP 3 
recording</a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Quorum present at 20:08 UTC,<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1: Approval of Agenda </b><br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> added a request to discuss the importance of staff 
support 
  for the new gTLD issue.<br>
  Agenda approved <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03mar04.shtml";>March 
  3 minutes</a> :<br>
  <br>
  Ken Stubbs</b>, seconded by <b>Philip Sheppard</b> moved the adoption of the 
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03mar04.shtml";>March 3 
  minutes</a><br>
  The motion was carried. Amadeu Abril I Abril and Lucy Nichols abstained.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 1: <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03mar04.shtml";>Minutes</a> 
  of the March 3 meeting adopted.<br>
  <br>
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 
  3: Update on WHOIS task forces <br>
  Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn 
Buchanan, 
  Brian Darville <br>
  - status of constituency statements <br>
  - next steps <br>
  - possible recommendations<br>
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display, 
  reported that the task force appeared to be on the same timeline as the other 
  task forces and requested an additional 10 day extension for receiving the 
constituency 
  statements. The due day for constituency statements, March 29 was past and 
only 
  one statement from the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) had been received 
  which delayed the task force in meeting the deadline for the preliminary 
report 
  on April 19. Limited input had been received during the data collection 
process, 
  but substantial data from other sources was available. Since the policy 
development 
  process does not take data gathering into account, the constituency 
statements 
  would not benefit from the data gathered, however it was hoped that there 
would 
  be a significant input of data during the public comment period and that the 
  final report might differ from the preliminary report. The task force was 
running 
  pretty close to the extended schedule despite the delays. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman, </b>task force 1 chair, being absent <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> read 
  his <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1tf/msg00104.html";>report</a><b>,</b>
 
  stating that task force 1 had only received 7 or 8 responses to the 
questionnaire 
  that was sent out in February and constituency statements from only two 
constituencies, 
  viz. At Large Advisory Committee, Noncommercial Users and Intellectual 
Property 
  and none from the gTLD Registries, Registrars, Business or Internet Service 
  Providers Constituencies. He said that it would be difficult to have a 
Preliminary 
  Report by April 9, 2004. In summary, progress was being made, there were some 
  preliminary recommendations but they believed that drafting the report would 
  take more time and requested whether the due date for the Preliminary Report 
  could be moved out a few weeks. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Ross Rader, </b>in<b> Brian Darville's</b>, absence reported on task force 
  3, data accuracy, saying lack of data was the primary concern, but that 3 or 
  4 constituency statements had been received and some had been sent back to 
the 
  constituencies for further refinement. He was optimistic that there could be 
  a preliminary report by April 9, 2004.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman </b>suggested that an extra two weeks would be helpful in 
  allowing constituencies to submit statements. <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented that the policy development process was still 
  a learning process and had not been field tested, so concern was expressed 
that 
  there would not be adequate time for the public comment period if the 
constituency 
  statement period were extended. <br>
  A time extension would not affect the specified 20 public comment period. The 
  task forces were urged to proceed with writing the preliminary reports 
whether 
  or not the constituency statements had been received. <br>
  <b>Marc Schneiders</b> commented that the Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  composed of volunteers, usually endeavored to meet deadlines which should not 
  be prolonged each time as it appeared that there was a lack of interest in 
the 
  issue, but urged all constituencies to make the same effort. <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>, speaking for the Commercial and Business Users 
Constituency, 
  said they were making an active effort to develop input, they were working on 
  a draft report that was being brought to closure, and the fact that people 
were 
  extremely busy, all volunteers and doing their best for policy development 
should 
  not be characterized as being a lack of interest.<br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> urged constituencies to submit any draft statements 
for 
  the task forces to work on and if voting in the constituency would change the 
  statement, the task forces would take that into consideration.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> agreed with Marc Schneiders that in future timelines 
should 
  be improved.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Marc Schneiders</b> proposed a motion 
extending 
  the deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois 
  task forces to APRIL 16, 2004, and extending the deadline for the preliminary 
  reports to MAY 6, 2004. <br>
  <br>
  The motion carried unanimously</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Decision 2: The deadline for 
the 
  submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces extended 
  to APRIL 16, 2004 and the deadline for the Preliminary Reports extended to 
MAY 
  6, 2004. <br>
  </b><br>
  <b>Item 4: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes <br>
  Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin) <br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that the<b> </b>Council Policy Development Process 
  committee for the approval process for gtld registry changes met on March 29, 
  2004. <br>
  1. Some minor changes to <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/approval-process-24mar04.pdf";>diagram
 
  1</a>, <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/quick-look-24mar04.pdf";>diagram
 
  2</a> and <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/detailed-review-24mar04.pdf";>diagram
 
  3 </a>were proposed and <b><br>
  </b>2. Scheduling a teleconference with General Counsel, around the selection 
  criteria, developed during the Rome meeting, <br>
  -- to have input on which of these were in or out of the scope of ICANN's 
mission, 
  to have wording that could be used a legal base<b><br>
  </b>-- to clarify whether the Board should approve changes in contracts and 
  if so, the public comment periods should be aligned to prevent duplication<br>
  -- to have clarity on the<b> </b>Reconsideration and Review mechanisms in the 
  ICANN bylaws<b>.<br>
  <br>
  Philip Sheppard, </b>absent during the call,<b> </b>enquired how the gTLD 
registries 
  constituency, viewed the process which appeared to move forward in a spirit 
  of consensus<b> </b>and agreement.<br>
  <b>Ken Stubbs</b> commented that there was agreement on the framework, but 
staff 
  support was needed to ensure that the suggestions and proposed wording were 
  practical from a legal stand point and that a process motivating free and 
open 
  communication between the registry and ICANN should be encouraged while time 
  lines and confidentiality caused concern.<br>
  It was proposed that<b> Barbara Roseman </b>formulate the questions and post 
  them to John Jeffrey with a copy to the reg-com mailing list and a call be 
set 
  up during the week beginning April 12, 2004.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 5: Re-assignment of .net <br>
  - recommend establish a subcommittee of the Council <br>
  - establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN 
staff 
  manager) <br>
  - review Namescouncil recommendations with respect to .org <br>
  - collect constituency statements <br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that <b>Paul Verhoef</b>, in a <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00441.html";>letter</a>,
 
  had formally requested the GNSO Council to consider the .net reassignment.<br>
  <b>Kurt Pritz</b> stated that there were weekly meetings at ICANN in Marina 
  del Rey to discuss the .net succession plan. The goal was to publish the 
process 
  for selecting a registry operator by June 30, 2004 and it would include the 
  GNSO effort which would have to be accomplished rapidly but could be after 
June 
  30, 2004. The scope of the GNSO was to develop criteria for independent 
evaluators 
  to use in deciding who the registry operator should be.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that the <a 
href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCdotorg-report.html";>.org 
  statement</a> made by the DNSO Names Council on 17 January 2002 could be a 
useful 
  starting point but the focus of .dot org would be slightly different from 
that 
  of .net.<br>
  <br>
  Council had 3 options how to handle the situation:<br>
  1. Council committee as a whole<br>
  2. Council sub committee formed by one representative per constituency on the 
  GNSO council <br>
  3. Initiate a policy development process and form a task force<br>
  <br>
  <b>Grant Forsyth</b> asked how the GNSO Council contribution would it be 
considered 
  if it was delivered after June 30, 2004.<br>
  <b>Dan Halloran</b> explained that on day X the draft proposal, which would 
  include mention of criteria proposed by the GNSO, would be published but in 
  fact the criteria could be submitted at a later date.<br>
  <b>Marc Schneiders</b> commented that as price was important, any process 
should 
  take criteria for offering services at a lower price into consideration.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Kurt Pritz</b>, 
responding 
  to the tender date, said that at least 9 months was foreseen which would 
include 
  the GNSO process, 3 months solicitation, 3 months evaluation, 3 months 
negotiations 
  and awards and transition period. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> excused himself and dropped off the call<br>
  <br>
  <b>Suzanne Sene</b>, for the Government Advisory Committee, (GAC) commented 
  that the GAC had recently created a new GNSO working group which combined the 
  gTLD and Whois working groups and she would convey the .net reassignment 
question 
  to the group for their input.<br>
  <b><br>
  </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce 
Tonkin</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  proposed forming a sub committee of the GNSO Council, with 1 representative 
  per constituency of the Council, to review the .org material, draft a set of 
  terms/conditions and criteria for .net consistent with the ICANN mission and 
  core values, seeking constituency input via the mailing lists and having a 
draft 
  report for consideration by the Council at its May 6 meeting with the final 
  report to meet the June 30, 2004 deadline.<br>
  By April 9, 2004, Council members should have notified the GNSO secretariat 
  of the constituency representatives and a meeting would take place in the 
week 
  beginning April 12, 2004. <br>
  <br>
  There was general support for a sub-committee of the GNSO Council with the 
possible 
  inclusion of experts on the committee.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Item 6: new gtlds <br>
  - establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN 
staff 
  manager) <br>
  - collect constituency statements <br>
  - consider establishing a task force <br>
  <br>
  From the MOU with the US Dept of Commerce: <br>
  "Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which 
process 
  shall include consideration and evaluation of: <br>
  a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and 
Internet 
  stability; <br>
  b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing 
  TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection 
criteria, 
  and the rationale for selection decisions ; <br>
  c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a 
competitive 
  environment for TLD registries; and, <br>
  d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or 
organizations 
  regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. 
  <br>
  Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using 
straightforward, 
  transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the 
Internet 
  (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and 
implementation 
  to commence by December 31, 2004)." </b><br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> reminded the participants that the purpose of the GNSO 
Council 
  was to develop and advise on policy related to gTLDs and that the ICANN Board 
  had, via a <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-annual-meeting-15dec02.htm";>resolution,</a>
 
  indicated intent to move forward on examining the process which would guide 
  this. She suggested that Council consult the Board guidelines and the MOU and 
  establish a process which would fulfill its responsibilities and develop the 
  appropriate policy to guide the ICANN Board.<br>
  <b>Paul Verhoef</b> suggested that Council members address specific issues to 
  himself or the the ICANN Staff Manager, Barbara Roseman within the next two 
  weeks so that they could be included in an Issues Report.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested aiming for a short issues report (following 
Philip 
  Sheppard's guidelines)</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> on 
new 
  gTLDs for the July ICANN meeting in Kuala Lumpur. <br>
  <b> </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for 
  participating.<br>
  The meeting ended: 22:20 UTC</b></font> </p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
teleconference 
      on May 6, 2004, at 12:00 UTC</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>