<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Revised draft minutes GNSO Council call 2 March 2006
- To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [council] Revised draft minutes GNSO Council call 2 March 2006
- From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:11:09 +0100
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held
on 2 March 2006. Lucy Nichols's was present and her vote has been added.
Please let me know if there are other changes you would like made.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
2 March 2006
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
June Seo - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Robin Gross - NCUC. - absent
Norbert Klein - NCUC.
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
19 Council Members
ICANN Staff
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison
Quorum present at 19:08 UTC.
MP3 Recording
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
Approval of agenda
Marilyn Cade requested the an update on the Wellington schedule under
Any Other Business
Item 1: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes 6 February 2006
Ross Rader moved the adoption of the minutes.
Motion approved.
Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 6 February 2006 were adopted.
Update on GNSO Review and introduction of the reviewers
The London School of Economics (LSE) Public Policy Group has been
appointed to undertake the GNSO Review, Prof. Patrick Dunleavy, Simon
Bastow, and Oliver Pearce were invited to address the council.
The expenditure approved by the Board for the GNSO Review was $150000
USD to be expended over the period of the review process.
The group is engaged in academic and research consultancy having worked
for the United Kingdom Government, international bodies and foreign
governments with a recent work focus on e-government.
The Review would consist of several components,
- the main one being a web site with a survey for each constituency,
accessible in English, Portuguese, French, Spanish, Arabic and Russian,
with a user identity and password,
- a large outreach team at the LSE e-mailing and communicating directly
with people,
- press advertising,
- a weblog and
- discussion group to interactively solicit views.
In addition there would be:
- a comprehensive series of interviews also taking place during the
Wellington meetings,
- examination of documentation and other data focused on the areas of
representativeness, transparency, effectiveness and compliance in the
GNSO Review Terms of Reference.
The emphasis is on seeking a broad range of views.
To a question raised about the review examining the GNSO role in
registry /registrar compliance, the clarification was that it was
intended to contextualise comments on how the GNSO was viewed, rather
than quantify how GNSO enforced compliance.
Item 2: Terms of reference for PDP-Feb06
- Decide the terms of reference for the PDP (Under the provisions of
section 7(b) of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws)
Bruce Tonkin noted the gTLD Registry constituency statement concerning
the PDP Feb06 posted to the Council mailing list.
The process to date was that an initial draft Terms of Reference (TOR)
for PDP-Feb06 was produced on 8 February 2006, a conference call was
scheduled on 16 February 2006, during which some constituencies
expressed the need for more time to discuss the issue, after the call
the ICANN staff produced a revised draft TOR . At an ad hoc working
session of the GNSO council in Washington DC, on Friday 24 February
2006, (present: Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader Registrar constituency; Marilyn
Cade CBUC; Mawaki Chango NCUC; Ken Stubbs, Cary Karp remote
participation gTLD registries constituency; Tony Holmes remote
participation ISPCPC, remote participation; Avri Doria and Maureen
Cubberley, remote participation Nominating committee appointees),the
Council members further edited the TOR. The current teleconference was
scheduled with the intention to finalise and put the Terms of Reference
to the vote.
Bruce Tonkin asked whether any councillor wished to make a statement of
interest that had not been previously declared.
Ross Rader mentioned updating his statement of interest indicating that
some of Tucows clients might be active in the GNSO or ICANN.
Bruce Tonkin clarified that pursuant to discussion with the General
Counsel's office, while the issue topic area was within ICANN's mission
and core values, any proposed policy should likewise relate to the
mission and the core values of ICANN.
Marilyn Cade, seconded by Avri Doria proposed the motion,
That Council approves the Terms of Reference for the policy development
process on GNSO policies for contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
(PDP-Feb06) as drafted with the insertion of the words "and core values"
in the paragraph on
"Goal" namely;
"The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies
are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of
ICANN's mission "and core values," that relate to the issues identified
in the specific terms of reference below.
Context
The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005
[PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs, and
,if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and
contractual conditions.
During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com
agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of the
GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated 29
June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005 and
29 January 2006).
As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that issues such as renewal
could be considered as part of the broader issue of contractual
conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more appropriate to
have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of the matters
raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters to negotiate
on a contract by contract basis.
Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the
ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed
agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by
the constituencies." This issues report is available at:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html
.
Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the
issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the
proposed revisions to the .com agreement. In the issues report the ICANN
General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to consider a
policy development process that specifically targets the .com registry
agreement.
At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council clarified
that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek an
issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate to
the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been
identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO constituencies
on the proposed .com agreement.
At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that while
the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its terms
of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome of
that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus the
Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by the
GNSO community.
Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a
super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP [PDP-Feb06]
to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing gTLDs.
The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context of
the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be
introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a
single gTLD policy.
Goal
The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are
appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of
ICANN's mission and core values, that relate to the issues identified in
the specific terms of reference below.
Terms of Reference
1. Registry agreement renewal
1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and
if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same
Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether or
not these conditions should be standardized across all future agreements.
2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies
2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry agreements
are appropriate and how these limitations should be determined.
2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making
responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so,
what if any changes are needed.
3. Policy for price controls for registry services
3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price
controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. (note
examples of price controls include price caps, and the same
pricing for all registrars)
3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements,
reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price
increase when a price cap exists.
4. ICANN fees
4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry
fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the
negotiation of ICANN fees.
5. Uses of registry data
Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry
operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain
name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic
data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated
with the registry.
5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of
registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if
so, what the elements of that policy should be.
5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure
non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to
third parties.
6. Investments in development and infrastructure
6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments
in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the elements of that
policy should be.
The motion carried by roll call vote with 18 votes in favour, 6 votes
against.
Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth, (CBUC)
Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Norbert Klein, Mawaki
Chango, (NCUC) Lucy Nichols (IPC) Maureen Cubberley, Sophia Bekele, Avri
Doria, (Nominating committee appointees) Ross Rader, Tom Keller and
Bruce Tonkin, (Registrar constituency each with a double vote)
Votes against: Cary karp, Ken Stubbs and June Seo, (gTLD registries
constituency each with a double vote).
Absent: Robin Gross; absent with apologies: Ute Decker; Kiyoshi Tsuru
had dropped off the call at the time of the vote.
Decision 2 :
That Council approves the Terms of Reference for the policy development
process on GNSO policies for contractual conditions for existing gTLDs
(PDP-Feb06) as drafted with the insertion of the words "and core values"
in the paragraph on
"Goal" namely;
"The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies
are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of
ICANN's mission "and core values," that relate to the issues identified
in the specific terms of reference below.
Context
The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005
[PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs, and
,if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and
contractual conditions.
During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com
agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of the
GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated 29
June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005 and
29 January 2006).
As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that issues such as renewal
could be considered as part of the broader issue of contractual
conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more appropriate to
have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of the matters
raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters to negotiate
on a contract by contract basis.
Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the
ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed
agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by
the constituencies." This issues report is available at:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html
.
Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the
issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the
proposed revisions to the .com agreement. In the issues report the ICANN
General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to consider a
policy development process that specifically targets the .com registry
agreement.
At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council clarified
that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek an
issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate to
the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been
identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO constituencies
on the proposed .com agreement.
At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that while
the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its terms
of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome of
that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus the
Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by the
GNSO community.
Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a
super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP [PDP-Feb06]
to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing gTLDs.
The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context of
the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be
introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a
single gTLD policy.
Goal
The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are
appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of
ICANN's mission and core values, that relate to the issues identified in
the specific terms of reference below.
Terms of Reference
1. Registry agreement renewal
1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and
if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same
Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether or
not these conditions should be standardized across all future agreements.
2. Relationship between registry agreements and consensus policies
2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry agreements
are appropriate and how these limitations should be determined.
2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making
responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so,
what if any changes are needed.
3. Policy for price controls for registry services
3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price
controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. (note
examples of price controls include price caps, and the same
pricing for all registrars)
3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements,
reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price
increase when a price cap exists.
4. ICANN fees
4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry
fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the
negotiation of ICANN fees.
5. Uses of registry data
Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry
operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain
name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic
data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated
with the registry.
5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of
registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if
so, what the elements of that policy should be.
5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure
non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to
third parties.
6. Investments in development and infrastructure
6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments
in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the elements of that
policy should be.
Item 3: Any other business
3.1 Update on Wellington
The Secretariat reported that following the proposed draft schedule
there would be an administrative session for councillors present on
Friday afternoon, 24 March 2006 in the InternetNZ's office. On Saturday
25 and Sunday 26 March 2006, the new gTLD committee would work on policy
issues related to new gTLDs.The GAC working group would meet with the
GNSO for 2 hours on Sunday morning. There is a proposed working dinner
involving the GNSO council and the ICANN board, not yet confirmed, on
Sunday night, 25 March2006. Constituency day is scheduled for Monday 27
March. The GNSO Council Public Forum is scheduled for Wednesday, 29
March followed by the GNSO Council meeting on the same day.
Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members and the London School of
Economics team undertaking the GNSO review for their participation.
The meeting ended: 21:10 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference 14 March 2006 at 19:00 UTC
see: Calendar
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|