ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] ] GNSO Council draft minutes teleconf 22 September 2005

  • To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [council] ] GNSO Council draft minutes teleconf 22 September 2005
  • From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:27:07 +0200
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

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

Dear Council members,

Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council
teleconference held on 22 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="22 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">22 September 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22sep05.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 - 
proxy to Marilyn Cade <br>
  Marilyn Cade - Commercial &amp; Business Users C. <br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business Users C  - absent - apologies -  
proxy to Marilyn Cade<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC    - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Greg 
Guth <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 - proxy if needed to Philip Colebrook/Cary Karp 
<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.<br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Norbert 
Klein/Ross Rader <br>
  Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.<br>
  Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent  - apologies - proxy 
to Bruce Tonkin <br>
  Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee<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>
  Kurt Pritz - 
  Vice President, Business Operations<br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination   - absent - 
apologies <br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
  Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor<br>
  Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison<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>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050922.mp3";>MP3 
Recording</a> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 14: 15 CET.<br>
  <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
    <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22sep05.htm";>Approval of 
Agenda</a><br>
    <br>
The <strong>Secretariat </strong>reported on the Vancouver program meeting:<br>
 GNSO Councillors should plan to arrive in time to start work on Monday 
morning.<br>
The current essential information is: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Tuesday November 29 morning - 
the GAC /GNSO WHOIS workshop</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Wednesday November 30 - 
(tentative) DNSSEC deployment workshop,<br>
  GAC, ALAC, ccNSO meetings. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Thursday December 1 - GNSO 
Constituency day, Opening ceremony <br>
  <br>
- Friday December 2 morning - (TENTATIVE) IDN workshop which is a joint<br>
  effort with the GAC<br>
  - Friday December 2 afternoon - Public Forum</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Saturday December 3 morning - 
Public Forum</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Sunday December 4 morning - 
Board meeting<br>
    <strong><br>
  Bruce Tonkin</strong> recognized that there would not be a full compliment of 
councillors on Monday morning and Tuesday afternoon was suggested for the GNSO 
/ICANN board meeting.  <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>noted a word of caution about other workshops  
that were put forward and not identified by the community and that there was a 
commitment about the WSIS and the strategic/operational plan. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed working with Tina Dam about the 
outcomes for the IDN workshop to identify policy and technical 
issues.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> drew 
attention to constituency  elections that were required for councillors whose 
terms expired at the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting on December 4, 2005 
in Vancouver. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ACTION:</strong> The 
Secretariat will poll the constituencies on their election processes.</font></p>
<p><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 1: Approval of minutes<BR>
- <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>GNSO 
Council teleconference - 18 August 2005 <br>
</a><br>
<B>Ken Stubbs </B>moved the adoption of the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>minutes of 
18 August 2005.</a> <BR>
Motion approved. Two abstentions from Niklas Lagergren and Maureen Cubberley. 
<BR>
<BR>
<B>Decision 1: The <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>GNSO 
Council minutes of 18 August 2005 </a>were adopted.<br>
<br>
</B><strong>Item 3: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as 
.travel, .jobs. .mobi etc)</strong><BR>
- determine next steps,  for example: <BR>
- clearly define remaining questions<BR>
- a 30 day comment period - require constituency statements, registry operator 
statements<BR>
- staff to produce evaluation report<BR>
- identify time required from staff<br>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong>,  wanting to estimate the length of the process, 
proposed the following timelines:<BR>
<BR>
30-day process for staff preparation to produce  clear questions - end of 
October<br>
30 days for comments, which could include constituency statements,  
individual's  input,  registries involved in the recent TLD rounds, identified 
organizations, the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and input from the GNSO 
public forum in Vancouver <br>
30 days for staff to produce final report
and Public Comment  on  Final Report</FONT></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Total of 90 days lapsed time.<br>
  <br>
    <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> supported the timeframe and the input during 
the Vancouver meetings. <br>
    <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commented that the timeframe should rather 
overestimate than underestimate the required time. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
suggested reflecting, in a draft  paper, questions on: <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 <BR> 
in a way that related to the policy development process so that the evaluation 
would be mapped to the questions.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>stated 
that Miriam Sapiro's report on the <a 
href="http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf";>Evaluation of new gTLDs: 
Policy and Legal Issues </a> should be taken into consideration so as not to 
repeat accomplished work. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz 
</strong>suggested taking up the topic with <strong>Maria Farrell </strong>off 
line.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 4: Policy Development Process for new gtlds<BR>
- initiate vote for an issues report (<A 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA";>as 
per annex A, Section 1 (b) of the bylaws</A>)</strong></font></p>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- issues report to contain 
background material on:<BR>
  * whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs <BR>
  - collect previous submissions from constituencies on new gTLDs<BR>
  * the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs <BR>
  - collect previous material used for .org and .net tenders<BR>
  * the allocation method, assuming that there was a limit to how many gTLDs 
could be introduced at once<BR>
  - collect previous input (e.g OECD etc)<BR>
  * the key contractual conditions for those gTLDs which might include 
conditions such as : escrow policies, obligation to use an ICANN accredited 
registrar etc.<BR>
  - collect current significant conditions from new gTLD agreements</FONT></P>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
stated that the first step was to formally vote on creating a new issues report 
 that identified the 4 areas:<br>
whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs<br>
the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs<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 gTLDs<br>
The proposed timeline would be producing the Issues Report by end of October 
2005  for the GNSO council meeting on the 16 November 2005.<br>
<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> supported the 30 day timeline for the Issues 
Report.<br>
Marilyn 
 noted that potentially &quot;Item 5: Policy development for 
IDNs and <BR>
Item 7: Discussion whether to initiate an "issues report" on single letter 
domain names&quot; might have implications for the policy development process 
for new gtlds.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
commented that single letter domain names (SLDN) were a current condition on 
registry operators, and recommended that the topic be treated under the issues 
report in agenda  item 4. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
agreed with the recommendation and commented that other questions for new gTLDs 
should be considered in the issues report, such as, to examine the topic  that 
policies were being written into contracts and decide whether to ratify the 
process  or whether  it needed more work. An example was  the criteria staff 
used for place names in the .info contract which had not been approved as 
policy.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maureen Cubberley</strong> 
supported working from the broad to the specific  in a whole process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>did 
not support folding single letter second level issues into the gTLD policy 
development process  as the topics shared no  common issues and recommended 
that  it should be undertaken as a separate policy development process. There 
are infinite numbers of tlds and finite numbers of second level names, there 
are technical issues associated with the second level at one time for the 
single letters that do not apply to the TLDs, and the allocation methods would 
probably be different</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
clarified that the issue was not about single letter names in the root but 
rather that  currently there was a condition on the operators of TLDs that  
restricted them from offering single letter names, and that 
&quot;restriction&quot; was the contracts and these were being examined. Bruce 
added that when introducing a new TLD like .travel, one of the current 
conditions in the TLD was that they were not allowed to introduce single 
letters.<br>
  <br>
<strong>Kurt  Pritz</strong> commented that the gTLD policy development process 
was complex and urgent. All the issues associated with the single letter names 
were different and would be considered serially, taking up management time  
serially. Single letter name consideration was not a prerequisite to 
determining whether and how TLDs would be initiated so should be separate. The 
gTLD process was possibly complex and long while the single letter process 
could be straightforward and with no common  issues one could slow up the other 
if conducted at the same time.  Dr Vint Cerf recommended that single letter 
domain names should go through a bottom up policy development process which led 
to a <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01411.html";>status
 paper </a>related to second level domain names.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
concurred with points in the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01411.html";>Status
 Paper</a> that the technical issues were resolved   but there may be questions 
about symbols  and ampersands that have not been explored. A persuasive point 
in making single letter domain names part of the overall policy development 
process was that  policy governing the unreserving of names would affect new 
gtlds as well as old tlds. The term &quot;new gtlds&quot; is used but  in fact 
a policy is being devised for the gTLD space. The process is evaluating lessons 
learned  and figuring out what policy is going forward. Thus questions like 
unreserving names and deciding how to treat place names would be questions in a 
forward going policy while looking back might apply to policies  such as 
escrow</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bret  Fausett</strong> 
supported a more general approach to prioritise work where new gTLDs could be 
launched  with the current restrictions which could be lifted  later rather 
than holding up the whole process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tina  Dam</strong> 
requested that it be clearly stated if the single letter domain name issue were 
merged into the implementation of new TLDs and the policy development process 
on new TLDs that the single letter domain names belonged under the policy 
issues whereas the symbols in domain names belong under the International 
Domain Names (IDN).<br>
  <br>
  There was general support in the Council to look at the issues as a whole 
rather than in separate policy development processes.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed 
 first examining high level issues on new TLDs.<br>
 <br>
<strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>stated that requests came from several 
multinational companies for the allocation of identified single letter names 
and these companies should not be turned away.  The ICANN Staff recommended  
and would support a separate  policy development process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader 
</strong>commented that it would appear that those involved within the ICANN 
community&rsquo;s prioritization should take a backseat to the priorities of 
those outside. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
proposed moving forward with the issues report with the understanding that it 
may be appropriate to split into two policy development processes or establish 
separate priorities on the broader issues of a Policy Development Process for 
new gTLDs including a discussion whether to initiate an "issues report" on 
single letter domain names.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maureen Cubberley 
</strong>agreed to move ahead and to take  on single letter domain names as a 
separate entity externally driven did not seem  consistent with the   policy 
development process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz 
</strong>responded that the single letter domain name was  strictly within the 
purview of the policy development process. The policy issues were, should a 
scarce resource be allocated as in single letter domains, as opposed to the 
gTLDs where the question was whether an infinite resource should be allocated. 
The technical allocation methods involved in taking up an infinite resource 
could be different from those involved in a scarce resource.  Being responsive 
to a new set of community members who looked to ICANN for a solution to  a 
problem was important.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
commenting on the &quot;problem&quot; stated that from a Registrars viewpoint 
it was considered a prioritization issue according to the numbers, as those 
companies making the request would realize. The issues currently being examined 
impacted millions of Internet users, such as improving the WHOIS system  and 
introducing new tlds opposed to  a few companies that wanted unique domain 
names and which currently already had domain names and websites. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
summarised saying that  a decision should be made that Council was requesting 
an Issues Report  on new tlds.<br>
The <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA";>ICANN
 bylaws</a> state:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA";>2. 
Creation of the Issue Report</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Within fifteen (15) calendar days 
after receiving either (i) an<br>
  instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a<br>
  Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory<br>
  Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an &quot;Issue 
Report&quot;).<br>
  Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. The proposed issue raised for 
consideration;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. The identity of the party 
submitting the issue;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">c. How that party is affected by 
the issue;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">d. Support for the issue to 
initiate the PDP;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">e. A recommendation from the Staff 
Manager as to whether the Council<br>
  should initiate the PDP for this issue (the &quot;Staff 
Recommendation&quot;).<br>
  Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN General<br>
  Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the PDP is<br>
  properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the<br>
  scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is properly within<br>
  the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine<br>
  whether such issue:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. is within the scope of ICANN's 
mission statement;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. is broadly applicable to 
multiple situations or organizations;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. is likely to have lasting value 
or applicability, albeit with the<br>
  need for occasional updates;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. will establish a guide or 
framework for future decision-making; or</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. implicates or affects an 
existing ICANN policy.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">f. On or before the fifteen (15) 
day deadline, the Staff Manager shall<br>
  distribute the Issue Report to the full Council for a vote on whether to<br>
  initiate the PDP, as discussed below.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade 
</strong>proposed a motion to::<br>
  Request an Issues Report from the ICANN staff providing Item 4:<br>
  Policy Development Process for new gtlds - initiate vote for an issues report 
 <br>
  and including Item 7:  an "issues report" on second level single letter 
domain names <br>
and establish a reasonable timeframe with the ICANN staff input on what would 
be a reasonable time frame to request the return of the Issues Report .<br>
<br>
Motion withdrawn.
</font></p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ross 
Rader</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> did not support 
singling out any modification or restriction to policy, such as single letter 
domain names, for special treatment as prioritisation was the issue being 
addressed. However, Ross supported examining the issue, but not the combination 
as in the above proposed motion. <br>
<strong>Bret Fausett</strong> commented that the Issues Report should be 
focused on whether there should be new TLDs and against what standards. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin, seconded by 
Cary Karp, </strong> proposed a motion to: <br>
  Request the staff to produce an Issues Report on the topic of new TLD s that 
covers the four areas:<br>
 - whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs <BR>
- the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs <BR>
- the allocation method<BR>
- the current restrictions<br>
 that will document the status quo in the four areas and in documenting that, 
it will identify any of the requests that ICANN has received to date.<br>
 <br>
 The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Decision 2: <br>
  Request the staff to produce an Issues Report on the topic of new TLD s that 
covers the four areas:<br>
- whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs <BR>
- the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs <BR>
- the allocation method<BR>
- the current restrictions<br>
that will document the status quo in the four areas and in documenting that, it 
will identify any of the requests that ICANN has received to date.<br>
<br>
Item 5: Policy development for IDNs</strong><BR>
- recommend request staff to provide a background document listing all past 
Board decisions regarding the implementation of IDNs, and the status of the IDN 
guidelines <BR>
- this can be a precursor to motion to request an official issues report<BR>
- establish clearly roles of:<BR>
-- President's Advisory Committee on IDN<BR>
-- IDN registry review group (gtld and cctld reps) to development Guidelines 
for the Implementation of the IETF IDN standards<BR>
-- GAC work on IDNs<BR>
-- GNSO/ccNSO policy development initiative<strong></strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">  <strong>Bruce Tonkin 
</strong>proposed requesting the ICANN staff to produce a background document 
with the aim to assist in developing a workshop agenda for the Vancouver 
meeting.<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>requested feedback to the program committee to 
avoid parallel events of importance to the Council and constituencies.<br>
  <strong>Cary Karp</strong> reminded Council that a <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20sep05.htm";>draft 
revised version of the IDN guidelines</a> was published for public comment and 
suggested that the Council revisit the issues at the end of the public comment 
period.<br> 
  <br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested:<br>
    - 
<strong>Cary Karp</strong> forward to the Council list  the independent source, 
technical in orientation, listing all the initiatives currently in progress on 
the various components of IDNs and its development. <A 
href="http://nameprep.org";>http://nameprep.org</A>.<br>
  - <strong>Tina Dam</strong> to collect all the ICANN documents, scheduling 
and coordinating the IDN workshop in Vancouver with the aim of producing an 
issues report after the workshop.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 6: Draft terms of reference for GNSO Review</strong><BR>
-<A 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01413.html";> 
review current version</A><BR>
<strong>Marilyn   Cade</strong> commented on <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>section
 3 .4 </a> Review scope that the collaborative effort of the GNSO Council with 
the ICANN Board was not captured. Liz Williams responded that the difference 
lay in the way the Luxembourg resolution was written which was different from 
the way in which the bylaws were written and considered the collaborative 
approach was addressed by the Council's work on the initial draft then the 
Board's individual input and working in conjunction with the Council.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> referred to </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html";>section
 5.4.1, 5.5, 5.6 
</a>comparing with other organisations and requested a list of the 
organisations and further commented that internal relationships would be 
difficult  for an external evaluator to decide.<br>
<strong>Maureen Cubberley</strong> enquired about the expected outcome.<br>
<strong>Liz Williams</strong> commented that in the policy development  process 
and internal relations with the GNSO and the ICANN Board and staff, an analysis 
of the interaction was important to look at transparency, effectiveness and 
consultation. <br>
<strong>Update on next steps:</strong><br>
Submit information paper to ICANN Board <br>
A resolution for the ICANN Board to trigger the work<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Request for tender<br>
  Developing timelines - work will begin<br>
  Aim to complete work in early part of 2006 <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 7: Discussion whether to initiate an "issues report" on single 
letter domain names</strong> (<A 
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA";>as 
per annex A, Section 1 (b) of the bylaws</A>)<br>
Deferred to next GNSO Council meeting 20 October 2005 </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">  </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: 16: 10 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
</b><strong>Teleconference Thursday 6 October 2005 at 12:00 UTC. </strong><br>
        <strong>Topic: </strong><br>
      see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>Calendar</a><br>
    </font></li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"--> 
</font>


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>