[council] GNSO Council draft minutes teleconf 1 September 2005

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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 1 September 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="1 September 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">1 September 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-1sep05.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. - absent - apologies<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 - absent - apologies - proxy 
to Niklas Lagergren/Kiyoshi Tsuru <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 - proxy to Bruce Tonkin <br>
  Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee  - absent - apologies  <br>
  Avri Doria -  Nominating Committee appointee 
  </font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 12 Council Members<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination  <br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer - absent <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 - absent<br>
 <br>
  Michael Palage - ICANN Board member <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050109.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>
  Summary:<br>
The discussion by Council lasted for almost two hours, and was taken very 
seriously by all councillors with many topics raised and discussed. Councillors 
were supportive of noting and ensuring the role of Council in leadership in 
addressing the question of further new gTLDs. Various straw proposals related 
to how to proceed were presented, and discussed by Councillors. Extensive 
discussion ensued regarding whether policy presently exists, or is being 
created through this present work of Council. Concerns were raised by 
councilors that the evaluation work, previously committed, and partially 
completed, be resumed and that its input be available to Council as they 
progress further work on policy. After a thorough discussion, the chair, 
presented a final statement/proposal for vote by the Council .<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-1sep05.htm";>Agenda
    </a><br>
  <br>
    <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>requested a discussion on the status of the 
work  required to complete the evaluation of the existing new gTLDs<br>
    <strong>Cary Karp </strong>suggested adding the distinction between the 
multiple representation of a pre-existing ASCII TLD string using IDN 
alternatives, and the creation from scratch of new TLDs which used strings 
using the IDN format. <br>
  <br>
    <strong>Item 1: Outcome of the initial introduction of new TLDs</strong><br>
  <br>
  - Current Policy supports the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured<br>
  and responsible manner, subject to evaluation of initial introduction<br>
  - choices (a) Undertake a PDP to determine policy on whether to<br>
  introduce new tlds <br>
  (b) Undertake a review of the current policy and see if this<br>
  policy should change based on the evaluation of new TLDs<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong>, who was involved in  <A 
href="/committees/ntepptf/">New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force</A> 
(NTEPPTF) working group and on the President's evaluation committee, commented 
that the previous round of new gTLDs, had not been  completed for either the 
initial &ldquo;proof of concept&rdquo; gTLDs, (e.g. .biz, .info etc) or the 
recently approved &quot;proof of concept&quot; gTLDs (e.g. .travel .jobs etc). 
A  report, <a href="http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf";>Evaluation 
of New TLDs, Policy and Legal issues</a>, was published on the introduction of 
the first proof of concept round, which included .museum,. aero, .biz, .info, 
.pro, .name, .coop. There were interim steps where the Council and the 
community supported the extension of the &quot;proof of concept&quot; round to 
a set of sponsored gTLDs but  no evaluation had been done and issues such as  
the resolution of the more than 3 letter TLDs had not  been satisfactorily 
solved. The list of items  to complete needed to be identified in a timely 
manner and in parallel  with the process for introducing new gTLDs. Before 
introducing new gTLDs,  issues such as ensuring that there were effective 
escrow services, and ensuring a process in place for registry failure should be 
examined. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commented that from a security and stability 
stand point there should be a formalised methodology for data escrow and the 
maintenance of stored data for registries and registrars.<br> 
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> stated that it was important  to ascertain the 
level of agreement among councillors on whether the GNSO Council had determined 
 a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs and  cautioned against a situation 
where the role of the GNSO Council in policy development could be bypassed.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> agreed that from the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-tlds-31aug05.htm";>past 
material </a>it was ambiguous whether there was a clear policy for introducing 
new gTLDs  beyond the initial introduction and  proposed that Council  
determine a position, as a starting point, to send to the ICANN Board for 
agreement on moving ahead. <br>
  There were two approaches: <br>
  -  Undertake a policy development process (PDP) to determine policy on 
whether to introduce new gtlds  <br>
  - Undertake a policy review (in the same way that the Transfers Policy and 
WHOIS Data Reminder Policy were being reviewed) reviewing the initial reasons 
for introducing new gtlds, the evaluation report on new gtlds, and determine 
whether the policy should be changed taking into account Council's  previous 
decisions, such as a bottom up process, demand driven, objective criteria.<br>
  <br>
  Council members expressed their views:
  <br>
  <strong>Ross Rader</strong>  asked whether a review would uncover more 
information than had already been gathered, <br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commented that the landscape had changed since 
2000,  agreed that there was a need to create new gTLDs and there should be a 
policy addressing IDNs.<br>
  <strong>Avri Doria</strong> agreed that there was a decision to move forward 
   in a measured and responsible manner, subject to evaluation of the initial 
introduction but that the policy had not been defined. Avri basically agreed in 
working in parallel to finish the review in a timely manner so new policies 
could be reviewed in the light of the analysis.<br>
   <strong>Tony Holmes </strong>suggested a PDP to move forward and agreed that 
the landscape had changed since the initial work which focused on a particular 
set of new gTLDs but had left no long term policy  in place. It was preferable 
to update previous work on whether new gTLDs should be introduced rather than 
starting over. <br>
   <strong>Niklas Lagergren's </strong>view was that  a PDP was necessary to 
determine whether new gTLDs should be introduced.<br>
   <strong>Tony Harris </strong>commented that it not a question of whether 
there should be new gtlds, there were procedures in place for introducing new 
gTLDs , but going about the introduction in the right way was important so that 
granted approval  could not be blocked at a later stage.<br>
   <strong>Cary Karp </strong>enquired whether ICANN's statements to the US 
Government in connection with the MOU on the intention to introduce new gTLDs 
should be taken into account.<br>
   <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>responded that the  MOU called for a strategy 
and   that  previous decisions, procedures and practices should be taken into 
account in creating a policy, but it could not be assumed that a policy already 
existed. <br>
   <strong>Ross Rader</strong> commented that the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#18/19April2000NCStatement";>Names
 Council resolution passed in April 2000</a> <br>
  </font><FONT face=Arial>&quot;that the future introduction of additional 
top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial 
introduction&quot; </FONT><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">was very 
clear that there would be some sort of future introduction done after the 
evaluation. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> stated that addressing  IDNs was a significant 
priority. Taking into account the evaluation, whether to introduce more ASCII 
gTLDs should be addressed, but other work should be done in parallel  to 
advance the policy development process related to the introduction of  new 
gTLDs that use IDN based strings.<br>
  Marilyn supported a PDP  with accelerated terms of reference that would    
take into account reports generated by the ICANN staff and  input directed by 
Council. <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>summarised that there was general support for  
a PDP which would examine whether more gTLDs should be introduced, the 
criteria, the  allocation methods assuming that there was a practical limit to 
how many could be introduced at once and  the contractual conditions imposed on 
registry operators,, that is, what was important in the agreements.<br>
The evaluation work should continue, be updated and the parts of the evaluation 
not yet completed should be identified.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Item 2: Policy development 
tasks - managed via a PDP<br>
  </strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.1 Objective Criteria for 
accepting new TLD applications<br>
  - use criteria used for .net tender, and initial introduction of new tlds as 
a starting<br>
  point<br>
  - consider whether to place limits on the strings that can be used at<br>
the top level</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.2 Allocation method if there are 
more applications than can be managed<br>
  in a single round<br>
  - options may include first-come/first-served, ballot system, auction,<br>
  or combination</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.3 Key conditions in ICANN 
agreement with registry operator<br>
  - use current key conditions in registry agreements as a starting point<br>
  (e.g must use ICANN accredited registrars, must treat registrars<br>
  equitably etc)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong>, 
referring to a previous question from  Marilyn Cade on the role of the GNSO 
Council in policy development tasks related to introducing new gTLDs, noted 
that one of the issues was whether the ICANN community trusted the GNSO to run 
the new gTLD process, namely: <br>
  - did the community think that the GNSO would receive enough varied input  to 
fully consider the different points of view<br>
  - could 
  the GNSO manage the process in a timely manner.<br>
  <br>
  It would thus be important for the GNSO to carefully manage the expectations 
of the ICANN community with respect to any process proposed by the GNSO. <br>
  <strong><br>
  Bruce Tonkin </strong>suggested a PDP as a single project, starting with 
background work, updating previous papers, having sufficient time to collect 
constituency statements and public input. <br>
  <strong>Ross Rader </strong>supported a PDP approach based on previous work 
already completed. In addition Ross noted that the   &quot;<a 
href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/";>working group C</a>&quot; 
reports should be included in <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-tlds-31aug05.htm";>New 
TLDS, past decisions and documents</a>.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested staff support to collect the status 
in the different categories, such as, the criteria and the conditions that a 
TLD needed to meet, from the existing dot net and org tenders,
   and the registry agreements for the sponsored and unsponsored tlds. <br>
   <strong>Cary Karp</strong> supported a single integrated  study however the 
issue of IDN on the top level was one of extreme urgency for the ccTLD 
community as well, though a different set of issues would be driving their 
interests, and the two discussions should run parallel, thus the IDN issue 
would be external to the GNSO sphere of control. <br>
  The concern was expressed that the ccTLDs were moving their interest on IDNs 
on the assumption that it was solely a country code concern. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 3: Internationalised Domain Name (IDN) 
pilot</strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> stated that standards for IDNs had arisen since 
the initial introduction of new TLDs and there were two possible approaches:<br>
 (i) that IDNs be treated the same way as any other 
 TLD and built  into the process <br>
  (ii) that the introduction of IDN strings in the root be treated separately 
to the process of continuing to roll out new ASCII based gtlds<br>
  -  that ICANN initiate a limited introduction of IDNs in the root as a pilot 
project in collaboration with input from the ccNSO and GNSO <br>
  - 
  an implementation committee could be established to propose a pilot program 
with criteria to be evaluated<br>
- this proposal would be subject to public review<br>
<br>
<strong>Cary Karp </strong>commented that there should be a distinction  
between a TLD which existed in ASCII and the operator of that TLD being able to 
argue the need for  additional representations of the same string using other 
character sets (IDNs), and  a new TLD which would be an IDN. Some of the 
difficult issues to resolve would be whether the registry operator would be the 
same and the presumption of incumbent rights to multiple representations of the 
string. <br>
<strong>Ross Rader </strong>commented that 
as with gTLD policy, it was unclear if the current scope of IANA delegations to 
a registry manager included registrations outside the ASCII character set. 
Explicit policy need be identified or created in order to make this 
explicit.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>asked whether the issue could be dealt with a 
part of a pilot study or whether a policy should be created from the beginning. 
<br>
    <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> cautioned that there was a risk that policy 
would occur by past process and procedure rather than by a policy development 
process.<br>
    <strong>Avri Doria</strong> supported following the proper process for the 
Council to create the new TLDs, but supported a pilot study in the introduction 
of the new IDN TLDs. <br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> expressed concern about moving rapidly into 
IDNs and if a pilot project was undertaken a policy development process should  
be followed to clearly define the parameters of the pilot project.<br>
  <strong>Ross Rader </strong>commented that in order for the GNSO Council to 
proceed with these two work items on a parallel track, the new IDN gTLD work 
must be predicated on the assumption that new gTLDs are warranted. If the 
outcome of the new gTLD process is that new gTLDS are not warranted, then the 
new IDN gTLD work should cease.<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> did not support pilot projects and reminded the 
group that ICANN had a limited role in the IDN issue while <strong>Tony 
Holmes</strong> commented that if ICANN did not take up its  responsibility for 
IDNs there would be fragmentation. The ITU was becoming increasingly involved 
with a reviewing study group to examine what coordination was needed with the 
IETF and ICANN to support the work on IDNs. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> summarised saying that  a controlled policy 
development process was needed to clearly define policy on the introduction of 
IDNs. <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>clarified that  the outcome of the GNSO 
teleconference would be conveyed, as a response that had been requested  via 
the</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CEO, Dr. Paul Twomey, to 
the ICANN Board. </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Council 
concurred with Bruce Tonkin&rsquo;s proposal that the output of the Council 
meeting should be conveyed to the board, by the Council in the near future and 
concurrence sought in how the Council plans to proceed. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Before proceeding further on 
actual work, the discussion with the Board, to advise them of Council&rsquo;s 
decisions, and to seek their support will need to take place and should be 
expeditiously scheduled through discussions with the ICANN staff/Board chair, 
and Council chair. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>In the final agreed to 
proposal, Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed seeking a high level decision that the 
GNSO Council would develop  two policy development processes  with the probable 
need to engage outside experts to assist in the two separate processes. One 
process is clearly led by the GNSO Council and the second is likely to be a 
joint initiative with the ccNSO Council , and other parties, as appropriate.<br>
<br>
<strong>GNSO Policy initiative regarding further new gTLDs:</strong><br>
  1. A policy development process which would look at the issues including at a 
minimum:   <br>
  - whether to introduce further gTLDs, <br>
  - the criteria for approving applications for new TLDs <br>
  - the allocation method, assuming that there was a limit to how many gTLDs 
could be introduced at once. <br>
  - the key contractual conditions for those TLDs which might include 
conditions such as: escrow policies, obligation to use an ICANN accredited 
registrar  etc. <br>
  <br>
  2. The establishment of a shared policy development process to be undertaken 
in collaboration with the ccNSO [and other relevant parties as expert advisors] 
for the introduction of IDNs at the root level. Three areas will need to be 
addressed: the question of the present gTLD strings presented as non ASCII 
characters, non ASCII second level names, and new gTLDs as non ASCII 
strings.<br>
  <br>
  3. 


The expectation that the evaluation of the previous round of new gTLDs, which 
is not complete for either the initial &ldquo;proof of concept&rdquo; gTLDs, or 
the recent &quot;proof of concept&quot; gTLDs, would continue and the remaining 
work would be completed and made available in a timely manner to inform the 
Council&rsquo;s further policy work. <br>
  <br>
  4. The GNSO will be seeking a budget to obtain expert advice to assist in 
these policy development initiatives.<br>
  <strong><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</strong>  called for a  vote supporting this approach and 
Council members present unanimously supported this proposal and approach by a 
voice vote. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Some of the relevant points made in the Council&rsquo;s discussion: 
</strong><br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> supported the approach with the caveat that the 
proposal of work include additional resources, in the nature of expert advice 
which will augment the policy support provided by policy staff. <br>
  <strong>Cary Karp</strong> cautioned in responding with regard to 
developments the IDN components relating to the cc
development. It should be emphasised that it was not only issues specific to 
the gTLD situation and thus a clear platform would be required as reference to 
provide advice to the entire situation as it would unfold across the TLD space 
in IDNs in a global situation.<br>
<strong>Ross Rader</strong> requested that a compilation of existing and past 
work on IDNs, similar to that which was done on new gTLDs should be undertaken 
by ICANN staff.<br>
<br>
  </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Suzanne 
Sene</strong>, liaison from GAC, noted that the GAC has been requested by ICANN 
staff to comment on a series of questions in a staff document. The general view 
of some members of Council was that this work by GAC would be premature since 
the Council has now undertaken to manage the policy and strategy processes 
related to the introduction of new gTLDs and the relevant staff document has 
been turned into a background and supporting document. </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: 00 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
</b><strong>Teleconference Thursday 9 September 2005 at 12:00 UTC. </strong><br>
        <strong>Topic: GNSO Review Terms of Reference
        </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>