[council] GNSO Council teleconf. draft minutes 13 January 2005

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

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

Dear Councillors,

Please find a plain text and attached html version of the draft minutes
of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 13 January 2005.

If there are any changes you would like made please let me know.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
 

13 January 2005 

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 - proxy to Tony Holmes
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Greg
Ruth
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross
Rader/Bruce Tonkin/Alick Wilson 
Ross Rader - Registrars 
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars 
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries 
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - proxy to Ken
Stubbs
Cary Karp - gTLD registries 
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C 
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent -
apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. 
Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to
Marc Schneiders
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko - absent - apologies - proxy to Alick Wilson
Maureen Cubberley

15 Council Members

ICANN Staff
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support
John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel
Dan Halloran - ICANN Deputy General Counsel 
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison 
Tim Cole - Chief Registrar Liaison 

GNSO Council Liaisons
Thomas Roessler - acting ALAC Liaison - apologies
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison 


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 Recording:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4


Quorum present at 20:07

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. 

Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Bruce Tonkin stated that an updated agenda had been sent to Council.
Agenda approved


Item 2: Approval of the 
Minutes of 18 November 2004
Minutes of 3 December 2004

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the Minutes of 18 November 2004 and
Minutes of 3 December 2004

The motion carried with three abstentions: Maureen Cubberley, Lucy
Nichols, Alick Wilson

Decision 1: The minutes of 18 November and 3 December 2004 were adopted

Item 3: Response to GNSO Council external review 
Bruce Tonkin referred to the draft response from the GNSO Council to the
recommendations of the external review. 

In discussion, it was felt that the appointment of liaisons could not be
fully realized without the reciprocity of liaisons, the role of liaisons
should be defined and that the process for the Government Advisory
Committee (GAC) liaisons should be formalized. It was suggested that in
a cover note the recommendations that called for Board action should be
noted.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Philip Sheppard, proposed:

Whereas the public comment period was due to be completed on January 24,
2005.
The GNSO Councilors review the comments in 7 days and if there are no
significant problems, the draft response from the GNSO Council be
submitted on 24 January 2005.

The motion was unanimously accepted by voice vote.

Decision 2: 
Whereas the public comment period was due to be completed on January 24
The GNSO Councilors review the comments in 7 days and if there are no
significant problems, the draft response from the GNSO Council be
submitted on 24 January 2005.


Item 4: Draft Initial Report on procedure for use by ICANN in
considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to
allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. 
Bruce Tonkin reported that he was in the process of updating the report
with comments received from staff.

Item 5: Update on WHOIS 
Marilyn Cade reported that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
working group, Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) gave a
presentation on the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) on an
open outreach call focussing on data gathering related to tiered access
to the Whois combined task force 1 and 2. The call was well attended by
the ICANN staff and the community. It was the task force's first effort
to take input from outside experts. 
It was noted that there was no consensus in the task force to pursue
tiered access but only to explore tiered access, such as its
implications and costs.
January 31, 2005 was the closing date for constituency statements on the
recommendations relating to improving notification and consent for the
use of contact data in the Whois system.
On the procedure for conflicts when there are conflicts between a
registrar's of registry's legal obligations under local privacy laws and
their contractual obligations to ICANN, further dialogue was being
scheduled between Senior ICANN staff and the Whois task force 1 & 2.
Bruce Tonkin reported that the Whois task force 3 chair, Brian Darville,
had resigned and that he would be calling a meeting to progress further
with the task force as discussed in Cape Town.

Item 6: ICANN strategic plan 
- Marilyn Cade to present proposal for consultative workshop on 7-8
February 2005
- budget for workshop from GNSO Council funds 
- ICANN staff to present current plans for outreach 

Paul Verhoef and Kurt Pritz commented on the broad outline for outreach
which was that Paul Twomey, senior staff and other staff were currently
scheduling a series of teleconferences with all constituencies to
receive input on which parts of the strategic plan they considered good,
where there might be room for improvements and where the approach could
be changed. Written submissions to the plan were sought both to get the
final plan out and to address the notions behind comments.
Paul Verhoef felt that there would be granularity at the group levels
which would provide detailed comments on the document and saw
consultation with constituencies separate from consultation with Council
as the higher up in hierarchy the more abstract the findings might be.
Council members expressed concern about an initiative that did not allow
members of the ICANN community to learn from the views expressed by
other ICANN community members and hence refine their own views. The
benefit of working through the GNSO Council was that the various views
of constituency members were taken account of and consolidated, rather
than fragmenting the process, so allowing the ICANN staff a better view
of the important issues from a broader spread of interests. The outreach
work being undertaken by ICANN staff via constituency teleconferences
would be an important first step before commencing a joint consultation
with ICANN staff on the strategic plan amongst people from different
stakeholder groups. As the strategic plan is a rolling plan, it should
be possible in future to incorporate future face-to-face dialogue on the
strategic plan into the normal schedule of physical ICANN meetings.

Marilyn Cade presented the proposal, drafted in consultation with fellow
councillors, for the consultative workshop on 7-8 February 2005. 
"The ICANN Strategic Plan is a complex, broad and important document
which outlines ICANN's directions for a three year period. It is tied
to, and should guide the budget of ICANN. In a bottom up organization
like ICANN, consultation is critical to ensure support and acceptance,
as well as to take input on needed changes in a Strategic Plan to assure
attainability. The scope of changes and scale of changes proposed in the
Strategic Plan are as extensive as those changes undertaken with the ERC
process and deserve a similar examination and understanding by the
Supporting Organizations. Having an interactive discussion with the
Supporting Organizations/their members is a critical element of a bottom
up consultation. The consultation will supplement the comment process
via the public website.

Proposed meeting agenda

Monday 7 February 2005
o 1:00 p.m. Meeting starts with overview of purpose 
o 1:20 p.m. Presentation on Strategic Plan/ICANN Senior Staff 
3:00 p.m. Coffee Break 
o 3:15 p.m. Open moderated discussion of Strategic Plan, with
questions/answers by ICANN staff.
o 3:30 p.m. Open floor to prepared presentations [per scheduling with
Planning Team]
o 4:10 Comments from participants/further discussion 
o 5:30 p.m Meeting ends 
o 6:00 p.m. Informal Social Hour/funding to be agreed to/or sponsors
developed 
o Working Session of those who agree to undertake synthesis and drafting
of comments 

Tuesday 8 February 2005
o Reconvene at 8:30 and work through 12:30 p.m. 
o Complete draft comments on site for participants to then take back
into their respective communities/constituencies for agreement and
edits. o Hold comments open from February 8 - February 20, 2005
Participants are responsible for getting agreement from others in their
community/constituency during that time. 
o Conduct final conference week of February. 21 to reach agreement on
edits/changes to be accepted into final comments. 
o Post comments to ICANN public site on February 28, 2005."

Cost elements: the meeting rooms, 2 coffee breaks, the conference
bridge, an ISDN line, polycom phones with microphones estimated at
between 4000 and 5000 Euros.

Marilyn Cade proposed that Council should authorize the funding [in a
not to exceed amount (5000 Euros)] for the organization/hosting of the
meeting from the Council's reserve funds - left from previous
assessments.

Bruce Tonkin proposed taking a roll call on support for the event and
those who would be able to attend. 

All the Councillors on the call (15) supported the event.
Amsterdam was chosen as a preference for the 8 or 9 Councillors who
stated that they would probably be able to attend in person.

Bruce Tonkin summarised commenting that an extensive discussion in the
constituencies was an important precursor to Council dialogue. ICANN
setting up forums to talk to individuals allowed for some of the depth,
but the benefit in terms of common messages and objectives that were
developed through a common meeting event woud provide more depth.

Paul Verhoef expressed concerned that the event would set a precedent in
the future.

Bruce Tonkin clarified that such consultation could be scheduled to
coincide with ICANN meetings in future.

Target budget of 5000 Euros

Lucy Nichols, seconded by Ross Rader moved that:
A budget of 5000 Euros for the consultative workshop project be approved
and authorization granted that the amount would be taken from the
remaining DNSO/GNSO funds. 

Bruce Tonkin proceeded with a nominated vote.


20 votes in favour, 6 proxy votes in favour.
The motion passed.

Decision 3:
A budget of 5000 Euros for the consultative workshop project be approved
and authorization granted that the amount would be taken from the
remaining DNSO/GNSO funds. 


Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries 
- motion to initiate an issues report 

Draft resolution Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of
their registrants to register specific domain names that become
available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen
strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their
business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level that
registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN
accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the
ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A
to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain
names made available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can
subsequently decide if a policy development process would be
appropriate. 

Philip Sheppard spoke to the resolution which arose out of a discussion
in Cape Town regarding the problem of of the volume of automated
requests for expiring domain names from registrar to registry and
requested further study through an issues report from the ICANN Staff
Manager so that Council could then decide whether a policy development
process should be initiated. 

Ken Stubbs commented that the issues report should clarify the reason
for the demand.


Barbara Roseman reported that the staff recognized that the issue would
require effort from several ICNAN staff members with specific areas of
expertise
Kurt Pritz commented that in order to respond to the resolution, ICANN
would like to go back and look at the complaints received, and solicit
input from the registries and registrars on the topic, then provide a
briefing to the Council based on an analysis of various data bases to
ascertain whether there should be an issues report.

Bruce Tonkin clarified that an Issues Report asked General Counsel to
decide whether there were any policy issues but it did not go as far as
saying what specific agreements and contractual issues were affected and
proposed that thereshould be further clarification on contents and
expectations of issues report in general. 

Philip Sheppard, seconded by Maureen Cubberley proposed the amended
draft resolution:

Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain
names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead
to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of
gTLD registries and registrars.
Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to
their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to
registrars, 


Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues
report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems
caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry
", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development
process would be appropriate 

Bruce Tonkin called for a nominated vote.
19 votes in favour, 5 proxy votes in favour, 3 no votes. (Kiyoshi Tsuru
and Alick Wilson with the proxy for Demi Getschko had dropped off the
call and did not vote)

The motion carried.

Decision 4:
Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain
names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead
to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of
gTLD registries and registrars.
Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to
their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to
registrars, 


Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues
report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems
caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry
", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development
process would be appropriate 

Item 8: Transfer of domain name agreements between registrants
(secondary market issues)
- see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21sep04-1.htm
- seek information from ICANN staff on complaints raised by registrars
or registrants, and other Internet users, and determine if appropriate
to request an issues report 

ICANN staff had not received much more information since the
announcement on 21 September 2004 on the issues that had been raised by
the registrars, registrants or others in community.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that it would be useful for next council meeting
if ICANN staff could produce a report by sampling the complaints in the
last couple of months and those a year ago to ascertain the main
complaint areas and put them in context. 

Council members were encouraged to consider the kind of input from ICANN
staff that would be useful in its consideration of the Transfers Policy.

The issue was deferred to the next meeting.

Item 9: ICANN staff update
- update on appointment of new policy support staff Item 9: ICANN staff
update
- update on appointment of new policy support staff 

Paul Verhoef reported that the Human Resource Manager was concluding
negotiations for the junior policy support position while the senior
policy support person would probably commence early in March 2005.

Bruce Tonkin reminded the group that the external review recommended
that the Council should work with the Vice President for Supporting
Organizations to establish clear expectations regarding staff support. 


Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.
The meeting ended: 21:00 UTC.

Next GNSO Council 
see: Calendar



-

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="13 January 2005"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference 
Minutes'"-->
<p>&nbsp; </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">13 January 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-05aug04.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 - proxy to Tony Holmes<br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Greg 
Ruth<br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce 
Tonkin/Alick 
  Wilson <br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries <br>
  Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - absent - apologies - proxy to Ken 
Stubbs<br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD registries <br>
  Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - 
  proxy to Lucy Nichols<br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. <br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.<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 - apologies - proxy to A</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">lick 
  Wilson<br>
  Maureen Cubberley</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15 Council Members<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support<br>
  John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel<br>
  Dan Halloran - ICANN Deputy General Counsel <br>
  Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations<br>
  Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
  Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison <br>
  Tim Cole - Chief Registrar Liaison <br>
  <br>
  <b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><br>
  Thomas Roessler - acting ALAC Liaison - apologies<br>
  Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  MP3 Recording:<br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050113.mp3";>Part 1</a><br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-200501132.mp3";>Part 
2</a><br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-200501133.mp3";>Part 
3</a><br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-200501134.mp3";>Part 
4</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
  Quorum present at 20:07<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1: <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-13jan05.htm";>Approval 
  of Agenda</a></b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin stated that an updated agenda had been sent to Council.<br>
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-13jan05.htm";>Agenda 
approved</a><br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Approval of the </b><br>
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18nov04.htm";>Minutes of 
  18 November 2004</a><b><br>
  </b><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03dec04.htm";>Minutes 
  of 3 December 2004</a><b><br>
  <br>
  Ken Stubbs </b> moved the adoption of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18nov04.htm";>Minutes 
  of 18 November 2004</a> and <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03dec04.htm";>Minutes 
  of 3 December 2004</a><br>
  <br>
  The motion carried with three abstentions: Maureen Cubberley, Lucy Nichols, 
  Alick Wilson<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 1: The minutes of</b> <b> <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18nov04.htm";>18 
  November</a> and<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03dec04.htm";> 
  3 December 2004</a> were adopted<br>
  <br>
  Item 3: Response to <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf";>GNSO 
  Council external review </a><br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>referred to the<b> </b><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00733.html";>draft 
  response from the GNSO Council</a> to the recommendations of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-22dec04.htm";>external 
  review</a>. <br>
  <br>
  In discussion, it was felt that the appointment of liaisons could not be 
fully 
  realized without the reciprocity of liaisons, the role of liaisons should be 
  defined and that the process for the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) 
liaisons 
  should be formalized. It was suggested that in a cover note the 
recommendations 
  that called for Board action should be noted.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Philip Sheppard</b>, proposed:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whereas the public comment period 
  was due to be completed on January 24, 2005.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The GNSO Councilors review 
  the comments in 7 days and if there are no significant problems, the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00733.html";>draft 
  response from the GNSO Council</a> be submitted on 24 January 2005.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The motion was unanimously 
accepted 
  by voice vote.<b><br>
  <br>
  Decision 2: <br>
  Whereas the public comment period was due to be completed on January 24<br>
  </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The GNSO Councilors 
  review the comments in 7 days and if there are no significant problems, the 
  <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00733.html";>draft 
  response from the GNSO Council</a> be submitted on 24 January 
2005.</font></b></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> <br>
  Item 4:</b> <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.htm";>Draft 
  Initial Report</a> on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for 
  consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the 
architecture 
  or operation of a gTLD registry. <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that he was in the process of updating the 
report 
  with <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/L-PDP-registry-services-ver3-28nov04.pdf";>comments</a>
 
  received from staff.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Item 5: Update on WHOIS</b> <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> reported that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 
  working group, Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) gave a 
presentation 
  on the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) on </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">an 
  open outreach call focussing on data gathering related to tiered access to 
the 
  Whois combined task force 1 and 2. The call was well attended by the ICANN 
staff 
  and the community. It was the task force's first effort to take input from 
outside 
  experts. <br>
  It was noted that there was no consensus in the task force to pursue tiered 
  access but only to explore tiered access, such as its implications and 
costs.<br>
  January 31, 2005 was the closing date for constituency statements on the<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-notification-30nov04.pdf";>
 
  recommendations relating to improving notification and consent for the use of 
  contact data in the Whois system</a>.<br>
  On the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf";>procedure
 
  for conflicts </a>when there are conflicts between a registrar's of 
registry's 
  legal obligations under local privacy laws and their contractual obligations 
  to ICANN, further dialogue was being scheduled between Senior ICANN staff and 
  the Whois task force 1 &amp; 2.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that the Whois task force 3 chair, Brian 
Darville, 
  had resigned and that he would be calling a meeting to progress further with 
  the task force as discussed in Cape Town.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 6: ICANN strategic plan </b><br>
  - Marilyn Cade to present proposal for consultative workshop on 7-8 February 
  2005<br>
  - budget for workshop from GNSO Council funds <br>
  - ICANN staff to present current plans for outreach <br>
  <br>
  <b>Paul Verhoef</b> and <b>Kurt Pritz </b>commented on the broad outline for 
  outreach which was that Paul Twomey, senior staff and other staff were 
currently 
  scheduling a series of teleconferences with all constituencies to receive 
input 
  on which parts of the strategic plan they considered good, where there might 
  be room for improvements and where the approach could be changed. Written 
submissions 
  to the plan were sought both to get the final plan out and to address the 
notions 
  behind comments.<br>
  <b>Paul Verhoef</b> felt that there would be granularity at the group levels 
  which would provide detailed comments on the document and saw consultation 
with 
  constituencies separate from consultation with Council as the higher up in 
hierarchy 
  the more abstract the findings might be.<br>
  Council members expressed concern about an </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">initiative 
  that did not allow members of the ICANN community to learn from the views 
expressed 
  by other ICANN community members and hence refine their own views. The 
benefit 
  of working through the GNSO Council was that the various views of 
constituency 
  members were taken account of and consolidated, rather than fragmenting the 
  process, so allowing the ICANN staff a better view of the important issues 
from 
  a broader spread of interests. The outreach work being undertaken by ICANN 
staff 
  via constituency teleconferences would be an important first step before 
commencing 
  a joint consultation with ICANN staff on the strategic plan amongst people 
from 
  different stakeholder groups. As the strategic plan is a rolling plan, it 
should 
  be possible in future to incorporate future face-to-face dialogue on the 
strategic 
  plan into the normal schedule of physical ICANN meetings.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> presented the 
  proposal, drafted in consultation with fellow councillors, for the 
consultative 
  workshop on 7-8 February 2005. <br>
  &quot;The ICANN Strategic Plan is a complex, broad and important document 
which 
  outlines ICANN's directions for a three year period. It is tied to, and 
should 
  guide the budget of ICANN. In a bottom up organization like ICANN, 
consultation 
  is critical to ensure support and acceptance, as well as to take input on 
needed 
  changes in a Strategic Plan to assure attainability. The scope of changes and 
  scale of changes proposed in the Strategic Plan are as extensive as those 
changes 
  undertaken with the ERC process and deserve a similar examination and 
understanding 
  by the Supporting Organizations. Having an interactive discussion with the 
Supporting 
  Organizations/their members is a critical element of a bottom up 
consultation. 
  The consultation will supplement the comment process via the public 
website.<br>
  <br>
  Proposed meeting agenda<br>
  <br>
  Monday 7 February 2005<br>
  o 1:00 p.m. Meeting starts with overview of purpose <br>
  o 1:20 p.m. Presentation on Strategic Plan/ICANN Senior Staff <br>
  3:00 p.m. Coffee Break <br>
  o 3:15 p.m. Open moderated discussion of Strategic Plan, with 
questions/answers 
  by ICANN staff.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">o 3:30 p.m. Open floor to 
prepared 
  presentations [per scheduling with Planning Team]<br>
  o 4:10 Comments from participants/further discussion <br>
  o 5:30 p.m Meeting ends <br>
  o 6:00 p.m. Informal Social Hour/funding to be agreed to/or sponsors 
developed 
  <br>
  o Working Session of those who agree to undertake synthesis and drafting of 
  comments <br>
  <br>
  Tuesday 8 February 2005<br>
  o Reconvene at 8:30 and work through 12:30 p.m. <br>
  o Complete draft comments on site for participants to then take back into 
their 
  respective communities/constituencies for agreement and edits. o Hold 
comments 
  open from February 8 - February 20, 2005<br>
  Participants are responsible for getting agreement from others in their 
community/constituency 
  during that time. <br>
  o Conduct final conference week of February. 21 to reach agreement on 
edits/changes 
  to be accepted into final comments. <br>
  o Post comments to ICANN public site on February 28, 2005.&quot;<br>
  <br>
  Cost elements: the meeting rooms, 2 coffee breaks, the conference bridge, an 
  ISDN line, polycom phones with microphones estimated at between 4000 and 5000 
  Euros.<br>
  <b><br>
  Marilyn Cade</b> proposed that Council should authorize the funding [in a not 
  to exceed amount (5000 Euros)] for the organization/hosting of the meeting 
from 
  the Council's reserve funds - left from previous assessments.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed taking a roll call on support for the event and 
  those who would be able to attend. <br>
  <br>
  All the Councillors on the call (15) supported the event.<br>
  Amsterdam was chosen as a preference for the 8 or 9 Councillors who stated 
that 
  they would probably be able to attend in person.<br>
  <b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> summarised commenting that an extensive discussion in the 
constituencies 
  was an important precursor to Council dialogue. ICANN setting up forums to 
talk 
  to individuals allowed for some of the depth, but the benefit in terms of 
common 
  messages and objectives that were developed through a common meeting event 
woud 
  provide more depth.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Paul Verhoef</b> expressed concerned that the event would set a precedent 
  in the future.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin </b>clarified that 
  such consultation could be scheduled to coincide with ICANN meetings in 
future.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Target budget of</font> <font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5000 
  Euros<br>
  <b><br>
  Lucy Nichols</b>, seconded by <b>Ross Rader </b>moved that:</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A budget of 5000 Euros for the 
consultative 
  workshop project be approved and authorization granted that the amount would 
  be taken from the remaining DNSO/GNSO funds. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proceeded with a nominated vote.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">20 votes in favour, 6 proxy votes 
  in favour.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  The motion passed.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 3:<br>
  A budget of 5000 Euros for the consultative workshop project be approved and 
  authorization granted that the amount would be taken from the remaining 
DNSO/GNSO 
  funds. </b><br>
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries <br>
  - motion to initiate an issues report <br>
  <br>
  Draft resolution Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of 
their 
  registrants to register specific domain names that become available for 
re-registration 
  at the registry has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries 
  and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the 
  service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning 
  of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request 
  the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to 
  the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names 
made 
  available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a 
  policy development process would be appropriate. <br>
  <br>
  Philip Sheppard</b> spoke to the resolution which arose out of a discussion 
  in Cape Town regarding the problem of of the volume of automated requests for 
  expiring domain names from registrar to registry and requested further study 
  through an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager so that Council could 
  then decide whether a policy development process should be initiated. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Ken Stubbs</b> commented that the issues report should clarify the reason 
  for the demand.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barbara Roseman</b> reported 
that 
  the staff recognized that the issue would require effort from several ICNAN 
  staff members with specific areas of expertise<br>
  <b>Kurt Pritz</b> commented that in order to respond to the resolution, ICANN 
  would like to go back and look at the complaints received, and solicit input 
  from the registries and registrars on the topic, then provide a briefing to 
  the Council based on an analysis of various data bases to ascertain whether 
  there should be an issues report.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> clarified that 
  an Issues Report asked General Counsel to decide whether there were any 
policy 
  issues but it did not go as far as saying what specific agreements and 
contractual 
  issues were affected and proposed that thereshould be further clarification 
  on contents and expectations of issues report in general.</font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Philip Sheppard</b>, seconded 
  by <b>Maureen Cubberley</b> proposed the amended draft resolution:<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
  Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain names 
  that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to 
unforeseen 
  impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of gTLD registries and 
  registrars.<br>
  Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their 
  customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, 
<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Council resolves, to request the 
  ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the 
  ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made 
available 
  by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy 
development 
  process would be appropriate</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> called for a 
  nominated vote.<br>
  19 votes in favour, 5 proxy votes in favour, </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">3 
  no votes. (Kiyoshi Tsuru and Alick Wilson with the proxy for Demi Getschko 
had 
  dropped off the call and did not vote)<br>
  <br>
  The motion carried.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 4:<br>
  Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain names 
  that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to 
unforeseen 
  impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of gTLD registries and 
  registrars.<br>
  Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their 
  customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, 
<br>
  </b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Council resolves, to request 
  the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to 
  the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names 
made 
  available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a 
  policy development process would be appropriate </font></b><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 8: Transfer of domain name agreements between registrants (secondary 
  market issues)<br>
  - see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21sep04-1.htm<br>
  - seek information from ICANN staff on complaints raised by registrars or 
registrants, 
  and other Internet users, and determine if appropriate to request an issues 
  report <br>
  <br>
  </b> ICANN staff had not received much more information since the 
announcement 
  on 21 September 2004 on the issues that had been raised by the registrars, 
registrants 
  or others in community.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested that it would be useful for next council 
meeting 
  if ICANN staff could produce a report by sampling the complaints in the last 
  couple of months and those a year ago to ascertain the main complaint areas 
  and put them in context. <br>
  <br>
  Council members were encouraged to consider the kind of input from ICANN 
staff 
  that would be useful in its consideration of the Transfers Policy.<br>
  <br>
  The issue was deferred to the next meeting.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 9: ICANN staff update<br>
  - update on appointment of new policy support staff Item 9: ICANN staff 
update<br>
  - update on appointment of new policy support staff </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Paul Verhoef</b> reported that 
  the Human Resource Manager was concluding negotiations for the junior policy 
  support position while the senior policy support person would probably 
commence 
  early in March 2005.<br>
  <b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> reminded the group that the external review recommended that 
  the Council should work with the Vice President for Supporting Organizations 
  to establish clear expectations regarding staff support. <br>
  <b> </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> 
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> 
<b>declared 
  the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.<br>
  The meeting ended: 21:00 UTC.</b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council </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>