[council] GNSO Council revised minutes 17 February 2005

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

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

Please find the GNSO Council minutes as revised by Kurt Pritz for:

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

Thank you.
Regards,

--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org

<!--#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<br>
  <br>
  </b>Analyzing a sample of the comments and emails concerning the Transfer 
Policy: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Over half complaints state that 
transfers should be easier to make than the new transfer policy allows. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Between a third and 40% of the 
comments to date complain that losing registrars lock domain names so that they 
cannot be transferred or resellers use some other form of nacking the transfer. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Approximately 10 % commented that 
the whole process should be faster. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Less prevalent complaint was the 
quality of the Whois data, especially at the reseller level interfered with 
transfers. Correction to the Whois data would help the process 
itself.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Approximately 18% suggested 
altering the form of authorization to make it more effective. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The other (smaller percentage of) 
comments included different sorts of suggestions, for example: adding 
additional lock identifications, types of authorization, and the fact that the 
forms of authorization are screened by some spam filters. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Approximately 18 % comments said 
the transfer policy might increase susceptibility to name theft. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Transfer Policy three-month 
review report will be released shortly. These statistics may change somewhat 
based upon a more complete review of information. </font></p>
<p><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></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><b><br>
  <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><br>
  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>