[council] GNSO Council draft minutes teleconf 13 October 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 13 October 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="13 October 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">13 October  2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-13oct05.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. <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 <br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars   <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries<br>
  Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries <br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD registries  - absent - apologies<br>
  Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C<br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - 
proxy to Lucy Nichols/Kiyoshi Tsuru <br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.<br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - absent<br>
  Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.<br>
  Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent  <br>
  Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee<br>
  Avri Doria -  Nominating Committee appointee 
  </font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 16 Council Members<br>
  <br>
    <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination   - absent - 
apologies <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   - absent - apologies <br>
 <br>
  Michael Palage - ICANN Board member <br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20051013.mp3";>MP3 Recording
  </a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 14: 08 CET.<br>
  <br>
    <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
    <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-13oct05.shtml";>Approval of 
the Agenda       </a><br>
    <br>
    <strong>Item 1:- identify any common points of view for presentation to 
ICANN staff and other 
supporting organisations on 18/19 October 2005</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
reviewed the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-planning-issues-paper-04oct05.pdf";>ICANN
 Strategic Planning Issues paper</a> posted on 4 October 2005, with Patrick 
Sharry  and summarised as follows: <br>
7 strategic issues are identified: <br>
- The continued rise of the Internet as a truly global means of communication 
and the need for ICANN to met the needs of a truly global stakeholder base<br>
- Ensuring stability and security in an environment of increased threats<br>
- Maintaining stability given expected increases in scale driven by the number 
of devices using the Internet and the number of users<br>
- Multiple complicated changes to the Internet operations or protocols that 
need to be managed in parallel, including possible paradigm changes not yet 
anticipated.<br>
- Possible fracturing of the current system perhaps brought about 
by some users becoming dissatisfied with perceived restrictions imposed by 
technical protocols or by actions of a government or governments.<br>
- ICANN taking an appropriate role in the further evolution of the broad group 
of international entities involved in Internet co-ordination<br>
- Designing appropriate structures and processes for a post-MOU 
ICANN.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-planning-issues-paper-04oct05.pdf";>ICANN
 Strategic Planning Issues paper</a> , pages 1 - 3, deal with the external 
environment that affect ICANN's role while   pages 4 &ndash; 8 summarise public 
comments received during the planned sessions in Luxembourg and comments on the 
previous documents ICANN produced.<br>
  The next step is to 
envisage the Internet environment  in 3 &ndash; 4 years time and then  Patrick 
Sharry will create a new document the &quot; ICANN strategic 
plan&quot;.</font></p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marilyn 
Cade</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">  asked for 
clarification on how incomplete areas, identified  initially in the Amsterdam 
2005 consultation process, such as restricted funds, subject areas for 
restricted funds, how they would be managed, and regional offices, would be 
addressed as they were not included in the current document?</font></p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce 
Tonkin</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> responded that 
restricted funds and regional offices were a means to meet an objective, and 
not objectives in their own right. The plan would first identify measurable 
strategic objectives for  2009, then identify the initiatives needed to meet 
those objectives, and then consider how to fund those initiatives.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Avri Doria 
</strong>commented on 3 issues that should be included as separate items in the 
strategic plan:<br>
    a. Internationalisation<br>
  b.   Stakeholder representation<br>
  c. Corporate/organizational governance<br>
  a. Internationalisation<br>
  Internationalisation was proposed as a separate item in the strategic plan 
beyond the mention of regional offices, linguistic requirements and the  USG 
relationship with ICANN  and  IANA in the MoU, in an attempt  to obviate the 
need for international oversight.<br>
 The current corporate existence as an US chartered corporation should be 
examined as the latter is subject to all US laws regarding  business 
transactions with foreign governments and foreign companies. ICANN needs to 
insure that nothing in its US based incorporation could interfere with its 
global obligations and for this reason may need to consider changing from  a US 
corporation to an International organization. There are several models that 
could be explored on how this could be achieved. Discussions would need to take 
into account and seek solutions in light of ICANN's current obligations under 
US law to its employees, to the constituencies, and current contractual 
obligations. <br>
b. Stakeholder representation: <br>
This topic should merit a separate item as it was important not only in the 
post MoU era but in the  run up to the termination of the MOU. ICANN should 
consider increasing its  stakeholder participation and the role they play in 
decision making, registrants, users of the DNS system and governments from 
&quot;advisory&quot; to full participation. The role of the non-registrant 
user, who does not own a domain name, should be explored.<br>
c. Corporate/organizational governance<br>
ICANN needs to review, and perhaps strengthen its notions of 
corporate/organizational governance,<br>
that is,   a formal, external audit process  that regularly reviews, not only 
the financial aspects of ICANN, but reviews ICANN's adherence to its own 
principles. In addition appeal mechanisms available to those who believe their 
rights or concerns vis a vis ICANN, and its process, have been damaged should 
be reviewed. Is the internal ombudsman process adequate or should there be a 
mechanism or a process created for external binding appeal ?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Norbert Klein</strong> 
supported Avri's comments and said that  at the WSIS conference in Geneva other 
governments expressed concern about the legal implications that ICANN was a US 
corporation. <br>
<br>
In general it was  agreed that 
a review, summarising the main outcomes and strategic issues of  the Tunis WSIS 
meeting, 16-18 November 2005, should be included in the GNSO  Vancouver meeting 
schedule as well as the role of government in ICANN.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ACTION 
ITEM:</strong><br>
Council members who volunteered to provide input to the document of outcomes 
from the Tunis WSIS meeting were, Marilyn Cade, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Avri 
Doria and Norbert Klein. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Philip Sheppard</strong> 
commented that the Issues paper should be more explicit on&quot;  fostering 
competition&quot;, part of ICANN's mission,  and the way ICANN is perceived in 
fostering competition.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Grant  Forsyth</strong> 
commented that  it was important for the strategic planning process to look at 
the world of ICANN in a wider context as not necessarily the only player in 
broad Internet governance, and  identify issues that were not dealt with 
through  ICANN but recognize that there are other bodies or entities to deal 
with these issues. For example, the Internet in developing countries was a 
factor to be acknowledged and recognized, even if it was not appropriate for 
ICANN to address the issue.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tony Harris</strong> 
referring to &quot; ICANN should be doing more to assist the development of 
internet communities in developing countries&quot; mentioned that it was the 
role of the  WSIS in the declaration of principles, and the suggestion would be 
to concentrate on focusing ICANN  on creating awareness of the ICANN function 
and resources and not developing broader Internet communities as a general 
purpose.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Regional outreach should be 
anchored in the</font>  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">objectives of 
ICANN  such as IP addresses and domain names rather than confusing people about 
the role of ICANN.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tony Holmes</strong> 
referred to  the &quot;need to prepare for a  post-MOU ICANN&quot; and 
commented that the reason why it had not come to the fore was because of the 
uncertainty in this area and it was not clear what it meant for ICANN. Dialogue 
at the Council level would be advantageous to clarify the issue. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs, </strong>supported by<strong> Philip Colebrook </strong> 
added that future financing and enhancing relationships between the supporting 
organisations should be elaborated.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maureen Cubberley</strong> 
suggested linking of some of the ideas, as separate discussions tended to 
diffuse and  complicate the issues, and analysing to see where there was 
overlap and  significant impact of the overlap.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Item 2: GNSO Strategic 
plan document for presentation to the Board in Vancouver<br>
- begin to identify GNSO strategic view for input into ICANN strategic 
plan.</strong><br>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> pointed out that the strategic objectives in 
terms of 3 years, should be identified as a base for the operational plan which 
would take into account 4 month and one year goals. There should be a balance 
in strategic objectives and operational planning.<br>
The planning process is a yearly cycle, which is updated.<br>
<br>
The GNSO objectives could be formulated under the 7 headings:
<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>2.1 
Representation:</strong><br>
The GNSO should examine &quot; representation&quot;, how broad was the current 
representation, what was expected in 3 years , and what was needed to 
transition to the future. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
proposed short, medium and long term goals. <br>
  An example of an operational plan based on the objective of broader 
representation:<br>
  <br>
  <strong>To ensure participation in the constituencies 
  from all regions (e.g. Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America) and major sub 
regions (e.g. Middle East, Pacific Islands, Caribbean Islands) of the 
world.</strong><br>
  <br>
  <strong>To ensure representation on the council from all regions. 
</strong><br>
  <br> 
  The constituencies require  participation from each of those regions and sub 
regions to carry out their work. Where  are the gaps in participation and what 
are the steps that the council should take itself, or what would the council 
need from an external group to close that gap. In the area of representation 
for example there is an outside resource to the Council, the Nominating 
Committee, to whom a list of criteria could be presented as a mechanism to 
solicit  representation from unrepresented regions of the world <br>
  <br>
  A measurable should be defined against  the objective:<br>
Part of the GNSO Review is to measure the current representation in the GNSO 
constituencies and council on a region and sub region basis and the objective 
is where to go in the future and the next stage would be what should be done to 
achieve that.<br>
<br>
<strong>Ross Rader </strong>suggested that the
 diversity within the constituencies be recognized and there should be 
continued encouragement for not only geographic diversity but liberty of 
interest. Some thought should be given to groups that may need to be broken out 
of existing constituencies and examining their place in new constituencies. In 
the registrars constituency, registrars service different subgroups of 
registrants such as large corporates protecting brands and registering many 
names, small businesses, 'pay for click' registrants that have a million names 
each. Some registrars  focused on direct sales to retail customers, e.g. 
Godaddy, other registrars  focused on providing registration software services 
to other organizations e.g. Tucows or Melbourne IT, and some registrars  
focused on the secondary market. <br>
 <strong><br>
 </strong></font><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Philip 
Sheppard </font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">suggested 
that a  subset could concretely be judged by defining the cost benefit to users 
of the users being more deeply involved in ICANN.  The costs of users to be 
involved and what they would get out of that involvement should be considered. 
It concerned the functions of ICANN  and the ability to make a difference by 
involvement.</font></p>
<p>  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>2.2 Security.<br>
  </strong>What would a GNSO objective be on security?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Philip Sheppard</strong>, 
using the  ICANN example, stated that  defining what ICANN did not do was as 
important as defining what  ICANN did, thus defining what the GNSO did not do 
on security would be key.<br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> noted that two main approaches to security 
could be one, to inform registrants about what security they should be seeking 
and then rely on competition to ensure that registrants could choose the 
appropriate level of security for their needs, or two, ICANN decide that the 
market has failed to protect registrants and non-registrant users, and require 
all registrars or registries to implement a minimum level of security. The 
recent work done by the ICANN Security and Stability committee on domain name 
hijacking is an example where there is an attempt to inform the public, and 
then it is left to the GNSO to decide whether to impose some security 
requirements through a policy.<br>
    <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tony Holmes 
</strong>commented that  a missing element was the need to cooperate on 
security with other groups  across  other areas.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An proposed objective would be not 
to develop security solutions but collaborate with those who did develop 
security solutions and provide information to the GNSO community, except 
perhaps in the area of ensuring the adoption of security standards  in areas 
where ICANN had direct oversight or technical coordination. <br>
  Another approach was suggested, mandating  at the top level, and create an 
awareness in the user population of the importance of advancing the adoption of 
DNSSEC<br>
  <br>
Security is singled out by the MoU as a subset of stability and  should 
continue to be seen in that perspective rather than a separate item.<br>
<br>
<strong>Ross Rader</strong> suggested leaving a placeholder on security. 
T</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">he scope of the GNSO as 
opposed to the ICANN world should be considered. There were a number of clear 
security issues in both the registration and the resolution processes, such as 
transfers, which are well documented. <br>
 At the GNSO level security should be more specific, stating the current 
status, what is or would be desirable and how would those objectives be 
reached, e.g. increasing awareness, and if after a year awareness has not been 
increased, then mandate.<br>
 <br>
 In summary the strategic objectives could be stated as:<br>
 <br>
 <strong>The GNSO will aim to cooperate  with security experts (such as SSAC) 
and technical standards bodies (such as IETF) to raise awareness of security 
issues and possible solutions to those issues. <br>
 <br>
 The GNSO will identify known security issues within the domain name 
registration and the maintenance of domain name records, and identify possible 
solutions. <br>
  </strong><br>
  <strong>2.3 Scale Issues </strong><br>
Stability in relation to scale  is important from an IP address point of 
view.<br>
>From a TLD point of view one of the issues relating to scale are domain names. 
>For example, if the number of users increased from 40 million to a 100 million 
> what would that do to the DNS system, would it be putting more load at the 
>root server level, should there be new TLDs?<br>
<br>
 New gTLD allocation policy needs to be discussed, for example does each device 
type get their own TLD (e.g. .mobile, .ipod etc)?<br>
International Domain Names (IDN's) could become a scaling issue, for example if 
there were an increase in English speaking Internet what  affect would that 
have as a scale and if there were more languages being used scaling would be an 
issue  in the sense of languages as well.<br>
The fundamental question is whether there would be a large increase in domain 
names, how it would work and  then what   policy decisions should follow.<br>
<br>
In summary a strategic objective could be stated as follows:<br>
<strong><br>
The GNSO seeks to ensure that the gtld domain name system can handle at least 
three times the number of top level and second level domain names, and at least 
100 languages by 2009.<br>
</strong><br>
<br>
  <strong>2. 4 Multiple complicated changes to Internet operations</strong><br>
  Looking at environmental changes, domain names existed before the world wide 
web and before search engines but will there be a continued  need for them and 
what will be the interaction of the growth of research on domain names and 
technology. <br>
  The GNSO would not change the technology, but in considering environmental 
changes may be in a position to request new requirements in technical standards 
by being informed at a standardisation and application level.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Proposed objective: <br>
  - 
  to increase liaisons with technical groups such as the Internet Engineering 
Task Force (IET and WC3 <br>
  - to arrange  workshops or conferences with these groups to facilitate  two 
way discussions to understand the impact of technological change on the DNS, 
and changes in the use of domain names by Internet users.</strong><br>
  <br>
  <strong>2 5 Possible fracturing of the address space</strong><br>
At a domain name level alternative roots over the DNS become an issue.<br>
ORSN, an alternative registry,  of alternate&nbsp; root servers operating with 
a 'stale' root zone file. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 
href="http://european.de.orsn.net/faq.php#opmode";>http://european.de.orsn.net/faq.php#opmode</a>
 was mentioned. <br>
Proposed objective:<br> 
To preserve the integrity of the single root for both ASCI and IDN related 
domain names.<br>
Objectives need to be framed around what is good for the DNS and the single 
root argument leans toward what is good for ICANN and the GNSO and not 
necessarily what is good for the DNS.<br>
ICANN is founded on the support of a single authoritative root and it would 
take a significant amount of rethinking, redebating for the community that 
supports ICANN to move away from that base. <br>
However current technology is limited to a single root system and without a 
technological solution it is difficult to move beyond that. <br>
The reality is that with a fragmented root there will be no sure way of knowing 
the outcome when there is a DNS query or parts of the DNS will  be 
unreachable.<br>
There is not necessarily a commitment  to a single root but committed to the 
restraints that exists.<br>
A proposed objective should encompass predictability and reliability.<br>
<br>
[Related references from the IETF include, RFC2956 (Overview of 1999 IAB 
Network Layer Workshop, dated October 2000), RFC2775 (Internet Transparency, 
dated February 2000), RFC 2826 (IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root, 
dated May 2000)]</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In summary an objective could be 
stated as:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The GNSO will continue to 
support a domain name system that consists of globally unique identifiers that 
ensures two users in different parts of the Internet using the same application 
would experience the same application behaviour when using the same identifier 
(predictability), and that this behaviour is repeatable at different times of 
the day (reliability).<br>
</strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <strong>2. 6 ICANN taking an appropriate role in the  further evolution of 
the broad group of international entities involved in Internet 
co-ordination.</strong><br>
  This item has been broadly encompassed by issues such as security, changes in 
protocols,  fracturing of the root.<br>
  The need for ICANN  to develop an appropriate  role, which could be 
co-operation, collaboration, co-existence and/or participation within a broader 
group of entities, such as the IETF, W3C, ITU, ISO, the Unicode consortium and 
regional bodies such as CENTR and APTLDs. <br>
Separating strategy from operations, the strategy could be:<br>
<br> 
<strong>to establish outreach with international entities involved in Internet 
coordination. </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>2. 7 Designing appropriate 
structures and processes for a post-MOU ICANN.</strong><br>
  Strategic objectives for 3 years ahead could be defined in the above 
mentioned objectives and any post MoU structure would need to support those 
areas.<br>
  Ensuring the ability to  maintain the bottom up consensus policy development 
process maintaining the broader private sector leadership, which would include 
civil society, broad set of Internet users, the technical community and 
business users, .<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Next Steps:<br>
  <br>
  </strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Formulate 
objectives.<br>
  - State the initiatives to achieve the objectives<br>
  - Input for the operational planning of the GNSO<br>
  - Next 12 months Continued work focus on current issues such as Transfers and 
Whois as well as work on strategic goals.<br>
  <br>
<strong>Planning for Vancouver meeting:</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>2 Documents:<br>
</strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>1. 
Operational document</strong> stating goals for the next 4 months and 12 
months, such as transfers, WHOIS, GNSO Council review output<br>
  <strong>2. Strategic objectives document</strong> based on 7 items above<br> 
  - establishing the initiatives in each category </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <strong>OAB 3. <br>
  Marilyn Cade  </strong>asked whether there would be any budget items related 
to the strategic or operational plan that should be noted for the Vancouver 
meeting as there were certain outstanding issues that had to be addressed by 
the community and resolved. <strong><br>
  Michael Palage</strong> commented that there has been a proposal submitted by 
the staff 
  to the finance committee regarding moving forward with some of the set aside 
budget items. Procedurally the recommendations of the Board Finance committee 
will  have to be submitted to the full Board before deciding how to move 
forward.<br> 
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared 
                  the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for 
participating.<br>
The meeting ended: 16: 15 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>