[council] GNSO Council draft minutes, 8 September 2005

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

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

Dear Council members,

Please find the GNSO Council draft minutes for the teleconference held 
on 8 September 2005.
Please let me know what changes you would like made.

Thank you very much.
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/ICANN Board Teleconference 
Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council/ICANN Board Teleconference 
Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="8 September 2005"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council/ICANN Board 
Teleconference Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8 September 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-08sep05.htm";>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. <br>
  Marilyn Cade - Commercial &amp; Business Users C. <br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business Users C<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Tony Harris<br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC   <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Harris/Greg Ruth<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 absent - apologies <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C<br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.   - absent <br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.-    absent<br>
  Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.   - absent <br>
  Alick Wilson   </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Nominating 
Committee appointee - absent - apologies <br>
  Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee  - absent - apologies  - 
proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin <br>
  Avri Doria -  Nominating Committee appointee 
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(10 Council Members)<br>
  <br>
  <strong>ICANN Board</strong><br>
  Raimundo Beca &ndash; appointed by the Address Supporting Organisation ( ASO 
) <br>
  Vinton G. Cerf (Chair) - apologies <br>
  Steve Crocker, Security and Stability Advisory Committee Liaison <br>
  Hagen Hultzsch - apologies <br>
  Veni Markovski 


&ndash; appointed by Nominating Committee <br>
  Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison <br>
  Michael D. Palage &ndash; appointed by the GNSO <br>
  Alejandro Pisanty (Vice-Chair)  &ndash; appointed by the GNSO<br>
  Hualin Qian - apologies <br>
  Njeri Rionge 


&ndash; appointed by Nominating Committee <br>
  Vanda Scartezini 


&ndash; appointed by Nominating Committee <br>
  Peter Dengate Thrush 


&ndash; appointed by ccNSO <br>
  (12 Board Members and liaisons)
  <br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Dr. Paul Twomey -ICANN President and CEO <br>
  John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel <br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination  <br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
  Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counsellor <br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050908.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>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>
  Item 1: <A 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>Review
 the background</A>, goals and expected outcomes of the GNSO<BR>
review, at both the Council and constituency level<BR>
- respond to any questions on background from ICANN Board members<BR>
present<BR>
- receive input on expected outcomes from ICANN Board members present<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  (* note of clarification &ldquo;expected outcomes&rdquo; was not intended to 
pre-judge the results of the review or seek input for the review itself, but 
was intended to the understand what the outcomes of the review should be in 
general terms &ndash; e.g does the board simply want a yes/no answer on whether 
the GNSO should continue, or does the Board want to see some pragmatic 
recommendations for how to improve the GNSO&rdquo;)<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> introduced himself and stated that receiving 
early input from ICANN board members on the expected outcomes of the GNSO 
Review process was important.</font><br>
  <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#IV";>Article
 IV, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws </a>required the ICANN Board to review the 
Supporting Organisations on an ongoing 3 year cycle and the GNSO, previously 
DNSO, being the supporting organisation in existence  the longest, came up 
first. The </FONT><font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">review was 
broken into two parts: the first part, the <a 
href="ttp://www.gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-22dec04.htm">GNSO 
Council review</a>, was conducted by Patrick Sharry in 2004 and it was the 
second part,  which involved the six constituencies within the GNSO, that was 
currently being conducted.</font><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  The GNSO Review was breaking new ground and  could form a precedent for 
reviews of other parts of the ICANN organisation.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Steve Crocker, </strong>Security and Stability Advisory Committee 
Liaison to the ICANN Board, asked whether the GNSO was structured to 
accommodate and take into account the end users and the broad community of 
Internet users as opposed to the commercial or vested interests of the 
component parts. In other words was it possible that policies through the GNSO  
could reflect the business interests of the people who were participating and 
so compromise the best interests of the smoothly functioning internet for the 
broad population?<br>
  End users were qualified as those who were involved in the domain name system 
as opposed to the addressing system. Although the issues were essentially the 
same, there were many organisations that were involved in providing, managing 
and operating the system such as registrars. Then there were two broad classes, 
less well represented in the ICANN processes, the  registrants and everybody 
dependent upon looking up information, whether  an individual or and 
organisation.<br>
  In summary, the review should indicate how the requirements of end users were 
taken into account in the GNSO.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> explained that the structure of the GNSO that 
was divided into the supply side, registries and registrars, and the users, 
currently considered to be Internet Service Providers as users of the DNS, the 
Intellectual Property community, business users, non commercial users, and 
nominating committee appointees who may consider themselves to represent 
&quot;others&quot;, which were a smaller subset of the user as defined above. 
<br>
<strong>Michael Palage</strong> elaborated on end users commenting that 
&quot;representativeness&quot; was not being questioned but rather that when 
recommendations were submitted to the board, multiple view points gave depth 
and facilitated  Board decisions.</FONT></p>
<P><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Peter Dengate 
Thrush</strong> commented that the nature of the review  was to examine the 
quality of the Council, its work output and representation, then having 
established the purpose, whether changes in the structure   itself were 
required. Representation issues were referred to in the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>terms
 of reference sections 4.3.1 and 5.6.1</a> while work output  issues, about 
staffing and the relationship between council and staff were raised in the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-22dec04.htm";>Council 
review</a>. <br>
  Effectiveness was dependent on the staff and  the quality of the input  to 
the policy process <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> clarified that in the Council structure,  the 
GNSO constituencies were required to produce position statements in particular 
policy areas as the starting point for the policy development process (PDP). 
Effectiveness  was partly related to constituency input  and the changes that 
occurred  to the positions of constituencies based on the interaction with 
other constituencies.<br>
  <strong>Philip Sheppard</strong> asked whether the Board members had a 
timeline expectation   for completing the GNSO review and the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec4-22dec04.pdf";>recommended 
items</a>.<br>
What should happen to the output of the review?<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>commented on dependencies and the tools 
available to the GNSO. Built into the policy development process, which 
underlay  the advice the GNSO Council gave the ICANN Board, was a dependency on 
staff resources in preparing an issues report,  and then gathering input.   <br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commented that in order for ICANN to effectively 
serve the communities it represented it had to be inclusive in  developing and 
implementing policies and have a blueprint to continue evolving.<br>
  <strong>Peter Dengate Thrush</strong> commented that resourcing should be  a 
high priority taking into account the size and  policy range of the GNSO.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented  that rules of procedure should be 
dealt with at the same time as advancing core policy work.<br>
  <strong>Njeri Rionge </strong>commented that it was important to prioritise 
in line with the ICANN strategic plan at the same time as creating terms of 
reference and timelines.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>clarified that  the ICANN bylaws defined a 
process for  bringing issues to the GNSO Council that developed the Council's 
work items. The GNSO  planned   to identify major issues over the next 3 years 
which would become part of the ICANN strategic plan.<br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commented that ICANN would be measured on the 
ability to effectively execute the policies that it created in the future as 
well as  execute and manage the functions it had been assigned. <br>
  <strong>Michael Palage</strong> followed up on the importance of linking up 
the GNSO and the ICANN Strategic plan  for making the organisation more 
proactive. <br>
  <strong>Alejandro Pisanty</strong> commented that good clear </font><font 
size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Terms of Reference should be the 
main focus of the meeting rather than starting the review process. <br>
  <strong>Dr. Paul Twomey</strong> commented that there was already expertise 
in each constituency and asked what  the GNSO Council or ICANN's expectations 
were  in terms of the expert output  from the constituencies, particularly 
drawing on the idea that the constituencies were representative of  particular 
ideas and could bring expertise to the table. <br>
  <strong>Raimundo Beca</strong> commented that  the review should consider  
the role the expertise in the GNSO constituencies could play outside the GNSO 
in other ICANN Supporting Organisations and outside ICANN, particularly in the 
Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and World Summit on the Information 
Society (WSIS) context. A number of private sector and the civil society bodies 
would be a part of the multi stakeholder organizations that had been proposed 
to deal with subjects out of ICANN's scope, but it was not so clear who would 
represent the private sector and the civil society in those bodies. Raimundo 
suggested that the review inquire whether the GNSO constituencies would be 
willing to play a role in such bodies and what kind of support would they need 
from the ICANN staff  to perform these new activities<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> suggested that it could be further explored 
under the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>draft
 terms of reference</a> in the <br>
  paragraph 5.5.2 
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">relating to:<br>
  External relationships &ndash; with the broader Internet using community 
including the public and private sector.<br>
  <strong>Peter Dengate Thrush </strong>asked how the argument of effectiveness 
 could be measured with particular reference to possibly merging certain 
constituencies, to which <strong>Grant Forsyth</strong> responded that a  group 
should demonstrate  a clearly definable and sustainable interest in ICANN's 
work. <br>
  <strong>Liz Williams </strong>added, quoting from  the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>draft
 terms of reference</a>, page 2 <br>
  &quot;Each Constituency shall maintain its recognition, and thus its ability 
to select GNSO Council representatives, only so long as it in fact represents 
the interests globally of the stakeholder communities it purports to represent, 
and shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent 
manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. &quot;<br>
  that &quot;effectiveness&quot; could possibly be measured by the  questions  
found in paragraph 4.3.1.        &quot;Representativeness:  Analysis in this 
part of the Review could include the questions outlined in the box 
below&quot;.<br>
  <strong>Peter Dengate Thrush</strong> expressed concern with &quot;represents 
the interests globally of the stakeholder communities it purports to 
represent&quot;, as the interest could be so small and even though the group 
would be thoroughly represented it would not merit creating an entire 
constituency. <br>
  <strong>Grant Forsyth</strong>, further commented that there had to be a 
recognition of the relevance and nexus of a  particular constituency and the 
business of   ICANN before such could be created. <br>
  <br>
  Ideas were called for on the principles, the analysis and the measure of 
arguments around the petitioning for new constituencies or for changing the 
existing structure of the current ones.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Thomas Narten, </strong>the IETF Liaison to the ICANN Board, 
commented on the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) review experience. The 
review results were successful in some cases as it used its own process 
development for revision, but in other cases,  changing the process was hard 
and it was unclear whether the reason was  the lack of true intentions to make 
changes or whether some of the powers in place did not want  change. Usually 
changes and new policies were made through a proposal being openly discussed  
or by creating a working group, reaching general consensus and approval. When 
there was a clear intention to do something often the change was made before 
official ratification was received. Certain changes pertained to cultural and 
operating practices which did not require formally changing the existing rules 
while with other changes there was  less flexibility.<br>
  <br>
  <BR>
Item 2: Discuss the <A 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>current
 draft document </A><BR>
- receive input from ICANN Board members present that have read the<BR>
terms of reference<BR>
- receive input from GNSO Council members<BR>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>  commented that   additional tools or resources 
should be used that would better support broader participation.<br>
  <strong>Philip Sheppard</strong> stated that any review, in terms of the mix 
of the constituencies had immediate implications for the public interest 
objectives of ICANN  bylaws. <br>
  <strong>Avri Doria</strong> noted that the overlap of constituencies should 
be considered.<br>
  <strong>Michael Palage</strong> commented that the  internal dynamics of the 
constituencies should be examined. A key benchmark should be whether a group of 
people wanted to participate in the ICANN process and if they did, it would be 
incumbent on the GNSO to provide a place to meaningfully participate.<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> asked for ideas on how it could be framed in the 
Terms of Reference.</font></P>
<P><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Liz Williams</strong> 
following up on Marilyn Cade' s remark on the use of technology to facilitate 
participation and inclusiveness suggested that it could be one of the questions 
in the focus area and the other in analysis and measures area.<br>
    <strong>Michael Palage</strong> emphasised the importance of targeted 
focused questions on the internal interaction and dynamics of the constituency. 
<br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>suggested also capturing the degree of 
diversity in constituencies and adding it to the<a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";> 
terms of reference 4.3.1</a><br>
</font><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">Representativeness</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> : Analysis in this part of the Review could include the questions 
outlined in the box below.</font><br>
<em><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;whether the Constituencies, 
on a global basis, represent the stakeholders they claim to represent</font> 
&quot; </em><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <strong>Liz Williams</strong> commented that in the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>Terms
 of Reference section 5. 3</a>: under baseline statistics that each 
constituency would provide, nuances could possibly be captured. <br>
  Representativeness and the recommendations from the GNSO Council review could 
be captured in the <br>
  effectiveness work of the quality and output level of expertise in 
constituencies.<br>
  <strong>Njeri Rionge's </strong>remark on the strategic planning issues could 
be captured in the degree to which issues were anticipated the prioritisation 
of proactive issues management. <br>
  <strong>Peter Dengate Thrush</strong> commenting on  the criteria priorities 
for forming a group, said that representation was about access, reporting and 
information sharing.<br>
  Representativeness, in<a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";> 
the paper</a>  focused on the constituencies, and it should be made clear that  
effectiveness, transparency and compliance issued applied to each of the 
constituencies.<br>
  The <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm";>ICANN 
bylaws</a> provide a mechanism for the Board to request the creation of a 
constituency and the output of the GNSO review could be the process by which 
the Board would receive information to consider the options and any action 
required.<br>
  <strong>Steve Crocker </strong>noted that certain issues, such as deleted 
names and testing of names under a grace period, resulted in an extraordinary 
load on the registries and could be viewed as a security and stability issues  
that needed a prompt policy response. <br>
<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented at high level, on the difference 
between rules and policies that took a long time to put in place, and the 
Registry /Registrar market environment which moved very fast. The GNSO was not 
structured to deal with immediate problem situations which were better taken up 
and stopped in other fora and then referred to the GNSO for a considered 
process such as creating future rules. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> added that certain situations called for 
convening a fast track process to address an immediate problem and when that 
happened user community representation was necessary.
  <br>
  Did the GNSO essentially forestall  quick track processes, and how could such 
processes be stimulated when needed?<br>
  What was the mechanism in ICANN to deal rapidly with security and stability 
issues?<br>
  <strong>Steve Crocker </strong>added that some issues could  be viewed as 
security and stability but involved economic incentives that implied 
contractual and other matters  not associated with the  technical aspects of 
security and stability.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin 
</strong>proposed that the GNSO Council focus  on email input to the following 
sections in the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>draft
 Terms of Reference</a><br>
  - Representativeness<br>
  - Effectiveness  <br>
  - Transparency<br>
  - Compliance  <br>
  <br>
Output of the teleconference plus further comments for another draft to be 
discussed on the GNSO Council call on 22 September 2005.</font></P>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared 
          the GNSO meeting closed and thanked the ICANN Board for their 
participation.<br>
The meeting ended: 16: 00 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
</b><strong>Teleconference Thursday 22 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>