[council] GNSO Council draft minutes teleconference May 6, 2004

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

Dear Council members,

Please find the html and text revised version of the GNSO Council
teleconference minutes, May 6 2004.

Thank you.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

****************************************************************************
********************
06 May 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 - absent
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies,
proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Lucy Nichols
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - ( joined after roll call)
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.- absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk
Woo
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk
Woo
Alick Wilson - absent
Demi Getschko - absent
Amadeu Abril I Abril


11 Council Members

Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager

Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison

The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.

Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies
Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2 - absent
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 Recording
Quorum present at 12:10 UTC,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Item 1: Approval of Agenda

Agenda approved


Item 2: Summary of the April 1, 2004 minutes
Deferred until GNSO Council teleconference, June 10, 2004.

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

Jeff Neuman, task force 1 chair's apologies for being absent were noted and
a report was provided in which an extension in time was requested for the
preliminary report.
Tom Keller, in Jordyn Buchanan's, absence reported that the Whois task force
2 was making good progress but that at least another week was needed to
complete the preliminary report.
Brian Darville, task force 3 chair supported an extension and a deadline
where all 3 task forces would produce reports at the same time. A
substantive section of the report deals with recommendations addressing best
practices and further work required on the issue.

Bruce Tonkin had consulted with John Jeffrey and reported that if final
recommendations were to be made before the ICANN meetings in Kuala Lumpur,
the report would have to be submitted to the ICANN Board 45 days before the
Board meeting.
He proposed extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to the end of
May , followed by the prescribed public comment period so that in early July
the reports could be updated in response to the public comments and
presented to the GNSO Council for consideration at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed:
That the Whois task forces' timing for producing their first reports be
extended to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting be scheduled
for 2 weeks time.

The motion carried unanimously

Decision 1: The deadline for the submission of preliminary reports for the
three Whois task forces be extended to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task
force meeting take place before the deadline.

Item 3: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes
Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin)

Bruce Tonkin gave a high level summary of questions he had discussed with
John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel.

1. The approval process:

In the approval process did the ICANN Board need to approve a change or
could the ICANN staff approve the change directly?
The key question for ICANN staff would be "is the contractual change a
material change?" A material change would require ICANN Board approval.
In most of the instances involving a Quick Look Process or Detailed Review
Process, where competition or technical advice is required, a contractual
change is likely to require the ICANN Board's approval. The staff would be
able to give approval to a proposal which was consistent with a clear
existing ICANN policy or consistent with a previous Board decision.

What sort of notice did the ICANN Board require to make a decision?

Notice of a motion would be put out 45 days prior to the Board meeting, with
30 Days for public comment. The public comment would be summarized and
included with the Board motion and presented to the Board members at least
two weeks before the Board meeting.


2. The criteria for evaluation:
It was Counsel's opinion that all the criteria could be framed under the
headings:
a. Technical - would the change affect the stability, interoperability or
security of the Internet
b. Competition - would the change have an impact on competition in the
general sense.
The criteria discussed by the Council in Rome could all be included as
guidelines of issues for ICANN staff to consider when reviewing technical or
competition aspects of the proposed change.

3. Appeals process

Counsel felt that the reconsideration process in the existing bylaws would
apply.
There were already several processes in place, such as the dispute
resolution provisions in the registry agreements, the reconsideration
process in the ICANN bylaws, and the court of law under which the
jurisdiction for the contracts fell and other mechanisms. Adding yet another
appeal process would not add much value.

Bruce Tonkin proposed updating the diagrams of 5 May, 2004, to explicitly
include the ICANN Board approval step as well as the timing factor and
inviting General Counsel to participate in a GNSO Council committee
teleconference on the Policy Development Process for the approval process
for gTLD registry changes.

Item 5: Re-assignment of .net
Receive an update from the .net Council subcommittee

Philip Sheppard, .net Council subcommittee chair, reported that there had
been a few teleconferences and mailing list exchanges in which all
the subcommittee members had participated,
Commercial and Business Users Constituency: Philip Sheppard
Noncommercial Users Constituency: Marc Schneiders
Registrars Constituency: Ross Rader
gTLD Registries Constituency: Cary Karp
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: Lucy Nichols
The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency: Tony
Holmes
ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council: Thomas Roessler

The first draft report listed the criteria to be considered under 6
headings:

1. Criteria related to the targeting of the domain
Dot net should remain un-sponsored.
Dot net should remain un-chartered.

2. Criteria relating to stability: technical and financial competence
The current .net registry agreement; efficiency and reliability, a baseline
for the functional capabilities and performance specifications to handle
potential migration issues, name service resolution time should not exceed
the current time for existing .net name service resolution and the minimum
financial stability should be required.

3. Criteria related to promotion of competition
Maximization of consumer choice, pricing, innovation and new services should
be considered.

4. Criteria related to existing registry services such as the pending
Verisign wait list service, the redemption grace period and the migration of
the test-bed internationalised domain names. Applicants should be asked
"Does the applicant wish to maintain all existing registry services?" If
yes, please provide specifics and demonstrate the technical and legal
ability of the registry to maintain existing services. If no, please expand
on any issues relating to the withdrawal of such services.

5.Continuity
Grand fathering where existing registrants should not be penalised by
changes in policy as a result of this process and should be entitled to
maintain their registrations on terms materially consistent with their
existing contracts under current policy, including the right to transfer a
.net domain to another party.

6. Policy compliance
Consensus policies of ICANN, both existing (UDRP, WHOIS, Deletes, Transfers
etc), and any which are developed via the ICANN process in the future should
be complied with by the registry operator. Policy development Policy
development for .net should continue to take place in an open bottom-up
process and all registrars that have qualified to operate as .net
registrars, must be treated equitably by the registry operator.

Bruce Tonkin cautioned that transparency was important and Cary Karp and Ken
Stubbs suggested adding a disclaimer:
"DRAFT report from the .net sub-committee in preparation for submission to
the GNSO Council" on each page of the draft report .
For the next meeting, Bruce Tonkin requested an audio record.
The aim is to present the Final .net report to the GNSO Council at the June
6, 2004 teleconference.


Item 6: Any Other Business

1. Update on ICANN staff support for the GNSO Council

Bruce Tonkin reported on his conversation with Paul Verhoef on staff support
who indicated that further GNSO staff support is under active consideration.
The Brucenoted that with the current level of staff support, the amount of
policy development work underway, and the necessary reliance on voluntary
participation by members of the ICANN community, it will be difficult to
meet the ICANN bylaws' timelines and this should be made clear to the ICANN
Board and the community. The Council once more underlined the importance of
the GNSO policy development processes and the need for adequate staffing.

Bruce Tonkin proposed giving immediate feedback to Paul Verhoef that the
GNSO Council felt that they could not wait till August for further GNSO
staff support, and called for a small group of volunteers to seek a solution
with senior ICANN staff.


NOTE: after the meeting, ICANN management informed that additional staff
resources for the GNSO are under consideration, that the recruitment
processes - including job descriptions - are being drawn up, and that it is
hoped that the appropriate resources will be put in place as soon as the
budget approvals allow.

Marilyn Cade mentioned that a WSIS update was being planned for Kuala Lumpur
in a timeframe allowing everyone, including the GAC to attend.

Bruce Tonkin reported discussions with a ccTLD representative about joint
meetings in Kuala Lumpur to discuss internationalised domain names and
Tuesday morning of the GNSO Council meeting was proposed as an initial
schedule.

Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.
The meeting ended: 12:54 UTC

Next GNSO Council teleconference on June 10, 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="06 May 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">06 May 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-06may04.htm";>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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth<br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars <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 - absent - apologies<br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies, 
proxy 
  to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Lucy Nichols<br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent<br>
  Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - ( joined after roll call)<br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.- absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk 
  Woo <br>
  Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk 
  Woo <br>
  Alick Wilson - absent<br>
  Demi Getschko - absent<br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril</font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">11 Council Members<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
  <br>
  Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison<br>
  Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison<br>
  Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were 
  asked to join the call.<br>
  <br>
  Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies<br>
  Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2 - absent<br>
  Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20040506.mp3";>MP3 
  Recording</a><br>
  Quorum present at 12:10 UTC,<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1: Approval of Agenda </b><br>
  <br>
  Agenda approved <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of the April 1, 
  2004 minutes<br>
  </b>Deferred until GNSO Council teleconference, June 10, 2004<b>.<br>
  <br>
  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> <br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman, </b> task force 1 chair's apologies for being absent were 
noted 
  and a <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00452.html";>report</a>
 
  was provided in which an extension in time was requested for the preliminary 
  report.<br>
  <b>Tom Keller, </b>in<b> Jordyn Buchanan's</b>, absence reported that the 
Whois 
  task force 2 was making good progress but that at least another week was 
needed 
  to complete the preliminary report.<br>
  <b>Brian Darville</b>, task force 3 chair supported an extension and a 
deadline 
  where all 3 task forces would produce reports at the same time. A substantive 
  section of the report deals with recommendations addressing best practices 
and 
  further work required on the issue.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> had consulted with John Jeffrey and reported that if 
final 
  recommendations were to be made before the ICANN meetings in Kuala Lumpur, 
the 
  report would have to be submitted to the ICANN Board 45 days before the Board 
  meeting.<br>
  He proposed extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to the end of 
  May , followed by the prescribed public comment period so that in early July 
  the reports could be updated in response to the public comments and presented 
  to the GNSO Council for consideration at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Ross Rader</b> proposed:<br>
  That the Whois task forces' timing for producing their first reports be 
extended 
  to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting be scheduled for 2 weeks 
  time. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  The motion carried unanimously</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Decision 1: The deadline for 
the 
  submission of preliminary reports for the three Whois task forces be extended 
  to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting take place before the 
deadline.<br>
  </b><br>
  <b>Item 3: 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> gave a high level summary of <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00014.html";>questions</a>
 
  he had discussed with John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel.<br>
  <br>
  <b>1. The approval process:</b><br>
  <br>
  <b>In the approval process did the ICANN Board need to approve a change or 
could 
  the ICANN staff approve the change directly?</b><br>
  The key question for ICANN staff would be "is the contractual change a 
material 
  change?" A material change would require ICANN Board approval. <br>
  In most of the instances involving a Quick Look Process or Detailed Review 
Process, 
  where competition or technical advice is required, a contractual change is 
likely 
  to require the ICANN Board's approval. The staff would be able to give 
approval 
  to a proposal which was consistent with a clear existing ICANN policy or 
consistent 
  with a previous Board decision. <br>
  <br>
  <b>What sort of notice did the ICANN Board require to make a decision?</b><br>
  <br>
  Notice of a motion would be put out 45 days prior to the Board meeting, with 
  30 Days for public comment. The public comment would be summarized and 
included 
  with the Board motion and presented to the Board members at least two weeks 
  before the Board meeting.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
  2. The criteria for evaluation:</b><br>
  It was Counsel's opinion that all the criteria could be framed under the 
headings:<br>
  a. Technical - would the change affect the stability, interoperability or 
security 
  of the Internet<br>
  b. Competition - would the change have an impact on competition in the 
general 
  sense.<br>
  The criteria discussed by the Council in Rome could all be included as 
guidelines 
  of issues for ICANN staff to consider when reviewing technical or competition 
  aspects of the proposed change. <br>
  <br>
  <b>3. Appeals process</b><br>
  <br>
  Counsel felt that the reconsideration process in the existing bylaws would 
apply.<br>
  There were already several processes in place, such as the dispute resolution 
  provisions in the registry agreements, the reconsideration process in the 
ICANN 
  bylaws, and the court of law under which the jurisdiction for the contracts 
  fell and other mechanisms. Adding yet another appeal process would not add 
much 
  value.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed updating the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/";>diagrams</a> 
  of 5 May, 2004, to explicitly include the ICANN Board approval step as well 
  as the timing factor and inviting General Counsel to participate in a GNSO 
Council 
  committee teleconference on the Policy Development Process for the approval 
  process for gTLD registry changes.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 5: Re-assignment of .net <br>
  Receive an update from the .net Council subcommittee<br>
  <br>
  Philip Sheppard, </b>.net Council subcommittee chair, reported that there had 
  been a few teleconferences and mailing list exchanges in which all <br>
  the subcommittee members had participated,<br>
  Commercial and Business Users Constituency: Philip Sheppard <br>
  Noncommercial Users Constituency: Marc Schneiders <br>
  Registrars Constituency: Ross Rader <br>
  gTLD Registries Constituency: Cary Karp <br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: Lucy Nichols <br>
  The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency: Tony 
  Holmes<br>
  ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council: Thomas Roessler<br>
  <br>
  The first draft report listed the criteria to be considered under 6 
headings:<br>
  <br>
  1. Criteria related to the targeting of the domain <br>
  Dot net should remain un-sponsored. <br>
  Dot net should remain un-chartered. <br>
  <br>
  2. Criteria relating to stability: technical and financial competence<br>
  The current .net registry agreement; efficiency and reliability, a baseline 
  for the functional capabilities and performance specifications to handle 
potential 
  migration issues, name service resolution time should not exceed the current 
  time for existing .net name service resolution and the minimum financial 
stability 
  should be required.<br>
  <br>
  3. Criteria related to promotion of competition <br>
  Maximization of consumer choice, pricing, innovation and new services should 
  be considered.<br>
  <br>
  4. Criteria related to existing registry services such as the pending 
Verisign 
  wait list service, the redemption grace period and the migration of the 
test-bed 
  internationalised domain names. Applicants should be asked "Does the 
applicant 
  wish to maintain all existing registry services?" If yes, please provide 
specifics 
  and demonstrate the technical and legal ability of the registry to maintain 
  existing services. If no, please expand on any issues relating to the 
withdrawal 
  of such services. <br>
  <br>
  5.Continuity<br>
  Grand fathering where existing registrants should not be penalised by changes 
  in policy as a result of this process and should be entitled to maintain 
their 
  registrations on terms materially consistent with their existing contracts 
under 
  current policy, including the right to transfer a .net domain to another 
party. 
  <br>
  <br>
  6. Policy compliance <br>
  Consensus policies of ICANN, both existing (UDRP, WHOIS, Deletes, Transfers 
  etc), and any which are developed via the ICANN process in the future should 
  be complied with by the registry operator. Policy development Policy 
development 
  for .net should continue to take place in an open bottom-up process and all 
  registrars that have qualified to operate as .net registrars, must be treated 
  equitably by the registry operator.<br>
  <b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> cautioned that transparency was important and Cary Karp and 
  Ken Stubbs suggested adding a disclaimer:<br>
  "DRAFT report from the .net sub-committee in preparation for submission to 
the 
  GNSO Council" on each page of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/dotnet/dotnet-draft-reportv2.pdf";>draft 
  report </a>.<br>
  For the next meeting, Bruce Tonkin requested an audio record.<br>
  The aim is to present the Final .net report to the GNSO Council at the June 
  6, 2004 teleconference. <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 6: Any Other 
Business</b><br>
  <b><br>
  1. Update on ICANN staff support for the GNSO Council </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported on 
  his conversation with Paul Verhoef on staff support who indicated that 
further 
  GNSO staff support is under active consideration. The Brucenoted that with 
the 
  current level of staff support, the amount of policy development work 
underway, 
  and the necessary reliance on voluntary participation by members of the ICANN 
  community, it will be difficult to meet the ICANN bylaws' timelines and this 
  should be made clear to the ICANN Board and the community. The Council once 
  more underlined the importance of the GNSO policy development processes and 
  the need for adequate staffing. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed 
giving 
  immediate feedback to Paul Verhoef that the GNSO Council felt that they could 
  not wait till August for further GNSO staff support, and called for a small 
  group of volunteers to seek a solution with senior ICANN staff.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>NOTE:</b> after the meeting, 
  ICANN management informed that additional staff resources for the GNSO are 
under 
  consideration, that the recruitment processes - including job descriptions - 
  are being drawn up, and that it is hoped that the appropriate resources will 
  be put in place as soon as the budget approvals allow.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> mentioned that 
  a WSIS update was being planned for Kuala Lumpur in a timeframe allowing 
everyone, 
  including the GAC to attend.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported 
discussions 
  with a ccTLD representative about joint meetings in Kuala Lumpur to discuss 
  internationalised domain names and Tuesday morning of the GNSO Council 
meeting 
  was proposed as an initial schedule.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for 
  participating.<br>
  The meeting ended: 12:54 UTC</b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
teleconference 
      on June 10, 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>