[council] GNSO Council draft minutes 18 August 2005

[GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Dear Council members,

Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council 
teleconference held on 18 August 2005.
Please let me know what changes you would like made.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen
--
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="18 August 2005"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference 
Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">18 August 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>agenda and 
related documents </a></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 - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars <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  - absent <br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. <br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.<br>
  Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. <br>
  Alick Wilson   </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Nominating 
Committee appointee - absent <br>
  Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee  - absent - apologies  - 
proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin <br>
  Avri Doria -  Nominating Committee appointee 
  </font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 15 Council Members<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel <br>
  Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations  <br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination  <br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
  Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor <br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><br>
 Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison <br>
 Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison <br>
 <br>
  Michael Palage - ICANN Board member <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Invited guests:</strong><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Whois 
  task force </strong><br>
  Jordyn Buchanan - Chair WHOIS Task Force <br>
  Tim Ruiz<br>
  Kathy Kleiman<br>
  <strong>Registrar Constituency</strong><br>
  Bhavin Turakhia - Chair Registrars Constituency <br>
  Jonathon Nevett
  - Chair Dot Net RAA Comments working group within the registrars constituency 
<br>
  <br>
<a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050818.mp3";>MP3 
Recording</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 14:05 CET.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1:</b> <strong>Approval of the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>Agenda</a></strong><br>
  <strong>Lucy Nichols </strong>requested an update on WIPO II under item 2   
<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> requested an item under any other business on 
the ICANN Strategic Planning process <br>
  <BR>
  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>Agenda</a> 
approved 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Approval of the </b><br>
  <b><a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12jul05.shtml";>Minutes of 
12 July 2005</a><br>
  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-28jul05.shtml";>Minutes of 
28 July 2005</a><br>
  <br>
  Ken Stubbs  </b>moved that the adoption of the minutes of <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12jul05.shtml";>12 July 
2005</a> and <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-28jul05.shtml";>28 July 
2005.</a><b><br>
  Motion unanimously approved <br>
  <br>
  Marilyn Cade</b> suggested there be level of detail in the minutes that fully 
documented the discussions particularly when there was a vote. <b><br>
  <br>
  Decision 1: The minutes of <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12jul05.shtml";>12 July 
2005</a> and <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-28jul05.shtml";>28 July 
2005</a> were adopted<br>
  <br>
</b><strong>Item 3: Staff action items</strong><BR>
- list of current GNSO work items<br>
<strong>Kurt Pritz</strong> suggested that improving the minutes and the 
current GNSO work items report  should be taken off line with Maria, Glen and 
Olof.<br>
 <strong>Lucy Nichols</strong> clarified that the intent of raising the WIPO II 
issue was to have a status report from staff. <br>
 <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> requested an update from staff in the next 7 
days. <BR>
 <strong>- legal text for WHOIS recommendation.<br>
 </strong><strong>Dan Halloran</strong>, Deputy General Counsel, <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01237.html";>responded
 on the Whois recommendation and confirmed</a> and approved the terminology 
&quot;clear and conspicuous.&quot; <BR>
 <strong>- Updated paper on  past decisions and documents relating to new gtlds 
</strong><br>
<strong>Olof Nordling</strong>  updated the paper on <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-TLDs-16aug05.pdf";>New TLDs 
past decisions and documents</a>.<BR>
- timeline for developing GNSO review terms of reference<br>
<strong>Liz Williams</strong> referred to the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01241.html";>GNSO
 Review proposed Terms of reference phase one</a> paper and outlined the time 
lines in section F.<br>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested 2 phases in the process:<br>
a. internal discussion between the council and the constituency officers<br>
b. follow up discussion with members of the Board, that is those elected by the 
supporting organisations and the Governance committee.<br>
<strong><br>
Item 4: <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01159.html";>Consideration
 of revised consensus recommendation with respect<BR>
to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the<BR>
Whois system<BR>
(current version posted to Council on 27 July 2005)</a><BR>
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01159.html</strong></font></p>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed recommendation:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"1) Registrars must provide notice 
in the registration agreement with<BR>
  the Registered Name Holder that is easy to find, clear, and conspicuous<BR>
  within the registration agreement stating:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) The purposes of the WHOIS 
service, which consists of the provision<BR>
  of an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free<BR>
  public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily)<BR>
  data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by the Registrar.<BR>
  In addition the WHOIS service includes the provision of third-party bulk<BR>
  access to the data.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) The purposes of the Registered 
Name Holder, technical, and<BR>
  administrative contacts</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(c) Which of the contact data in 
(b) will be made public via the WHOIS<BR>
  service in (a).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(2) ICANN must provide on its 
website information on industry best<BR>
  practice to meet the obligation in (1) above."</FONT><BR>
  <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
referred to a <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01273.html";>posting
 from the Whois task force chair, Jordyn Buchanan</a>, expressing concerns 
raised by the task force on the recommendation. <br>
  <strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> in addressing the topic, clarified that the 
task force had not discussed the issue in detail, but wanted to make the 
Council aware and consider the issue before it took any decision on the 
matter.<br>
  The issue raised was that there was some concern that the recommendation to 
improve notice  constituted a waiver, on behalf of the registrant, with regard 
to their privacy rights. It was not an issue raised during task force 
discussions nor was it the intent of the task force. There were however divided 
views in the task force on whether it constituted a waiver.  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01290.html";>Marc
 Rotenberg, Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center</a>, 


at the request of a member of the non-commercial users constituency,

 gave the opinion, but the task force had not sought its own legal advice.  
Some task force members suggested that council may want to defer voting on the 
issue until it became part of other recommendations 


under development within the WHOIS task force.<br>
<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>noted that even if the recommendation were 
approved at present it could not be implemented until the task force had 
completed its work on purposes of the Whois and the contacts. <br>
  <strong>Phil Colebrook</strong> commented that the registry constituency 
would like a deferral on the issue. <br>
  <strong>Ross Rader</strong> clarified that were perhaps 3 schools of thought 
on the recommendation: <br>
  - those who thought it  constituted a waiver<br>
  - those who did not think that it constituted a waiver <br>
  - those who did not know what the recommendation constituted<br>
  thus recommended to council  to understand the implications of the 
recommendation and be comfortable with them.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested that a council member formulate a 
question that could be presented to General Counsel for a response. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>commented that not being on the call, from 
discussions with task force members, there appeared to be a procedural issue 
within the task force which should be dealt with in the task force.  When 
topics had been thoroughly discussed, submitted  for public comment and had 
gotten issues raised, at some point responsibility should be taken to move 
forward. Having made that statement, on the particular issue at hand, as a 
councillor, Marilyn could support deferring a decision but it should be noted 
that the level of the discussion as it took place in the task force was not a 
substantive discussion and there had been earlier substantive discussions on 
what the RAA implied in terms of notice that should be informative to the task 
force and the council. Marilyn was in favour of posing a question to General 
Counsel but emphasised the need to have a procedural clarification for future 
similar issues in the task force. <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that the &quot;problem&quot; should 
be clearly stated and then solutions could be sought, but currently it was not 
clear how it constituted a problem for privacy rights.<br>
  <strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong> summarised the issue on whether the 
recommendation could be interpreted as a waiver. In discussions with task force 
1 members, the intent of the task force was to inform registrants, many who did 
not know their personal data was being published in the global WHOIS,   and 
clearly the intent was not to waive privacy rights.  She also discussed the 
ongoing work of the WHOIS task force to reform the WHOIS, and the fact that the 
task force did not want to bypass this process by waiving privacy rights via 
notice provisions.</font></P>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then Kathy outlined the opinion 
that for her raised concerns about waiver.  Marc Rotenberg, director of the 
Electronic Information Privacy Center (an oral opinion, now issued as a written 
opinion) stated that the Notice and Consent might be construed as a waiver of 
privacy rights without additional protections.</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <strong>Avri Doria</strong>, was of the opinion that the Council should 
defer approval of the recommendation and  Council should deal with the issue 
before sending it back to the task force.<br>
    <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> noted for the record and the minutes that in 
fact the task force did not seek an opinion from Marc Rotenberg but a 
constituency, who was represented on the task force had sought the opinion.  
Care should be taken in recording the minutes accurately.<br>
  Secondly, the earlier comment that the task force, under the leadership and 
guidance of the chair needed to address procedural issues so that the situation 
did not arise of constituencies meeting to say &quot;let me explain what my 
statement means in public&quot; but that was what governed the task force, so 
Marilyn reiterated the suggestion that, working with the chair, procedures 
should be agreed upon to enable the task force to work effectively when such a 
difference of opinion arose.<br>
    <strong>Tony Harris</strong> stated that he did not agree with Kathy 
Kleiman's appraisal of the ISP comment. The ISP Constituency did not come to 
the same conclusion reading it. The comment did not form part of the 
recommendation.<br>
    <strong>Robin Gross</strong> agreed that the vote should be deferred until 
there was a chance to look at the privacy implications more clearly and that 
Marc Rotenberg was right to be concerned by a possible waiver of privacy 
rights, but that was never the intent of the task force. Robin offered to send 
a formal question via email to the council to be put to the ICANN legal Counsel 
to obtain an opinion on privacy rights and waiver.<br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> encouraged a well formulated description of 
the concern so that external advice from the General Counsel could be sought. 
<br>
    <strong>Ross Rader</strong> commenting on process and as the person who 
opened up the issue in the task force, emphasised the need  to move the issue 
forward with simple clear clarifications ..<br>
    <strong>Bret Fausett </strong>commented that ALAC had discussed the 
recommendation, were in favour of disclosure but would  not be in favour of it 
reducing privacy rights and proposed a  statement at the end of the disclosure 
that this was not intended to waive any privacy rights that existed under 
national law. <br>
    <strong>Ken Stubbs </strong>supported Robin Gross that there be  a legal 
interpretation and added that  if Bret Fausett's suggestion were adopted it 
should be displayed in a prominent section of the RAA, that could not be missed 
by a registrant.<br>
    <strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> clarified that the task force was no 
longer chartered to work on the issue  under the current terms of reference.<br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>recommended<br> 
 that the recommendation be kept at the Council level, but further advice be 
sought on the implications of the recommendation. <br>
 <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>seconded by <strong>Ross Rader </strong>proposed 
a procedural motion:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To defer voting on the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01159.html";>revised
 consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent 
for the use of contact data in the Whois system</a> at the present council 
meeting and that the council seeks legal advice on the implications that have 
been raised with respect to privacy. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> expressed support of the motion
  <br>
  <br>
  The procedural motion carried unanimously by voice vote.<br>
  <br> 
  <strong>Decision 2: To defer voting on the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01159.html";>revised
 consensus recommendation with respect to improving notification and consent 
for the use of contact data in the Whois system</a> at the present council 
meeting and that the council seeks legal advice on the implications that have 
been raised with respect to privacy. </strong><br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> thanked the  Whois task force chair and members 
for their participation.<br>
<BR>
  <strong>Item 5: Discussion of proposed changes to ICANN bylaws to improve 
transparency with respect to contract approvals<BR>
- see<BR>
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01224.html<BR>
- presentation from chair of registrars constituency and chair of registrar 
constituency subcommittee reviewing bylaws</strong><br>
<BR>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> introduced the item on the agenda as author of an 
amendment to the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01224.html";>proposed
 changes to the ICANN bylaws to improve transparency by the registrar 
constituency</a> and proposed that a registrar address the topic.<br>
<strong>Jonathon Nevett, </strong>chair of the registrar constituency working 
group for comments on the .net RAA (Registry-Registrar Agreements) stated that 
for the past year the registrar community had concerns about the contracting 
process, in particular relating to the community's right to have an opportunity 
of notice and to be heard with regard to ICANN related contracts. The issue 
first arose in November 2004 when Verisign had an amendment to the .net and the 
.com Registry-Registrar agreements with the registrars approved without 
registrars' input, knowledge or an opportunity to be heard. This was followed 
by the recent . net agreement where material changes were made to the dot net 
agreement, these were signed by ICANN and the registry, again without 
knowledge, input or comment from the community. In order to address those 
concerns, an amendment to the ICANN bylaws was drafted to support one of 
ICANN's core values  which is to operate in an open and transparent manner, 
consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The suggested changes 
were made to <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#III";>article
 3, Transparency, section 6</a> , which relates to a &quot;notice and comment 
on policy actions&quot; and &quot;contract approvals&quot; were added. It 
should be noted that it does not apply to all contracts but is limited to 
specific contracts that are material or that substantially affect the operation 
of the Internet or third parties, thus the major material contracts that impact 
the community. What is currently in place for policy actions, a 21 day advance 
notice and opportunity to be heard, would apply to contracts before the board 
approves the contracts. Before the ICANN Board approved the contracts and they 
were signed by ICANN there should be an opportunity to be heard and to review 
the agreements. <br>
Changes were also suggested in <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#XV";>article
 15, section 1 Contracts.</a><br>
<strong><br>
Jonathon Nevett</strong> concluded by stating that </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">registrars </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">were supportive of Marilyn Cade's added section d:<br>
<em>d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects public policy 
concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization&rsquo;s policy council 
and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its own 
initiative or at the Board&rsquo;s request. </em><br>
<br>
and was looking for the GNSO to support the amendments to the bylaws to ensure 
openness and transparency in the contracting process. <br>
<br>
<strong>ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY<br>
<br>
Section 6. NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS <em>AND CONTRACT APPROVALS<br>
<br>
</em></strong>1. With respect to any policies <em>or contracts</em> that are 
being considered by the Board for adoption <em>or approval</em> that 
substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including 
the imposition of any fees or charges, ICANN shall: <br>
<br>
a. provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies <em>or 
contracts </em>are being considered for adoption <em>or approval</em> and why, 
at least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by the 
Board; <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> b. provide a reasonable 
opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies 
<em>or approval of the proposed contracts,</em> to see the comments of others, 
and to reply to those comments, prior to any action by the Board; and<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">c. in those cases where the 
policy action <em>or contract </em>affects public policy concerns, to request 
the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee and take duly in to account 
any advice timely presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee on its own 
initiative or at the Board's request. <br>
<em><br>
d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects public policy 
concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization&rsquo;s policy council 
and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its its own 
initiative or at the Board&rsquo;s request. </em></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 2. Where both practically 
feasible and consistent with the relevant policy development process, an 
in-person public forum shall also be held for discussion of any proposed 
policies as described in <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III-6.1b#III-6.1b";>Section 
6(1)(b) of this Article</a>, prior to any final Board action. <br>
      <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 3. After taking action on any 
policy <em>or contract </em>subject to this Section, the Board shall publish in 
the meeting minutes the reasons for any action taken, the vote of each Director 
to r voting on the action, and the separate statement of any Director to r 
desiring publication of such a statement. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> 
&nbsp;</strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ARTICLE 
XV: GENERAL PROVISIONS</strong></font><strong><br>
</strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> Section 1. 
CONTRACTS</strong></font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Consistent with ICANN&rsquo;s 
transparency principles in Article III, the Board must approve all of 
ICANN&rsquo;s material contracts in advance of execution. </em><br>
  The Board may authorize any Officer or Officers, agent or agents, to enter in 
to any contract or execute or deliver any instrument in the name of and on 
behalf of ICANN, and such authority may be general or confined to specific 
instances. In the absence of a contrary Board authorization, contracts and 
instruments may only be executed by the following Officers: President, any Vice 
President, or the CFO. Unless authorized or ratified by the Board, no other 
Officer, agent, or employee shall have any power or authority to bind ICANN or 
to render it liable for any debts or obligations. <em>Before ICANN enters in to 
or approves a contract that may have a material impact on a third party member 
of the Internet community, such contract must be published for public comment 
in final form and in its entirety (only information constituting trade secrets 
may be excluded when necessary) for at least 21 days before the Board can 
approve the contract for execution. </em></font></p>
<p><em><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Suggested changes in Italics 
</font> <br>
  </em><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>in addressing &quot;section d&quot; clarified 
that <br>
&quot; section d was added as, from the changes proposed by the registrars, 
which she personally supported, it was quite clear that ICANN was  required in 
section c, to consult with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) on public 
policy, and considered that it was clear that ICANN should consult with the 
relevant Supporting Organizations. In the dot net negotiation, changes were 
made in the contracts which affected the standing of consensus policy in the 
definition of security and stability and also in the definition of new registry 
services which is at variance, even if minimally so, from the consensus policy 
that Council had underway. A consultation, even closed, with Council could have 
been expected on those issues as they involved consensus policy. Having 
observed behaviorally that consultation was not guaranteed by the bylaws, the 
section was added requiring a consultation with the relevant Supporting 
Organizations. A friendly amendment is offered to the proposal and that is 
striking the word &quot;public&quot; in d in relation to public policy, as that 
may be a sensitive topic to the GAC and the intention was to capture the policy 
obligations and the responsibilities of the Council.<br>
  see amended text:<br>
  <em>d. In those cases where the policy action or contract affects policy 
concerns, notify the relevant Supporting Organization&rsquo;s policy council 
and take into account any advice presented by said Council on its its own 
initiative or at the Board&rsquo;s request. </em> <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that the intent was to make sure that 
major agreements such as registry agreements that could affect many parties 
went through a public review before ICANN finally signed them, but that there 
appeared to be concerns with the current drafting that other types of contracts 
might be included.<br>
  <strong>John Jeffrey</strong> commented from a staff perspective it was 
understood that the recommendation concerned issues that were raised in 
Luxembourg and were being presently articulated. Marilyn Cade's proposed change 
to the language was important and there was also some question regarding 
whether the scope of the language on which contracts would be included in such 
process was concise enough.<br>
  John Jeffrey went on to say that clearly input from the Council was 
appreciated and that the Board should consider the recommendation but passing 
on specific language would not be appropriate at this early stage given that 
the Board would need to consider the input, and any Bylaw change would require 
a public comment period before it could be approved.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>asked whether it would be a reasonable action 
for the Council to support the changes, forward them to the Board and then the 
Board would be seeking advice from General Counsel on how best to meet the 
intent of the GNSO ?<br>
  <strong>John Jeffrey</strong> assumed that the Board would seek the General 
Counsel's office advice and then the board would either request additional 
information from the Council or submit the recommendation to a public comment 
process and take the comments into account.<br>
  <strong>Bhavin Turakhia</strong>, the Registrar constituency chair reiterated 
what Jon Nevett mentioned and stated clearly that the intention was not to 
micro manage the contract approval process. Among registrars and in the 
community there had been a high level of support in the direction to get the 
changes in the recommendation incorporated to ensure that such situations would 
not be repeated.<br>
  <strong>Avri Doria</strong> emphasized the importance of and supported 
passing on the recommendation to the Board. <br>
  <strong>Phil Colebrook </strong>commented on a procedural matter that the 
current holiday season made consultation in the constituency difficult and it 
was an important issue for registries. <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> responded that if the Council did consider 
sending the recommendation to the Board there would still be an opportunity for 
public comment as part of the Board's normal processes for considering a bylaw 
change. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> seconded by <strong>Avri Doria</strong> 
proposed a motion <br>
  <strong>That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board the proposed 
bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board undertaking 
the proper review process in order to consider approval of the bylaw 
changes.</strong><br>
  <br>
  <strong>Cary Karp</strong> seconded by <strong>Philip Colebrook</strong> 
proposed a procedural motion: <br>
  <strong>To defer the vote on the motion proposed by Marilyn Cade and Avri 
Doria on the suggested bylaw changes to the middle of September.<br>
  </strong><br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> responded referring to her <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01224.html";>posting
 on the council list</a> and asked for the comment to be minuted, that the need 
for these changes arose out of actions that occurred that affected the 
council's role and affected the broader community in Luxembourg. Extensive 
discussion took place in public forums, in the Council itself and in the 
constituencies. The outcome of what happened in the dot net agreement was what 
had led to a proposal for the bylaw changes. <br>
  It was not a new topic and there had been extensive discussion inspite of the 
holidays.<br>
  If the motion carried, the Board would put forward a public comment process 
and further comments could be provided by any one in the community at that 
time. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> put the <strong>procedural</strong> <strong> 
motion to the vote</strong>.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commenting before the vote said that it was 
confusing as it appeared that the voting was on language rather than a concept 
which was an issue that the constituency would like to discuss in greater depth 
and there had been no time to do this since the motion had been put before the 
Council.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>The procedural</strong> <strong> motion</strong> received 7 votes in 
favour, Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs and Philip Colebrook 2 votes each and Robin 
Gross, 16 votes against out of a total of 26 votes. (Niklas Lagergren, Alick 
Wilson absent without proxy, Kiyoshi Tsuru dropped off call without proxy) <br>
  <strong>The motion failed. <br>
  </strong><br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> put the motion to the vote. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> seconded by <strong>Avri Doria</strong> 
proposed a motion <br>
  <strong>That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board the proposed 
bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board undertaking 
the proper review process in order to consider approval of the bylaw 
changes.</strong><br>
  <br>
  The motion received 17 voted in favour, Philip Colebrook, 2 votes, against, 
Cary Karp and Ken Stubbs, 4 votes, abstained out of a total of 26 votes. <br>
  (Niklas Lagergren, Alick Wilson absent without proxy, Kiyoshi Tsuru dropped 
off call without proxy)<br>
  The motion carried.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Decision 3: That the Council forward as advice, to the ICANN Board 
the proposed bylaw changes and note that the Council supports the ICANN Board 
undertaking the proper review process in order to consider approval of the 
bylaw changes.</strong><br>
  <br>
</font><span class="031114301-23082005"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> will submit the resolution to the 
ICANN Secretary for consideration by the ICANN Board.</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><span class="031114301-23082005"><o:p></o:p></span><strong>Bruce 
Tonkin </strong>thanked <strong>Jonathon Nevett </strong>and <strong>Bhavin 
Turakhia</strong> for their participation.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> asked whether a councillor was required to 
describe the reason for abstaining from voting.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>stated that  rules applied to policy  votes, 
and the reason for abstaining from voting on a consensus policy  would have to 
be declared. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 6 : IDNs<BR>
  - Cary Karp to provide update on discussions at the IETF</strong><br>
  <strong>Cary Karp</strong> reported that during the IETF meeting there were a 
number of non public discussions and a public meeting  attended by 3 council 
members who were mentioned at the public microphone as being involved in 
overseeing of ICANN policies.  The Internet Research task force would probably 
consider the medium term issues  but there would be no immediate action from 
the IETF, the IAB, Unicode consortium and the browser development community 
which were still considering the issue.<br>
  ICANN had agreed upon the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01274.html";>constitution
 of a task force for the revision of ICANN IDN guidelines</a>  with 
representatives of gTLD and ccTLD registries early in September and Cary Karp 
suggested that the motion to encourage staff to establish a  working group was 
unnecessary it the current form.<br>
  <br>
  Proposed motion:<BR>
  The GNSO requests the ICANN staff to establish a working group to revise the 
IDN Guidelines (version 1.0, 20 June 2003) 
http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-20jun03.htm . The working group 
should comprise representatives from gtld registries, cctld registries, 
application developers (e.g WWW browsers, email clients), and other interested 
members of the ICANN community<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>enquired how the user side of the Internet, 
such as the business community would  be able to participate  and comment along 
the way if not involved at the beginning of the process?<br>
  <strong>Cary Karp </strong>stated that a review of the task force document 
was foreseen and all contributions  would be incorporated in the document put 
forward for decision. The terms of the IDN Guidelines stated specifically that 
it was the IDN registries with ICANN staff that was responsible for the 
maintenance of the document and consistent with that the task force had been 
constituted.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bret Fausett </strong>commented that the At Large Advisory Committee 
(ALAC) had discussed the particular resolution proposed revising the motion to 
suggest that the working group  comprise representatives from the gTLD and 
ccTLD registries, application developers and persons appointed by the At Large 
Advisory Committee.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><br>
  Bret Fausett</strong> agreed with <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> and added 
that concerning the technical issues, for transparency purposes, there should 
be end-users participation and a regular reporting back to the At Large 
Group.<br>
  <strong>Cary Karp</strong> drew attention to the <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-discuss/";>comment forum  opened in 
February 2004</a> where interested parties could submit comments. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> commented that business users often watched and 
were interested in on going work    and choose a productive time to make useful 
contributions. They typically counted on advanced technical discussions to make 
their intervention as business and individual users  had to bear the 
consequences of technical decisions.  A friendly amendment was being offered to 
keep users informed of the technical work.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed redrafting the original  motion 
requesting that </font><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ICANN invites 
participants from the GNSO, the At large Advisory Committee and the broader 
community to participate in the task force. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 7: Support for new gtlds in Internet 
applications</strong></FONT></p>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> 
seconded by <strong>Avri Doria </strong>proposed voting on the motion before 
Council:<BR>
  The GNSO requests that the ICANN staff create an information area on the 
ICANN website for developers of software applications that directly use domain 
names and IP addresses (e.g DNS resolvers etc). This area would contain 
contributions from the ICANN community on how best to support new TLDs, and 
IDNs in applications. Press releases for new TLDs should contain a direct link 
to this information area.<BR>
  <br>
  The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Decision 4:
  The GNSO requests that the ICANN staff create an information area on the 
ICANN website for developers of software applications that directly use domain 
names and IP addresses (e.g DNS resolvers etc). This area would contain 
contributions from the ICANN community on how best to support new TLDs, and 
IDNs in applications. Press releases for new TLDs should contain a direct link 
to this information area.<BR>
  <br>
  Item 8: Review compliance of registrars with current WHOIS accuracy 
requirements</strong></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>, 
seconded by <strong>Ross Rader</strong> and <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> 
proposed Motion: <BR>
  The GNSO agrees to create a working group, with a representative group of 
volunteers, Councillors or non councillors, to work with the ICANN staff to 
review the effectiveness and compliance of the current contractual requirements 
with respect to WHOIS accuracy. The group will take as input <BR>
  (1) the WDPRS report released on March 31st 2004,<BR>
  (2) the WDRP report released on November 20th 2004, and <BR>
  (3) the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.<BR>
  The working group will be chaired by Niklas Lagergren.<BR>
  <br>
  The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Decision 5: The GNSO agrees to create a working group, with a 
representative group of volunteers, Councillors or non councillors, to work 
with the ICANN staff to review the effectiveness and compliance of the current 
contractual requirements with respect to WHOIS accuracy. The group will take as 
input <BR>
(1) the WDPRS report released on March 31st 2004,<BR>
(2) the WDRP report released on November 20th 2004, and <BR>
(3) the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.<BR>
The working group will be chaired by Niklas Lagergren.</strong><BR>
<br>
<strong>Item 9: Next steps on new gtlds<BR>
- <A 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01208.html";>review
 of updated paper from Olof Nordling</A><BR>
- recommend next steps<BR>
</strong><br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that after reviewing the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01208.html";>updated
 paper from Olof Nordling</a>, in  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01249.html";>his
 analysis</a> there were 2 main threads:<br>
The first thread was <br>
- the Names Council/GNSO supported introducing new TLDs, the ICANN Board 
authorised a proof-of-concept round and there was the evaluation of the first 
phase of the proof-of-concept. <br>
A<a href="http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf";> report from Miriam 
Sapiro</a> was presented in the public forum  and neither the council nor the 
board have said yes based on that report that there should be new TLDs. The 
first concept round 
 should be brought to closure. </FONT></P>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The second thread  assumed that 
new TLDS would be created and the GNSO should focus first on developing an 
objective criteria for new applications. In parallel the council should work 
with the staff to look at the question of how many new TLDs (and whether to 
introduce them in phases). If the outcome was that only a limited number of new 
TLDs can be introduced at a time - then we need to consider how they will be 
allocated (e.g ballot, auction, first-come first served).<br>
  With recent discussions on triple x, would there be a  need for restrictions 
on what type of tlds?<br>
  <strong><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested a separate Council call to discuss next steps 
on new gTLDs and develop a GNSO plan to present to the ICANN Board for 
endorsement.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 10: Issues report on single letter second level and top level 
gtld domain names<BR>
- 
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01220.html</strong><BR>
<strong><br>
Marilyn Cade</strong> informed Council that she had contacted the ICANN staff 
at the request of an interested party, so declaring that she had an interest in 
the eventual determination of the policy. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> further 
  requested an issues report from staff addressing how to make single letter 
domain names at the second level, that were currently on reserve status, 
available for registration in the generic TLD space. <br>
  <strong><br>
  Ross Rader</strong> commented that there should first be discussion of 
whether or not the issue warranted the Council's attention.<br>
  <strong>Avri Doria</strong> commented that it fell within the discussions on 
gTLDs in general.<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> clarified that the gTLD policy being considered 
was about the organisation of top level domains, while the request was specific 
to the release of reserving second levels and while it has been suggested that 
the issue should be further discussed, ICANN had received a number of requests 
from interested parties and requested a response from ICANN staff.<br>
  <strong>Kurt Pritz</strong> stated that ICANN had been approached by more 
than one firm requesting the exploration of single letter domains.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> expressed concern that the terminology, 
&quot;issues report&quot;  was part of the formal policy development process, 
and instead proposed a request to staff for a status report on single letter 
second level and top level gtld domain names in Item 2 for the next meeting.<br>
  <strong>John Jeffrey </strong>noted that ICANN had received a number of 
requests, between 3 and 5 in the last year and that they had been referred to 
the GNSO as the appropriate place to discuss the issue as a policy.   <br>
  <br>
<strong>Item 11 AOB<br>
<br>
</strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>a. Future 
meeting planning<br>
  Bruce Tonkin </strong>proposed planning further meetings on particular 
topics:<br> 
  - 2 meetings on the Terms of Reference for the GNSO Review<br>
  - Focused meeting on new TLD topic <br>
  <strong><br>
  b. ICANN Strategic Plan</strong><br>
<strong>Olof Nordling</strong> proposed that the Strategic Planning email from 
Dr Twomey be dealt with by email </font></p>
<p><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: 16: 28 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
</b><strong>Teleconference Thursday 1 September 2005 at 12:00 UTC. </strong><br>
      see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>Calendar</a></font><br>
  </li>
</ul>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"--> </font>