[council] GNSO Council meeting in Kuala Lumpur Draft Minutes, July 20 2004

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

Dear Councillors,

Please find attached the GNSO Council minutes of the Kuala Lumpur meeting
held on July 20 2004 in html and plain text version.

Please let me know what changes you would like made.

Thank you very much.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
****************************************************************************
**
20 July 2004.

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. - remote participation
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - remote participation - proxy to Cary
Karp
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. - remote participation, proxy to Carlos
Afonso
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. - remote participation, proxy to
Carlos Afonso
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C.
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril


17 Council Members

Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations - absent - apologies
John Jeffrey - General Counsel - absent - apologies

Vittorio Bertola - ALAC Liaison
Suzanna Sene - GAC Liaison -absent - apologies


Real Time Captioning
Quorum present at 14:00 local time,

Bruce Tonkin chaired the meeting.

Item 1: Approval of agenda


Item 2: Report from Security and Stability Advisory Committee
- Steve Crocker to present outcomes of review of Sitefinder
Bruce Tonkin invited Steve Crocker, chair of the Security and Stability
Advisory Committee (SSAC) to give a summary of the Report from Security and
Stability Advisory Committee and an update on DNSSEC.

Steve Crocker emphasized that the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
was composed of unpaid volunteers drawn from various technical expertise,
operating independently, who spoke their minds not only to the ICANN Board
but to the community as a whole with the primary focus on security and
stability matters as opposed to political or contractual issues.
The two reports, one from the Security and Stability Advisory committee
looked backwards at things that happened and the other, DNSSEC report looked
forward at what was hoped would happen.
In summary, on 15 September 2003, Verisign changed the COM and Net domain
registries which blurred the architectural layers and violated the
engineering principles that the network was built on. The community response
was swift and vocal resulting in ICANN speaking from a contractual point of
view and Verisign suspending the change.
In essence, the 4 SSAC recommendations were:
- no new wild cards in TLDs,
- roll back wild cards in existing TLDs,
- clean up the specifications
- enforce proper discipline, including open notice and consensus, for
registry changes.

The response to a question, concerning the balance of innovation versus
security and stability, whether future registry and registrar software
choices could be limited, was no. However, Steve Crocker elaborated by
saying that the genius of the Internet design was that the core, which
should remain stable, was as thin as possible and that innovation should
take place in a dependable framework at the edges.
Bruce Tonkin commented that the concept of supporting international domain
names and the recent Verisign announcement regarding the speed with which
name servers were updated after a change from a registrar, were two changes
that have been made at the core, illustrating
that the core was evolving rather than static.
Ross Rader asked about the term "spyware" which was clarified as a means of
accumulating information about what the users were doing.
Amadeu Abril l Abril asked whether there were any concrete lessons,
parameters or questions that needed to be incorporated into the new registry
services as being examined by the GNSO in the policy development process.
There was no prescription, but to proceed carefully and have a wide number
of people look at and sort out the equities.

Bruce Tonkin stated that new TLDs and a tender process for dot NET were
being looked at and that from the GNSO Council perspective a question was
whether any action should be taken regarding DNSSEC.
Steve Crocker replied that it was time to adopt the DNSSEC in the plans
going forward. In summary, the DNSSEC consisted of cryptographic signatures
in the DNS which assured the integrity of DNS query results making it
possible to check through a chain of signatures up to the root so assuring
the correct response and that along the way there had been no substitution
or tampering. Deployment would be a gradual process involving a new project,
called "virtual program management" with Government funding, major groups
and objectives such as IANA, Root Server Operators, gTLDs, ccTLDs, DNS
Software vendors and major organizations.



Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs
- reports to be updated by 12 July 2004
- plan meetings in Kuala Lumpur

Bruce Tonkin reported that a joint meeting took place between the three
Whois task forces and the GNSO Council members on Tuesday 20 July at 11:00
to 13:00.
In Whois task force 1 and 2 reports the suggested recommendations ranged
from making it more obvious to registrants at the time of registering a
domain name that their information will be available in a public directory
to two tiers of information access.
Implementation issues in the potential recommendations in the task force
reports needed to be analyzed before these recommendations could be
submitted to the GNSO for consideration.

In Whois task force 3 report the potential recommendations pointed to work
which could be done by ICANN in the areas of enforcement, measuring and
monitoring on some aspects of existing policy. It suggested doing
verification of data which would be a new obligation for registrars.

Bruce Tonkin proposed a step by step process aimed at getting out
improvements regularly.
Council should decide on the apportionment of the work according to some
options :
- combine the three task forces into one
- combine task force 1 and 2 and task force 3 work in parallel.

Discussion revealed most opinions were in favour of merging task forces 1
and 2 and having task force 3 work in parallel presenting a merged report of
all three task forces to the GNSO Council when the work was completed.
Amadeu Abril l Abril was however in favour of merging all three task forces
while Niklas Lagergren was in favour of keeping all three separate to move
forward.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Carlos Afonso proposed that:
- Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular
looking at the tiered access option and developing further up-front advice
to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none of the data
becomes public
- Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for
new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for
work done by ICANN and work done by registrars
- the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two
and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public
comment.

Carlos Afonso proposed renaming the task force.

The motion was unanimously adopted (27 votes in favour)

Decision 1:
- Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular
looking at the tiered access option and developing further up-front advice
to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none of the data
becomes public
- Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for
new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for
work done by ICANN and work done by registrars
- the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two
and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public
comment.


Item 4:Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes
- draft report for comment
Bruce Tonkin reported that a draft report which included descriptions of the
flow diagrams was available for comment from the GNSO Council members, after
which the committee would approve putting the document out for public
comment.

Item 5: Update on Re-assignment of .net advice

The GNSO Council, asked to give advice to the ICANN Board on the
reassignment of .net, formed a subcommittee chaired by Philip Sheppard to
develop a consensus statement using the framework of the policy development
process. Two public comment periods were completed, and all submissions were
taken into account in the completed report before Council which had the
unanimous support of the subcommittee.
ICANN Deputy General Counsel, Dan Halloran clarified that the process gone
through by the GNSO Council subcommittee was in compliance with the Dot Net
Registry Agreement, which predated the new ICANN bylaws and policy
development process, and that section 4.3.1 "Consensus Policies" defined a
consensus policy as a recommendation adopted by at least a two- thirds vote
of the Council.
Council considered the .net GNSO Council subcommittee Final report version
8, Designating a successor operator for the . net registry, comments were
received from the floor where members of the public raised certain issues
which the subcommittee would address and clarify. ICANN staff was requested
to summarise the comments received during the public comment periods, annex
all comments in full and then, the revised report would be resubmitted, on a
date to be decided, to the Council for a vote.


Item 6: Update on meetings with ICANN staff regarding policy development
processes

Bruce Tonkin reported that some councillors had met with senior ICANN staff
on Sunday, 18 July in Kuala Lumpur. The essence of the meeting minutes was
that policy development need to be looked at as a project from issue
development, through to the policy development process, to implementation
and measurement and then measurement information provided back to Council so
that Council could determine whether the policy should be modified. The
skills for the jobs currently advertised by ICANN to support the GNSO policy
development process were discussed.

Item 7: Update on meeting with ccNSO regarding liaisons

Bruce Tonkin reported the ccNSO council would consider whether to exchange
liaisons and respond to the GNSO Council on the issue.

Item 8: Any other business

Bruce Tonkin stated that ICANN was requesting what should be done with the
money collected by the constituencies for use by the Names Council that was
currently in a separate account but managed by ICANN.
The general discussion was consistent with a previous Council motion on the
topic that the funds should remain with ICANN as a contingency fund for the
GNSO Council.


Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending,
those councillors on the phone and the audience for their participation.

The meeting ended: 16 :14 ( local time)

Next GNSO Council teleconference Thursday, August 5, 2004 at 12:00 UTC.
see: Calendar





<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Kuala Lumpur Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Kuala Lumpur Meeting  Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="20 July 2004"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Kuala Lumpur 
Meeting Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">20 July 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-20jul04.htm";>agenda 
  and documents</a></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. - remote participation<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC <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>
  Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - remote participation - proxy to Cary 
Karp<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. - remote participation, proxy to Carlos 
  Afonso <br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. - remote participation, proxy to 
Carlos 
  Afonso <br>
  Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. <br>
  Alick Wilson <br>
  Demi Getschko <br>
  Amadeu Abril I Abril </font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
  <br>
  Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel <br>
  Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support <br>
  Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations - absent - apologies<br>
  John Jeffrey - General Counsel - absent - apologies<br>
  <br>
  Vittorio Bertola - ALAC Liaison <br>
  Suzanna Sene - GAC Liaison -absent - apologies<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/meetings/kualalumpur/captioning-gnso-council-20jul04.htm";>Real
 
  Time Captioning</a><br>
  Quorum present at 14:00 local time,<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b> chaired the meeting. <br>
  <b><br>
  </b>Item 1: Approval of agenda<br>
  <b><br>
  <br>
  Item 2: Report from Security and Stability Advisory Committee <br>
  - Steve Crocker to present outcomes of review of Sitefinder <br>
  </b><b>Bruce Tonkin </b>invited<b> Steve Crocker, </b>chair of the Security 
  and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to give a summary of the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-report-09jul04.pdf";>Report 
  from Security and Stability Advisory Committee</a> and an update on 
DNSSEC<b>.<br>
  <br>
  Steve Crocker </b>emphasized that the Security and Stability Advisory 
Committee 
  was composed of unpaid volunteers drawn from various technical expertise, 
operating 
  independently, who spoke their minds not only to the ICANN Board but to the 
  community as a whole<b> </b>with the primary focus on security and stability 
  matters as opposed to political or contractual issues.<b><br>
  </b>The <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/crocker-ssac-kl-18jul04.pdf.";>two 
  reports</a>, one from the Security and Stability Advisory committee looked 
backwards 
  at things that happened and the other, DNSSEC report looked forward at what 
  was hoped would happen.<b><br>
  </b>In summary, on<b> </b>15 September 2003<b>,</b> Verisign changed the COM 
  and Net domain registries<b> </b>which<b> </b>blurred the architectural 
layers 
  and violated the engineering principles that the network was built on. The 
community 
  response was swift and vocal resulting in ICANN speaking from a contractual 
  point of view and Verisign suspending the change<b>. </b><br>
  In essence, the 4 SSAC recommendations were:<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- no new wild cards in TLDs, 
  <br>
  - roll back wild cards in existing TLDs, <br>
  - clean up the specifications <br>
  - enforce proper discipline, including open notice and consensus, for 
registry 
  changes.<br>
  <b> <br>
  </b>The response to a question, concerning the balance of innovation versus 
  security and stability, whether future registry and registrar software 
choices 
  could be limited, was no. However, <b>Steve Crocker</b> elaborated by saying 
  that the genius of the Internet design was that the core, which should remain 
  stable, was as thin as possible and that innovation should take place in a 
dependable 
  framework at the edges.<b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>commented that the concept of supporting international 
domain 
  names and the recent Verisign announcement regarding the speed with which 
name 
  servers were updated after a change from a registrar, were two changes that 
  have been made at the core<b>, </b>illustrating<b><br>
  </b>that the core was evolving rather than static.<b><br>
  Ross Rader </b>asked<b> </b>about the term &quot;spyware&quot; which was 
clarified 
  as a means of accumulating information about what the users were doing<b>. 
</b><br>
  <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b> asked whether there were any concrete lessons, 
parameters 
  or questions that needed to be incorporated into the new registry services as 
  being examined by the GNSO in the policy development process. There was no 
prescription, 
  but to proceed carefully and have a wide number of people look at and sort 
out 
  the equities.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> stated that 
new 
  TLDs and a tender process for dot NET were being looked at and that from the 
  GNSO Council perspective a question was whether any action should be taken 
regarding 
  DNSSEC. <br>
  <b>Steve Crocker</b> replied that it was time to adopt the DNSSEC in the 
plans 
  going forward. In summary, the DNSSEC consisted of cryptographic signatures 
  in the DNS which assured the integrity of DNS query results making it 
possible 
  to check through a chain of signatures up to the root so assuring the correct 
  response and that along the way there had been no substitution or tampering. 
  Deployment would be a gradual process involving a new project, called 
&quot;virtual 
  program management&quot; with Government funding, major groups and objectives 
  such as IANA, Root Server Operators, gTLDs, ccTLDs, DNS Software vendors and 
  major organizations.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
  Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces <br>
  Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs <br>
  - reports to be updated by 12 July 2004 <br>
  - plan meetings in Kuala Lumpur<br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>reported that a joint meeting took place between the three 
  Whois task forces and the GNSO Council members on Tuesday 20 July at 11:00 to 
  13:00.<br>
  In Whois task force 1 and 2 reports the suggested recommendations ranged from 
  making it more obvious to registrants at the time of registering a domain 
name 
  that their information will be available in a public directory to two tiers 
  of information access. <br>
  Implementation issues in the potential recommendations in the task force 
reports 
  needed to be analyzed before these recommendations could be submitted to the 
  GNSO for consideration.<br>
  <br>
  In Whois task force 3 report the potential recommendations pointed to work 
which 
  could be done by ICANN in the areas of enforcement, measuring and monitoring 
  on some aspects of existing policy. It suggested doing verification of data 
  which would be a new obligation for registrars.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed a 
step 
  by step process aimed at getting out improvements regularly.<br>
  Council should decide on the apportionment of the work according to some 
options 
  :<br>
  - combine the three task forces into one<br>
  - combine task force 1 and 2 </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">and 
  task force 3 work in parallel.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Discussion revealed most opinions 
  were in favour of merging task forces 1 and 2 and having task force 3 work in 
  parallel presenting a merged report of all three task forces to the GNSO 
Council 
  when the work was completed. <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b> was however in 
favour 
  of merging all three task forces while <b>Niklas Lagergren</b> was in favour 
  of keeping all three separate to move forward.<br>
  <b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Carlos Afonso</b> proposed that:<br>
  - Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular 
looking 
  at the tiered access option and developing further </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  up-front advice to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none 
  of the data becomes public<br>
  - Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for 
  new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for 
work 
  done by ICANN and work done by registrars<br>
  - the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two 
  and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public 
comment.<br>
  <b><br>
  Carlos Afonso</b> proposed renaming the task force.<br>
  <br>
  The motion was unanimously adopted (27 votes in favour)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Decision 1:<br>
  - Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular 
looking 
  at the tiered access option and developing further </b></font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  up-front advice to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none 
  of the data becomes public<br>
  - Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for 
  new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for 
work 
  done by ICANN and work done by registrars<br>
  - the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two 
  and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public 
comment. 
  </font></b></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Item 4:Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes <br>
  - draft report for comment <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>reported that a <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.pdf";>draft 
  report</a> which included descriptions of the flow diagrams was available for 
  comment from the GNSO Council members, after which the committee would 
approve 
  putting the document out for public comment.<br>
  <b><br>
  Item 5: Update on Re-assignment of .net advice <br>
  <br>
  </b>The GNSO Council, asked to give advice to the ICANN Board on the 
reassignment 
  of .net, formed a subcommittee chaired by <b>Philip Sheppard</b> to develop 
  a consensus statement using the framework of the policy development process. 
  Two public comment periods were completed, and all submissions were taken 
into 
  account in the completed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/dotnet/dotnet-reportv8.pdf";>report 
  </a>before Council which had the unanimous support of the subcommittee.<br>
  ICANN Deputy General Counsel<b>, Dan Halloran </b>clarified that the process 
  gone through by the GNSO Council subcommittee was in compliance with the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-net-25may01.htm";>Dot
 
  Net Registry Agreement</a><b>, </b>which predated the new <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-13oct03.htm";>ICANN 
  bylaws and policy<b> </b>development<b> </b>process,</a><b> </b>and that 
section 
  4.3.1 "Consensus Policies"<b> </b> defined a<b> </b>consensus policy as a 
recommendation 
  adopted by at least a two- thirds vote of the Council.<b><br>
  </b>Council considered the .net GNSO Council subcommittee <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/dotnet/dotnet-reportv8.pdf";>Final 
  report version 8</a>, Designating a successor operator for the . net 
registry, 
  comments were received from the floor where members of the public raised 
certain 
  issues which the subcommittee would address and clarify. ICANN staff was 
requested 
  to summarise the comments received during the public comment periods, annex 
  all comments in full and then, the revised report would be resubmitted, on a 
  date to be decided, to the Council for a vote.<br>
  <b><br>
  <br>
  Item 6: Update on meetings with ICANN staff regarding policy development 
processes 
  <br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>reported that some councillors had met with senior ICANN 
staff 
  on Sunday, 18 July in Kuala Lumpur. The essence of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00520.html";>meeting
 
  minutes</a> was that policy development need to be looked at as a project 
from 
  issue development, through to the policy development process, to 
implementation 
  and measurement and then measurement information provided back to Council so 
  that Council could determine whether the policy should be modified.<b> 
</b>The 
  skills for the jobs currently advertised by ICANN to support the GNSO policy 
  development process were discussed.<b><br>
  <br>
  Item 7: Update on meeting with ccNSO regarding liaisons <br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>reported the ccNSO council would consider whether to 
exchange 
  liaisons and respond to the GNSO Council on the issue.<br>
  <b><br>
  Item 8: Any other business<br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that ICANN was requesting what should be done with 
the 
  money collected by the constituencies for use by the Names Council that was 
  currently in a separate account but managed by ICANN.<br>
  The general discussion was consistent with a previous <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml";>Council 
  motion</a> on the topic that the funds should remain with ICANN as a 
contingency 
  fund for the GNSO Council.<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for 
attending, 
  those councillors on the phone and the audience for their 
participation.</b><br>
  <b><br>
  The meeting ended: 16 :14 ( local time)</b></font> </p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
teleconference 
      Thursday, August 5, 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>