[council] GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes June 16 2004

["gnso.icann" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

{To council[at]gnso.icann.org]
 
Dear GNSO Council members,
 
Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on
16 June 2004.
 
If you would like any changes made please let me know.

Thank you very much
 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
 
16 June 2004. 
Proposed  <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-15jun04.htm>
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, 
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,
proxy to Niklas Lagergren
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C 
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. 
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to
Marc Schneiders
Alick Wilson - absent, apologies
Demi Getschko - joined call after roll call
Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent, apologies proxy to Alick Wilson/Bruce
Tonkin
14 Council Members

Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations 
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support 
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager

Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat
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 
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair 


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

 <http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20040616.mp3> MP 3 Recording
Quorum present at 12:10 UTC,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. 

Item 1: Approval of Agenda 

Agenda approved 
Item 2: Approval of the
<file:///C:\Program%20Files\Macromedia\Dreamweaver%203\gnso\safe\%3Cfont
%20face=%22Arial,%20Helvetica,%20sans-serif%22%3E%3Cb%3EApril%201,%20>
April 1, 2004 minutes
and the
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00487.html> May
6, 2004 Minutes
Ken Stubbs seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the
<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-1apr04.shtml> April 1, 2004
minutes.

The motion carried unanimously

Decision 1: The
<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-1apr04.shtml> April 1, 2004
minutes were adopted
Bruce Tonkin reported that following the May 6, 2004 meeting, Kurt Pritz
and Paul Verhoef had provided some clarification and that accordingly,
the minutes of the May 6 meeting had been simplified and revised . 
On the topic of GNSO Staff support, Paul Verhoef stated that in
agreement with the GNSO Council there were 3 positions being published
on overall policy development support :
1. GNSO Staff Manager's position, that should become a staff position
(rather than a consultant as is currently the case) 
2. additional support for the GNSO, partly shared with the other
supporting organizations
3. a policy analyst position, to follow the isues in the ccNSO and the
ASO.
When the job descriptions are complete and as soon as the budget is
approved the successful candidates would be offered contracts.
In summary, the current situation is:
Paul Verhoef Vice President, Policy Development Support 
Barbara Roseman, consultant and acting as ICANN's GNSO Staff Manager
Glen de Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat
In addition to the GNSO Staff Manager position, publish 2 additional
positions,
1. Policy analyst to follow both ASO and ccNSO 
2. Additional support mostly for the GNSO as well as coordination
between all supporting organizations.

The descriptions for the two positions would be submitted to the GNSO
Chair and council members for a round of comments. Furthermore, Paul
Verhoef informed the Council that the exact roles of the positions
would, among other things, depend on the skills and experience of the
recruited candidates. No salary range had yet been discussed.
Paul Verhoef commented that it was important for the Council to agree on
the role of staff in the GNSO policy development in practise as the
staff often finds it difficult to combine the Council's wish for staff
to play a pro-active role in the processes while on the other hand not
be seen to determine policy.
Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be useful to have role descriptions
with guidelines and rules of procedure for the task force chairs, task
force members and ICANN staff as well as understanding what ICANN means.
Kurt Pritz proposed forming a small committee of Council and staff
members to write such a framework which could be reviewed and commented
on by the whole Council once the job descriptions were published
Bruce Tonkin reported that he had spoken to Paul Twomey regarding
interaction with different staff roles, how to protect the staff and
deal with conflicting views of individual task force members and
concluded that ultimately everyone was responsible for reaching
consensus. Given that conflicts are difficult to resolve at the Board or
the Council level they should ideally be resolved by task force members
during the task force process. 
Timelines and actions:

1. End of June for the job descriptions to be complete 
2. Week 21 - 25 June a teleconference between senior ICANN staff such as
Paul Verhoef, Kurt Pritz, Paul Twomey, John Jeffrey and a small group of
Council members that have actively chaired various task forces and
committees over the past few years within the DNSO Names Council/GNSO
Council. 
The aim would be to agree on a set of shared expectations for: 
- the types of tasks to be assigned to the ICANN staff 
- the respective role of task force members and chairs
- procedures for allocating tasks to ICANN staff in an environment where
there are often several policy development processes operating in
parallel and hence the chance for contention in the use of resources 
which could be used during interviews.

Topics arising from the minutes of May 6, 2004.

1. Establishing contact with the ccNSO regarding an International Domain
Names (IDN) workshop. In the meantime ICANN has scheduled a whole day
workshop and there is a program committee so that if individual council
members wished to have topics included, they should contact Tina Dam or
Dan Halloran at ICANN or Bruce Tonkin.

2. The GNSO Council members and the ccNSO would meet and discuss the
best way to liaise between the two groups. 
Bruce Tonkin proposed that at physical meetings there would be a
breakfast or lunch between the two groups and that as with the GAC and
the ALAC, one or two people could be appointed from the ccNSO Council to
attend GNSO Council meetings and likewise the GNSO Council could appoint
representatives to attend ccNSO meetings.
Preliminary discussions have been proposed on Monday, 19 July at 5:00 PM
in the Grand Ballroom of the Shangri La Hotel in Kuala Lumpur.

3. Christopher Wilkinson reported that the GAC and the GNSO would not be
having a full bilateral session as happened in Rome. 
Suzanne Sene reported that some time would be found for the members of
the GAC GNSO working group and interested GNSO Council members to
discuss issues arising from possible Whois recommendations.

Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces 
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn
Buchanan, Brian Darville 
- status of public comment process
- next steps 
- review timetable for completing final reports

Jordyn Buchanan on behalf of all 3 task force chairs requested :
First, that after the close of the public comment period the Task Forces
be allowed to revisit their initial reports so that they may be updated
in response to public comment as well as additional feedback from
constituencies. 
Second, some areas of overlap between Task Forces 1 and 2, have been
identified and requests may be made of Council to approve procedures
designed to resolve any conflict between the two Task Forces'
recommendations. Procedures to move forward should still be established.
Finally, depending on the level of response seen in the public comment
period, the option of extending the length of the public comment period.

Suzanne Sene reminded Council that the GAC would not speak to a
preliminary report and that it could only take positions at GAC plenary
sessions. Any available information from the task forces should be
submitted to the GNSO GAC working group which will be meeting on
Saturday 17 July in Kuala Lumpur.
Marilyn Cade commented on the value, in past task force work, of open
teleconferences to provide an opportunity for parties to ask questions
of the task force and offer input as part of the public comment process.


Bruce Tonkin reminded all task force members that in addition to their
advocacy role on behalf of their constituencies, they were also
responsible for working cooperatively with other task force members to
attempt to reach an ideal consensus position on the policy. Consensus
may be defined as a 2/3 minimum vote, but the ideal would be as close to
100% as possible for full community support. 
Task forces 1 and 2 should also attempt to coordinate their work so that
their recommendations are consistent. 
Task forces should identify where further implementation analysis is
necessary for some recommendations before they can be finally voted on
by Council 
Bruce Tonkin seconded by Ken Stubbs proposed a procedural motion that
Council approves:
- extending the public comment period to Monday 5 July 2004 
- reports be updated by Monday 12 July 2004
- task forces are encouraged to initiate public teleconferences to
stimulate public comment during the public comment period 
- that task forces are encouraged to work internally towards a complete
consensus position

Decision 2: 
The public comment period be extended to Monday 5 July 2004 
- reports be updated by Monday 12 July 2004
- task forces are encouraged to initiate public teleconferences to
stimulate public comment during the public comment period 
- that task forces are encouraged to work internally towards a complete
consensus position


Item 3: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes 
- set a target date for a preliminary report

Bruce Tonkin reported that there had been a meeting on May 17/18 and
agreement reached on a general framework. The criteria should be
organized under two broad categories, competition and stability then
request whether Council considers a third category should be added. The
aim would be for a preliminary report by 12 July 2004, thus starting the
public comment period a week before the Kuala Lumpur ICANN meeting

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

Philip Sheppard, .net Council subcommittee chair, reported that since
the .net sub committee had started in mid April 2004, there had been 4
conference calls resulting in a preliminary report which made a set of
recommendations divided into two categories:
Absolute criteria thresholds that would be expected to be met, related
to: 
Targeting 
Continuity 
Policy Compliance 
Stability, security, technical and financial competence 
Relative criteria, to be used a basis of comparison for the
applications, related to: 
Promotion of competition 
Stability, security, technical and financial competence 
Existing registry services 

The report was fully supported by all sub committee members, published
for the first 20-day Public Comment Period on 28 May 2004 until 18 June
2004. One comment had been received to date. To meet the timetable, the
aim was to publish a revised report for final public comment from June
25 to July 15 and have a Final report for the Council to vote on during
the Council meeting in Kuala Lumpur on July 20, 2004.
Item 6: Any Other Business

Marilyn Cade raised the topic of new gTLDs and Bruce Tonkin reported
that according to the
<http://www.icann.org/general/amend6-jpamou-17sep03.htm> MOU:

"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). "

It was suggested at the
<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-1apr04.shtml> GNSO Council
meeting of April 1, 2004 that ICANN staff Manager draw up an Issues
report for the Kuala Lumpur GNSO Council meeting.

Paul Verhoef reported from the ICANN staff perspective that a strategy
had to be developed by September 30 and commence implementation of the
strategy by December 31, 2004. Currently expert advice was being sought
regarding economic, competition, trademark, intellectual property
issues. Several organizations such as: the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) (which has promised to try and
declassify their document before the Kuala Lumpur meeting), the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Security and Stability
Advisory Committee (ssac) were expected to provide expert advice by
September 30, 2004. It was expected that the strategy, based on the
staffs' initial assessment of the expert advice as to which questions
should be asked and the process of answering them, including the GNSO
policy development process, would be in place by December 30, 2004. It
was not clear what questions ICANN should be asking themselves, nor was
it clear how it could be determined exactly what level of competition
was useful or not.
Marilyn Cade expressed concern about timeframes, deadlines, that Council
seemed to be too far away from the process and that a policy development
process should evolve in a timely manner.
Paul Verhoef was of the opinion that at the time of drafting the MOU the
assumption was that there would be new gTLDs in the traditional sense
which was not necessarily a given any more in view of different
possibilities of gTLDs such as traditional gTLD's, sTLD's, IDN's, etc
and possibly the predictable strategy should be interpreted in a
slightly wider sense than it was originally foreseen. 
The answer to Bruce Tonkin's enquiry whether this would be subject to
dialogue between ICANN and the Department of Commerce (DOC) was that
there would have to be agreement on the part of DOC as the deadlines and
the mandate are also part of the MoU.
Kurt Pritz presented the scenario where, as a result of studies, the
strategy that would be adopted, or recognized might be that, part of new
TLD strategy would be the implementation of full International Domain
Names (IDN). That implementation would require policy questions to be
answered by the GNSO, technical questions to be answered by other
supporting committees so that implementation would have to figure out
policy questions.
The Kuala Lumpur IDN workshop agenda will be published on the ICANN
website.

Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.
The meeting ended: 14:00 UTC
*         Next GNSO Council teleconference tbd 
*         Next GNSO Council meeting will be held in the Grand Ballroom
at the Shangri-La Hotel in Kuala Lumpur at 14:00 local time, 06:00 UTC
see:  <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> Calendar
  _____