[council] GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes 17 February 2005

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

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

Dear Councillors,

Please find the draft GNSO Council minutes for 17 February 2005, as
edited by Bruce Tonkin and Dr. Paul Twomey.
If you would like any changes made, please let me know.

Thank you very much.
Regards

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat 
************************************************************************
**************** 
17 February 2005 
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. absent, apologies-
proxy to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. 
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC 
Antonio Harris - ISCPC 
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross
Rader/Bruce Tonkin
Ross Rader - Registrars 
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars 
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries 
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries 
Cary Karp - gTLD registries 
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C 
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C 
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. 
Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - proxy to Marc Schneiders
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to
Marc Schneiders
Alick Wilson
Maureen Cubberley

17 Council Members

ICANN Staff
Dr. Paul Twomey - ICANN President and CEO 
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat 

Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager - absent 

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

Visitors: (participants and contributors at the Amsterdam Consultation
meeting)
Chuck Gomes - Verisign Naming and Directory Services
David Maher - PIR Senior Vice President 
Mark McFadden - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
chair
Marie Zitkova - gTLD Registries Chair
Jordyn Buchanan - Co-chair Whois task force 1/2

MP3 Recording:


Quorum present at 20:10 CET.

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. 

Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Agenda Approved


Item 2: Approval of the 
Minutes of 13 January 2005

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the Minutes of 13 January 2005 
Motion unanimously approved.

Decision 1: The minutes of 13 January 2005 were adopted


Item 2: Report on Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN Strategic Plan 7-8
February 2005.
Marilyn Cade summarized the outcome of the Amsterdam Consultation on the
ICANN Strategic Plan on 7 and 8 February, thanked Dr Twomey, the
participants, presenters and ICANN staff for their support. The first
day was devoted to presentations and the second day to rapporteurs who
presented a synthesis of those comments that received broad agreement.
The consensus comments were divided into 2 categories: 
1. Consultation Process Recommendations for the development of the
current plan 
2. Substantive Comment Recommendations consisted of comments on the plan
which received broad agreement associated with the four key areas of the
Strategic Plan. 

Tony Holmes emphasized 3 important factors needed for ongoing success:
- Call for ICANN to make sure the next version of the plan was published
in advance for the Mar del Plata meeting
- Organize the event in Mar del Plata for further discussion 
- Process developed in Amsterdam is moved forward in terms of the next
strategic plan.

Bruce Tonkin commented that there were 3 documents that should be
provided
- The Strategic plan for the next 3 years (2005, 2006, 2007)
- The Operational plan for the next 12 months (July 2005 to June 2006)
- The Budget for the next 12 months (July 2005 to June 2006)

Dr. Paul Twomey thanked the Council for the invitation and all those
involved in organizing the Amsterdam Consultation meeting. Some of the
output was consistent with other output received during consultations
while, some was different.
There was agreement on the terms of how to move forward. Past experience
had shown that it takes some years to get a set of organizational
planning documents and cycles right for an organization, and the feed
back from the first strategic plan was not surprising.
In terms of the cycle, it would appropriate to break down the documents
in 3 parts:

1. Strategic overview
2. Operational plan
3. Financial implications 

Currently, and since ICANN's creation, the operational plan and the
budget document are merged together with much of the past discussion
focussed on the budget and finances. The feedback would be useful to
look at the three parts together. Evolving the planning process
including consultation was more important than spending all the
community's and ICANN staff's remaining attention on one particular
document. The feedback from several consultation meetings is that the
operational plan is the next priority.
Consequently the feedback from the Amsterdam and other consultations
should be taken to look at what would affect the strategic overview
broadly. The operational details in the present document could be
separated,and used as input into the operational/budget planning process
due to be presented for board approval in Luxembourg, and a document
that focuses on the strategic overview could be prepared for discussion
at the Mar del Plata in a public meeting after which the Board could
approve.
Following the Mar del Plata meeting, ICANN staff in consultation with
the community would be working on the operational plan, taking into
account the operational aspects, achievements aimed at, specific
projects and timeframes for the next year.
Dr. Twomey commented that this year, 2005 the operational plan will need
to be combined with the development of the budget, but the desire was,
and this seemed to come out of the Amsterdam contributions as well, to
move to a planning cycle, namely:
- July to December 2005 would focus on the strategic overview and the
revision of the strategic overview document.
- December 2005 through to May /June 2006 would focus on operational
planning documentation and the budget 
This would start building a yearly cycle where discussions and
consultation would take place on the strategic overview, the operational
plan and the budget aspects.
Dr. Twomey concluded by saying that an enormous amount of time and
effort had gone into producing the strategic document and appreciated
the consultation. He felt the community would not benefit much from a
significant re-writing of another version of the document, but rather
should focus on trying to take another cut at the larger picture, the
strategic overview, based on the input received from the community, and
then move on to the operational aspects for the next 12 months.

Grant Forsyth asked where we were in the operational and planning cycle,
where did the current plan sit in that? 
Dr. Paul Twomey responded that in the past ICANN had produced a combined
operational plan/budget for the period July to June. The bylaws require
the budget document to be completed by certain stages and by June. The
budget preparation has started and initial discussions have been had
with budget advisory group. More input is required on the the
operational aspects of this document. Some of the things listed in the
strategic plan document had already been completed. The document was a
new type of document for ICANN, and it was difficult to write to meet
the objectives of providing a strategic overview of ICANN as well as
provide enough detail on the operational activities of ICANN for those
not familiar with ICANN. 
Some things at the operational level have been or are being implemented
and this is partly the reason why it is now better to take a cut through
the present document and distinguish which belongs to the strategic
overview of ICANN and what needs to be achieved as part of the
operational plan. More project specific items should be part of an
operational document which could be incorporated in the budget process.

Bruce Tonkin clarified saying that he supposed there was a framework for
a strategic plan when the 2004/2005 budget was produced and what Grant
Forsyth was referring to were the dates in the strategic document that
refers to the current budget year (July 04 to June 05), whereas we
should now look at a three year period starting from July 2005. 

Dr. Paul Twomey agreed, the budget process being looked at was for the
financial year July 2005/ June 2006. 

Maureen Cubberley agreed that it took up to 2 years to establish an
appropriate planning cycle and suggested that as a starting point for
determining the planning process it might be useful to develop an
overlay that looked at the fiscal year milestones, key Board meetings,
decision milestones, and the groups that fed into those decisions and
than try to structure a 2 year timeframe so as to find parallel points
to put the planning process forward and critical deadlines. 
She explained her understanding of the strategic overview as a shared
responsibility, less of a consultation by the staff with the
stakeholders and more of a participatory process from the beginning and
asked whether Dr. Twomey agreed that it was a shared responsibility and
would there be a process for that?
Dr. Paul Twomey explained why the document was a challenge, why there
were several versions and why it did not come through the consultation
process earlier. It was partly because there were several external
audience groups and some parts of the document could be seen as
desirable by some and undesirable by others. He added that it was
natural in a community where many people voluntarily contributed much
time and experience they could not be expected to draft a document from
scratch. The intent was to produce a document that could be responded to
and not a final version. 
He went on to make a practical observation that when targets in any
planning document were not met by an organization, the reason was often
that new issues emerge which required resources to be reallocated
because of the pressing nature of the new situation. ICANN, he felt, was
prone to such emergencies, and while a plan and projects were needed,
practical realities happened during the year.
Tony Holmes requested clarity on one element that seemed to have fallen
away and looked back at the process recommendations from the Amsterdam
meeting.
1 focus on the strategic plan for the future coupled with the budget
activity
2. Operational plan to be published before Argentina meeting.
If understood correctly that would not happen.
Dr. Paul Twomey replied that the current ICANN budget was an attempted
operational plan backed by spreadsheets and the 2004/2005 budget as
posted, gave information on what was going to be done. He stressed the
benefit in getting the constituencies and the community to focus on the
project aspects of the operational plan/budget document rather than how
they would be funded. Budget, in the ICANN sense meant some version of
the operational plan and the budget. 
Bruce Tonkin summarized that for the Mar del Plata meetings a new
version of the strategic overview document would be produced which would
take into account the output of the Amsterdam meeting plus other
consultations, but may strip out some of the operational material and
put that in a fresh document that would be the first draft of the
combined operational budget document. 

A public consultation, still to be scheduled, will be planned separately
from the public forum in Mar del Plata to discuss and consult on the
Strategic Overview.

Maureen Cubberley encouraged cross consultation to which Dr. Twomey
commented that some of the constituencies specifically asked to be
consulted apart and that it was not being disrespectful to cross
constituency consultation.
Dr Twomey agreed that both separate consultation with individual
stakeholder groups and joint consultation was required in the process 
Bruce Tonkin thanked Dr. Twomey for attending and all those who attended
the Amsterdam event that were on the call.


Item 3: Update on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for
consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the
architecture and operation of a gTLD registry. 
Bruce Tonkin reported on having an action item on the topic but
considered that the current priorities should be focussed on Whois.

Item 4: Update on WHOIS task forces

Jordyn Buchanan commented that there were two issues:

I. Task Force 1/2 developed recommendations relating to improving
notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois
system.
The recommendations were submitted to the GNSO public forum during Cape
Town meeting, Constituency statements and comments have been solicited,
2 constituencies have indicated reservations on the recommendation, the
task force has not yet determined how to deal with the issue. 
2. The second recommendation relating to a procedure for conflicts when
there are conflicts between a registrar's or registry's legal
obligations under local privacy laws and their contractual obligations
to ICANN had fairly broad support from the task force. The ICANN staff
reviewed the recommendations and staff expressed their concerns. The
task force has requested dialogue with Senior staff on the policy and
legal side, but has not yet been able to schedule a meeting with
relevant staff. 
3. Tiered access - not much work has been undertaken. The task force
intends to have outside experts present on implementation aspects of
tiered access. 

Bruce Tonkin proposed working closely with the GNSO Policy Officer to
develop a single document combining Whois task forces 1, 2 1/2 and 3
discussions.
This document would incorporate the material required in a task force
report as defined in the bylaws, such as the constituency statements,
current recommendations, and degree of support for the recommendations
(including where necessary a summary of majority and minority
positions). It would also include a summary of documentation on the
Whois issues using documents already prepared over several years, and
identify which aspects of the WHOIS issues fit into the mission of
ICANN. 


Bruce Tonkin proposed that the combined WHOIS task forces meet as a
group fairly regularly in the period prior to the Mar del Plata meetings
to focus on the Whois issue working from one document and documenting
the levels of agreement. 

Item 5: Election for ICANN Board seat #14 (currently held by Michael
Palage) 
- the GNSO Council must affirm the vote of Board Seat #14 no later than
5 May 2005 
- the elected Board member takes up seat #14 on 5 June 2005 
- Proposed process: - 
-- Call for nominations: Friday 11 March 2005 Call to be sent out on
Council list. (only Council members, based on consultation with their
constituencies, can nominate) 
-- End of nominations: Friday 25 March 2005 
-- hold election in person at the GNSO Council meeting in Mar del Plata,
6 April 2005 (note a majority of the Council votes must be in favour of
the successful candidate 
- this may require multiple rounds of voting) 

The Council discussions indicated that a separate election process by
email vote would be preferable, and to accelerate the nomination period
to allow sufficient time for an email vote prior to the Mar Del Plata
meeting. 

Bruce Tonkin seconded by Maureen Cubberley proposed:
- that Council agree to start the nomination period earlier 
- then conduct an e-mail vote 
- ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting

The motion was carried unanimously by voice vote

Decision 2:
- that Council agree to start the nomination period earlier 
- then conduct an e-mail vote 
- ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting 

Action Item: Errors on the website relating to the term of office for
Alejandro Pisanty and Michael Palage be rectified by the secretariat.

Item 6: Report from ICANN staff on current complaints raised by Internet
users and registrants

Kurt Pritz reported that after the 3 months of the transfer policy a
draft report is being prepared stating the registrant, registrar and
registry experiences.

The focus of the report:

1. Authentification and verification methods - their success
The transfer policy - complaints
- Failure in making transfers because registrars were locking all names
and it was difficult to unlock them
- Opportunity of fraud, theft and hijacking of names - one real
circumstance and 2 unsubstantiated cases

2. Dispute resolution process
- procedure that was required by the registries in case there was a
dispute whether a transfer should be made or not.
In the first 3 months there was only one instance where it was invoked,
instead what appeared was that ICANN staff worked regularly on
addressing registrant complaints on the transfer process.
Most complaints were that the registrant wanted to transfer and could
not because the name was locked.
The purpose behind the dispute resolution process and the fee associated
with it was that the fees would inflict some amount of pain for those
not complying with the transfer process and it was a self policing
mechanism. The fact that ICANN staff was doing the dispute resolution
worked around the fee. A topic to be addressed at a later stage to
examine whether the Dispute resolution process could be made more
affective.

3. Undo mechanism
The registries were required to implement an undo mechanism to assure
that unauthorized transfers could be reversed. This appeared to be
effective, the only complaints were about timeliness. and this would be
the subject of further study.

Statistics

Over half complaints relate to making transfers easier to make.
Over a third - 40% of the comments to date concern loosing registrars
locking domain names so that they cannot be transferred or resellers
using their own name as registrant data, or some other form of nacking
the transfer.
10 % commented that the whole process should be faster.
Less prevalent complaint was the quality of the Whois data especially at
the reseller level. A correction to the Whois data would help the
process itself.
56 % of the comments and most of the phone calls were about speeding up
the process.
18% regard altering the form of authorization to make it more effective.

The comments went across the board for example: 
adding additional lock identifications, 
authorization, 
spam filters
18 % comments said the transfer policy was susceptible to theft.

The report will be released shortly.

Item 7: Update from ICANN staff on new appointments, and plans for
issues report on re-registration of recently deleted names
Paul Verhoef introduced Maria Farrell the new GNSO Policy Officer who
started on February 7, 2005 and reported that Olaf Nortling, a Swedish
citizen would start on March1 2005. Both would be based at the Brussels
office.
Maria Farrell introduced herself saying that she had come to ICANN from
the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Her background was
policy development on Internet related issues with different
constituencies over the last few years. 


Item 8: Any other business:

a. Amsterdam discussion.
Bruce Tonkin stated that during the last meeting, January 13, 2005 a
budget was approved, in the mean time money had been spent and a copy of
the invoice had been sent to all Council members thus the council should
formally approve the expenditure of those funds.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs proposed:
that the GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of
5131 Euros in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council
members and that those funds will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds
account.

Formal nominative vote:
24 votes in favour 2 votes absent (Kiyoshi Tsuru, Lucy Nichols)

Motion carried.

Decision 3
The GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of 5131
Euros in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council members and
those funds will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds account


b. The Mar del Plata meeting schedule 
Marilyn Cade expressed concern about the naming of Constituency day and
concern that the schedule change on the website caused inconvenience in
personal traveling schedules.

Bruce Tonkin proposed planning 
- a joint WHOIS task force / GNSO Council meeting and a GNSO Public
Forum in Mar del Plata where comments would be invited from the public.
- 3 April - GNSO Council and GAC meeting on Sunday morning with a paper
prepared on both sides
- 3 April - Sunday afternoon GNSO Council meeting for operational
planning session with GNSO Policy staff
- 4 April - Monday morning GNSO Council Breakfast
- 4 April - Monday meeting with constituencies
- 5 April - Tuesday morning Whois joint task force meeting with Council
- 5 April -Tuesday afternoon Deleted Names issue
- 5 April -Tuesday WSIS

Bruce Tonkin suggested continuing the discussion the Mar Del Plata
planning on the Council list.

c. Cary Karp commented on an issue that has been discussed in the
community regarding possible security problems with IDN domain names
that look similar to a typical user. He reported that the registry
constituency had prepared a statement explaining how the registry
operators have addressed the issue and this statement would be made
known to the Council

d. Alick Wilson raised the question of the vacancy on the Nominating
Committee. 
Bruce Tonkin proposed contacting John Jeffrey on the issue
Alick Wilson proposed that the candidates should make a statement about
themselves and the position that they wished to take

e. Thomas Roessler announced that he would be leaving the Council as he
would be replaced by the newly appointed ALAC representative by the next
Council meeting.
Bruce Tonkin, on behalf of the Council, thanked him for his
contributions.


Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.
The meeting ended: 21:10 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="17 February 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">17 February 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-17feb05.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. absent, apologies- proxy 
  to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade<br>
  Marilyn Cade - Commercial &amp; Business Users C. <br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business Users C<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce 
Tonkin<br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries <br>
  Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries <br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD registries <br>
  Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. <br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - proxy to Marc Schneiders<br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C.<br>
  Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc 
  Schneiders<br>
  Alick Wilson<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maureen Cubberley</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Dr. Paul Twomey - ICANN President and CEO <br>
  Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support<br>
  Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations<br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat <br>
  <br>
  Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager - absent <br>
  <br>
  <b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><br>
  Thomas Roessler - acting ALAC Liaison <br>
  Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison <br>
  <br>
  Visitors: (participants and contributors at the Amsterdam Consultation 
meeting)<br>
  <br>
  Chuck Gomes - Verisign Naming and Directory Services<br>
  David Maher - PIR Senior Vice President</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  Mark McFadden - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency 
chair<br>
  Marie Zitkova - gTLD Registries Chair<br>
  Jordyn Buchanan - Co-chair Whois task force 1/2<br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050217.mp3";>MP3 
Recording:</a><br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 20:10 CET.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1:</b> Approval of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-17feb05.htm";>Agenda</a><br>
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-17feb05.htm";>Agenda 
</a>Approved<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Approval of the </b><br>
  <b><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm";>Minutes 
  of 13 January 2005<br>
  </a><br>
  Ken Stubbs </b> moved the adoption of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm";>Minutes 
  of 13 January 2005</a> <br>
  Motion unanimously approved.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 1: The minutes of</b> <b><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm";>13 
  January 2005</a></b> <b>were adopted<br>
  </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Report on Amsterdam 
Consultation 
  on the ICANN Strategic Plan 7-8 February 2005.<br>
  Marilyn Cade </b>summarized the<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00768.html";> 
  outcome of the Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN Strategic Plan</a> on 7 
and 
  8 February, thanked Dr Twomey, the participants, presenters and ICANN staff 
  for their support. The first day was devoted to presentations and the second 
  day to rapporteurs who presented a synthesis of those comments that received 
  broad agreement. The consensus comments were divided into 2 categories: <br>
  1. Consultation Process Recommendations for the development of the current 
plan 
  <br>
  2. Substantive Comment Recommendations consisted of comments on the plan 
which 
  received broad agreement associated with the four key areas of the Strategic 
  Plan. <br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Tony Holmes 
</b>emphasized 
  3 important factors needed for ongoing success:<br>
  - Call for ICANN to make sure the next version of the plan was published in 
  advance for the Mar del Plata meeting<br>
  - Organize the event in Mar del Plata for further discussion <br>
  - Process developed in Amsterdam </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">is 
  moved forward in terms of the next strategic plan.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin </b>commented that there were 3 documents that should be 
provided<br>
  - The Strategic plan for the next 3 years (2005, 2006, 2007)<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- The Operational plan for 
  the next 12 months (July 2005 to June 2006)<br>
  - The Budget for the next 12 months (July 2005 to June 2006)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Dr. Paul Twomey</b> thanked the 
  Council for the invitation and all those involved in organizing the Amsterdam 
  Consultation meeting. Some of the output was consistent with other output 
received 
  during consultations while, some was different.<br>
  There was agreement on the terms of how to move forward. Past experience had 
  shown that it takes some years to get a set of organizational planning 
documents 
  and cycles right for an organization, and the feed back from the first 
strategic 
  plan was not surprising.<br>
  In terms of the cycle, it would appropriate to break down the documents in 3 
  parts:<br>
  <br>
  1. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Strategic overview<br>
  2. Operational plan<br>
  3. Financial implications <br>
  <br>
  Currently, and since ICANN's creation, the operational plan and the budget 
document 
  are merged together with much of the past discussion focussed on the budget 
  and finances. The feedback would be useful to look at the three parts 
together. 
  Evolving the planning process including consultation was more important than 
  spending all the community's and ICANN staff's remaining attention on 
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">one 
  particular document. The feedback from several consultation meetings is that 
  the operational plan is the next priority.<br>
  Consequently the feedback from the Amsterdam and other consultations should 
  be taken to look at what would affect the strategic overview broadly. The 
operational 
  details in the present document could be separated,and used as input into the 
  operational/budget planning process due to be presented for board approval in 
  Luxembourg, and a document that focuses on the strategic overview could be 
prepared 
  for discussion at the Mar del Plata in a public meeting after which the Board 
  could approve.<br>
  Following the Mar del Plata meeting, ICANN staff in consultation with the 
community 
  would be working on the operational plan, taking into account the operational 
  aspects, achievements aimed at, specific projects and timeframes for the next 
  year.<br>
  <b>Dr. Twomey </b>commented that this year, 2005 the operational plan will 
need 
  to be combined with the development of the budget, but the desire was, and 
this 
  seemed to come out of the Amsterdam contributions as well, to move to a 
planning 
  cycle, namely:<br>
  - July to December 2005 would focus on the strategic overview and the 
revision 
  of the strategic overview document.<br>
  - December 2005 through to May /June 2006 would focus on operational planning 
  documentation and the budget <br>
  This would start building a yearly cycle where discussions and consultation 
  would take place on the strategic overview, the operational plan and the 
budget 
  aspects.<br>
  Dr. Twomey concluded by saying that an enormous amount of time and effort had 
  gone into producing the strategic document and appreciated the consultation. 
  He felt the community would not benefit much from a significant re-writing of 
  another version of the document, but rather should focus on trying to take 
another 
  cut at the larger picture, the strategic overview, based on the input 
received 
  from the community, and then move on to the operational aspects for the next 
  12 months.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Grant Forsyth</b> asked </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">where 
  we were in the operational and planning cycle, where did the current plan sit 
  in that? <br>
  <b>Dr. Paul Twomey </b>responded that in the past ICANN had produced a 
combined 
  operational plan/budget for the period July to June. The bylaws require the 
  budget document to be completed by certain stages and by June. The budget 
preparation 
  has started and initial discussions have been had with budget advisory group. 
  More input is required on the the operational aspects of this document. Some 
  of the things listed in the strategic plan document had already been 
completed. 
  The document was a new type of document for ICANN, and it was difficult to 
write 
  to meet the objectives of providing a strategic overview of ICANN as well as 
  provide enough detail on the operational activities of ICANN for those not 
familiar 
  with ICANN. <br>
  Some things at the operational level have been or are being implemented and 
  this is partly the reason why it is now better to take a cut through the 
present 
  document and distinguish which belongs to the strategic overview of ICANN and 
  what needs to be achieved as part of the operational plan. More project 
specific 
  items should be part of an operational document which could be incorporated 
  in the budget process.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> clarified saying that he supposed there was a framework 
  for a strategic plan when the 2004/2005 budget was produced and what Grant 
Forsyth 
  was referring to were the dates in the strategic document that </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">refers 
  to the current budget year (July 04 to June 05), whereas we should now look 
  at a three year period starting from July 2005. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Dr. Paul Twomey</b> agreed, the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">budget 
  process being looked at was for the financial year July 2005/ June 2006. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Maureen Cubberley </b>agreed that it took up to 2 years to establish an 
appropriate 
  planning cycle and suggested that as a starting point for determining the 
planning 
  process it might be useful to develop an overlay that looked at the fiscal 
year 
  milestones, key Board meetings, decision milestones, and the groups that fed 
  into those decisions and than try to structure a 2 year timeframe so as to 
find 
  parallel points to put the planning process forward and critical deadlines. 
  <br>
  She explained her understanding of the strategic overview as a shared 
responsibility, 
  less of a consultation by the staff with the stakeholders and more of a 
participatory 
  process from the beginning and asked whether Dr. Twomey agreed that it was a 
  shared responsibility and would there be a process for that?<br>
  <b>Dr. Paul Twomey</b> explained why the document was a challenge, why there 
  were several versions and why it did not come through the consultation 
process 
  earlier. It was partly because there were several external audience groups 
and 
  some parts of the document could be seen as desirable by some and undesirable 
  by others. He added that it was natural in a community where many people 
voluntarily 
  contributed much time and experience they could not be expected to draft a 
document 
  from scratch. The intent was to produce a document that could be responded to 
  and not a final version. <br>
  He went on to make a practical observation that when targets in any planning 
  document were not met by an organization, the reason was often that new 
issues 
  emerge which required resources to be reallocated because of the pressing 
nature 
  of the new situation. ICANN, he felt, was prone to such emergencies, and 
while 
  a plan and projects were needed, practical realities happened during the 
year.<br>
  <b>Tony Holmes</b> requested clarity on one element that seemed to have 
fallen 
  away and looked back at the process recommendations from the Amsterdam 
meeting.<br>
  1 focus on the strategic plan for the future coupled with the budget 
activity<br>
  2. Operational plan to be published before Argentina meeting.<br>
  If understood correctly that would not happen.<br>
  <b>Dr. Paul Twomey </b>replied<b> </b>that the current ICANN budget was an 
attempted 
  operational plan backed by spreadsheets and the 2004/2005 budget as posted, 
  gave information on what was going to be done. He stressed the benefit in 
getting 
  the constituencies and the community to focus on the project aspects of the 
  operational plan/budget document rather than how they would be funded. 
Budget, 
  in the ICANN sense meant some version of the operational plan and the budget. 
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized that for the Mar del Plata meetings a new 
version 
  of the strategic overview document would be produced which would take into 
account 
  the output of the Amsterdam meeting plus other consultations, but may strip 
  out some of the operational material and put that in a fresh document that 
would 
  be the first draft of the combined operational budget document. <br>
  <br>
  A public consultation, still to be scheduled, will be planned separately from 
  the public forum in Mar del Plata to discuss and consult on the Strategic 
Overview.<br>
  <b><br>
  Maureen Cubberley</b> encouraged cross consultation to which Dr. Twomey 
commented 
  that some of the constituencies specifically asked to be consulted apart and 
  that it was not being disrespectful to cross constituency consultation.<br>
  <b>Dr Twomey</b> agreed that both separate consultation with individual 
stakeholder 
  groups and joint consultation was required in the process <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> thanked <b>Dr. Twomey</b> for attending and all those who 
  attended the Amsterdam event that were on the call.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Item 3: Update on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for 
  consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the 
architecture 
  and operation of a gTLD registry. <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>reported on having an action item on the topic but 
considered 
  that the current priorities should be focussed on Whois<b>.<br>
  <br>
  Item 4: Update on WHOIS task forces<br>
  <br>
  Jordyn Buchanan</b> commented that there were two issues:<b><br>
  <br>
  </b>I. Task Force 1/2 developed <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-notification-30nov04.pdf";>recommendations</a><b>
 
  </b>relating to improving notification and consent for the use of contact 
data 
  in the Whois system<b>.<br>
  </b>The recommendations were submitted to the GNSO public forum during Cape 
  Town meeting, Constituency statements and comments have been solicited, 2 
constituencies 
  have indicated reservations on the recommendation, the task force has not yet 
  determined how to deal with the issue. <br>
  2. The <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf";>second
 
  recommendation</a> relating to a procedure for conflicts when there are 
conflicts 
  between a registrar's or registry's legal obligations under local privacy 
laws 
  and their contractual obligations to ICANN<b> </b>had fairly broad support 
from 
  the task force. The ICANN staff reviewed the recommendations and staff 
expressed 
  their concerns. The task force has requested dialogue with Senior staff on 
the 
  policy and legal side, but has not yet been able to schedule a meeting with 
  relevant staff. <br>
  3. Tiered access - not much work has been undertaken. The task force intends 
  to have outside experts present on implementation aspects of tiered access. 
  <b><br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed working closely with the GNSO Policy Officer to 
develop 
  a single document combining Whois task forces 1, 2 1/2 and 3 discussions.<br>
  This document would incorporate the material required in a task force report 
  as defined in the bylaws, such as the constituency statements, current 
recommendations, 
  and degree of support for the recommendations (including where necessary a 
summary 
  of majority and minority positions). It would also include a summary of 
documentation 
  on the Whois issues using documents already prepared over several years, and 
  identify which aspects of the WHOIS issues fit into the mission of ICANN. <br>
  <br>
  <b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed that the combined WHOIS task forces meet as a group 
  fairly regularly in the period prior to the Mar del Plata meetings to focus 
  on the Whois issue working from one document and documenting the levels of 
agreement. 
  <br>
  <b><br>
  </b><b>Item 5: Election for ICANN Board seat #14 (currently held by Michael 
  Palage) <br>
  - the GNSO Council must affirm the vote of Board Seat #14 no later than 5 May 
  2005 <br>
  - the elected Board member takes up seat #14 on 5 June 2005 <br>
  - Proposed process: - <br>
  -- Call for nominations: Friday 11 March 2005 Call to be sent out on Council 
  list. (only Council members, based on consultation with their constituencies, 
  can nominate) <br>
  -- End of nominations: Friday 25 March 2005 <br>
  -- hold election in person at the GNSO Council meeting in Mar del Plata, 6 
April 
  2005 (note a majority of the Council votes must be in favour of the 
successful 
  candidate <br>
  - this may require multiple rounds of voting) <br>
  </b><br>
  The Council discussions indicated that a separate election<b> </b>process by 
  email vote would be preferable, and to accelerate the nomination period to 
allow 
  sufficient time for an email vote prior to the Mar Del Plata meeting. <br>
  <b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>seconded by <b>Maureen Cubberley </b>proposed:<b><br>
  </b>- that Council agree to start the nomination period earlier <br>
  - then conduct an e-mail vote <br>
  - ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The motion was carried unanimously 
  by voice vote<br>
  <b><br>
  Decision 2:<br>
  - that Council agree to start the nomination period earlier <br>
  - then conduct an e-mail vote <br>
  - ratifying the e-mail vote at the Mar del Plata meeting </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Action Item: </b>Errors on the 
  website relating to the term of office for Alejandro Pisanty and Michael 
Palage 
  be rectified by the secretariat.<b><br>
  <br>
  Item 6: Report from ICANN staff on current complaints raised by Internet 
users 
  and registrants<br>
  <br>
  Kurt Pritz </b>reported that after the 3 months of the transfer policy a 
draft 
  report is being prepared stating the registrant, registrar and registry 
experiences.<br>
  <br>
  <b>The focus of the report:</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>1. Authentification and 
verification 
  methods - their success<br>
  </b>The transfer policy - complaints<br>
  - Failure in making transfers because registrars were locking all names and 
  it was difficult to unlock them<br>
  - Opportunity of fraud, theft and hijacking of names - one real circumstance 
  and 2 unsubstantiated cases<br>
  <br>
  <b>2. Dispute resolution process</b><br>
  - procedure that was required by the registries in case there was a dispute 
  whether a transfer should be made or not.<br>
  In the first 3 months there was only one instance where it was invoked, 
instead 
  what appeared was that ICANN staff worked regularly on addressing registrant 
  complaints on the transfer process.<br>
  Most complaints were that the registrant wanted to transfer and could not 
because 
  the name was locked.<br>
  The purpose behind the dispute resolution process and the fee associated with 
  it was that the fees would inflict some amount of pain for those not 
complying 
  with the transfer process and it was a self policing mechanism. The fact that 
  ICANN staff was doing the dispute resolution worked around the fee. A topic 
  to be addressed at a later stage to examine whether the Dispute resolution 
process 
  could be made more affective.<br>
  <br>
  <b>3. Undo mechanism</b><br>
  The registries were required to implement an undo mechanism to assure that 
unauthorized 
  transfers could be reversed. This appeared to be effective, the only 
complaints 
  were about timeliness. and this would be the subject of further study.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Statistics</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Over half complaints relate to 
making 
  transfers easier to make.<br>
  Over a third - 40% of the comments to date concern loosing registrars locking 
  domain names so that they cannot be transferred or resellers using their own 
  name as registrant data, or some other form of nacking the transfer.<br>
  10 % commented that the whole process should be faster.<br>
  Less prevalent complaint was the quality of the Whois data especially at the 
  reseller level. A correction to the Whois data would help the process 
itself.<br>
  56 % of the comments and most of the phone calls were about speeding up the 
  process.<br>
  18% regard altering the form of authorization to make it more effective. <br>
  The comments went across the board for example: <br>
  adding additional lock identifications, <br>
  authorization, <br>
  spam filters<br>
  18 % comments said the transfer policy was susceptible to theft.<br>
  <br>
  The report will be released shortly.<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 7: Update from ICANN 
  staff on new appointments, and plans for issues report on re-registration of 
  recently deleted names<br>
  Paul Verhoef </b>introduced Maria Farrell the new GNSO Policy Officer who 
started 
  on February 7, 2005 and reported that Olaf Nortling, a Swedish citizen would 
  start on March1 2005. Both would be based at the Brussels office.<br>
  <b>Maria Farrell</b> introduced herself saying that she had come to ICANN 
from 
  the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Her background was policy 
development 
  on Internet related issues with different constituencies over the last few 
years.<b> 
  <br>
  </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> Item 8: Any other business:<br>
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
  a. Amsterdam discussion.</b><b><br>
  Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that during the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm";>last 
  meeting, January 13, 2005</a> a budget was approved, in the mean time money 
  had been spent and a copy of the invoice had been sent to all Council members 
  thus the council should formally approve the expenditure of those funds.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Ken Stubbs</b> proposed:<br>
  that the GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of 5131 
  Euros in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council members and that 
  those funds will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds account<b>.<br>
  <br>
  </b>Formal nominative vote:<br>
  24 votes in favour 2 votes absent (Kiyoshi Tsuru, Lucy Nichols)<br>
  <br>
  Motion carried.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 3<br>
  The GNSO Council approves the payment of invoices for the amount of 5131 
Euros 
  in accordance with the invoice as presented to Council members and those 
funds 
  will be dispersed from the DNSO/GNSO Funds account<br>
  </b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. The Mar del Plata meeting 
schedule 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> expressed concern about the naming of Constituency day 
and 
  concern that the schedule change on the website caused inconvenience in 
personal 
  traveling schedules.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed planning <br>
  - a joint WHOIS task force / GNSO Council meeting and a GNSO Public Forum in 
  Mar del Plata where comments would be invited from the public.<br>
  - 3 April - GNSO Council and GAC meeting on Sunday morning with a paper 
prepared 
  on both sides<br>
  - 3 April - Sunday afternoon GNSO Council meeting for operational planning 
session 
  with GNSO Policy staff<br>
  - 4 April - Monday morning GNSO Council Breakfast<br>
  - 4 April - Monday meeting with constituencies<br>
  - 5 April - Tuesday morning Whois joint task force meeting with Council<br>
  - 5 April -Tuesday afternoon Deleted Names issue<br>
  - 5 April -Tuesday WSIS<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested continuing the discussion the Mar Del Plata 
planning 
  on the Council list.<b><br>
  </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
  c. Cary Karp </b>commented on an issue that has been discussed in the 
community 
  regarding possible security problems with IDN domain names that look similar 
  to a typical user. He reported that the registry constituency had prepared a 
  statement explaining how the registry operators have addressed the issue and 
  this statement would be made known to the Council<br>
  <br>
  <b>d. Alick Wilson</b> raised the question of the vacancy on the Nominating 
  Committee. <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed contacting John Jeffrey on the issue<br>
  <b>Alick Wilson</b> proposed that the candidates should make a statement 
about 
  themselves and the position that they wished to take<br>
  <br>
  <b>e. Thomas Roessler</b> announced that he would be leaving the Council as 
  he would be replaced by the newly appointed ALAC representative by the next 
  Council meeting.<br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, on behalf of the Council, thanked him for his 
contributions.<br>
  </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: 21:10 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>