RE: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 15 March 2007

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Glen.  Here is my feedback on the minutes.

Under agenda Item 6: Update from WHOIS task force, the 3rd sentence says, "A 
minority position was endorsed by three of the constituency's representatives." 
 I believe this should say, "A minority position was endorsed by three 
constituencies."

Under agenda Item 9: Update progress from Reserved Names working group, in the 
first sentence, "Chuck Gomes reported that the Reserved Names working group had 
concluded its work and published a report . . .", please change "published a 
report" to "will publish a report".

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it 
is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and 
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, 
distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the 
original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:50 AM
> To: council >> 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 
> 15 March 2007
> 
> [To: Council[at]gnso.icann.org]
> 
> Dear Council Members,
> 
> Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 
> 15 March 2007.
> 
> Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
> 
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
> 5 March 2007
> 
> Proposed agenda and related documents
> 
> List of attendees:
> Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
> Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
> Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C
> Greg Ruth - ISCPC
> Antonio Harris - ISCPC
> Tony Holmes - ISCPC
> Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent apologies
> Ross Rader - Registrars -absent
> Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
> Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
> Edmon Chung - gTLD registries - absent
> Cary Karp - gTLD registries
> Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
> Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent apologies
> Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
> Robin Gross - NCUC.
> Norbert Klein - NCUC.
> Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies
> Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent -apology 
> received after meeting
> Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
> Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee- absent - apologies
> 
> 13 Council Members
> (14 Votes - quorum)
> 
> ICANN Staff
> Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
> Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor, Asia-Pacific, 
> General Counsel
> Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
> Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
> Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
> Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer
> Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
> 
> Invited guests:
> Jordyn Buchanan - WHOIS task force chair
> Ram Mohan - GNSO IDN working group chair
> 
> Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
> 
> GNSO Council Liaisons
> Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
> Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
> 
> Quorum present at 20:10 UTC.
> 
> MP3 Recording
> 
> Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting
> 
> Approval of the agenda
> 
> Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
> No updates
> 
> Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 1 February 2007
> Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 
> 1 February 
> 2007
> 
> Motion approved.
> 
> Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 1 February 2007
> 
> Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 1 February 2007 were adopted.
> 
> Item 3: Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others"
> - Ratify statement of work at:
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03230.html
> 
> - propose extension of deadline until May 2007
> 
> Kristina Rosette proposed a motion that the revised charter for the 
> working group on "Protecting the rights of others" be adopted by the 
> GNSO Council.
> 
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03230.html
> 
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
> 
> Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the 
> working group on "Protecting the rights of others
> Background
> 
> There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy 
> recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In 
> addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering
> guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an 
> application 
> process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry 
> operators.
> 
> The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that 
> Registered 
> Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered 
> Name Holder's 
> knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the 
> Registered Name, 
> nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, 
> infringes the 
> legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy 
> called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is 
> intended for 
> resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party 
> over the 
> registration and use of an Internet domain name.
> 
> In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been 
> required to 
> implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that 
> infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names 
> to prevent 
> inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive 
> registrations; comply 
> with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and 
> provide protections (other than exceptions that may be 
> applicable during 
> the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have 
> been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to 
> registrants and third parties affected by registration, and 
> effectiveness.
> 
> As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has 
> been some 
> discussion about what additional protections beyond the 
> current terms in 
> the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms
> should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others 
> during the 
> domain name registration process, particularly during the 
> initial start 
> up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what 
> Registrants perceive
> as the "best" names.
> 
> Purpose:
> 
> The purpose of the working group is to:
> 
> (1) Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD 
> operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and 
> existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the 
> legal rights 
> of others during the domain name registration process, particularly 
> during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is 
> contention for 
> what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The 
> documentation should 
> identify the problems that the protections were intended to 
> solve. The 
> working group should establish definitions of terms used in this 
> document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of 
> the working 
> group. These definitions would only be in the context of the 
> document, 
> and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other 
> legal contexts.
> 
> (2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best 
> practices approach 
> to providing any additional protections beyond the current 
> registration 
> agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the
> domain name registration process, particularly during the 
> initial start 
> up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what 
> Registrants perceive 
> as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated 
> into the material for the application process for new gTLD 
> applicants. 
> The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process 
> (PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.
> 
> Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan
> 
> I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms
> 
> A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs)
> 
> B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms 
> are designed 
> to solve and new issues that may have developed
> 
> C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms
> 
> 1. Eligibility
> 
> 2. Rights bases or requirements
> 
> 3. Submission process and costs of submission
> 
> 4. Review of applications
> 
> 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism
> 
> D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection 
> mechanisms
> 
> 1. Eligibility
> 
> 2. Rights bases or requirements
> 
> 3. Review of applications
> 
> 4. Allocation
> 
> E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between 
> preventing the 
> dispute and resolving the dispute
> 
> 1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues 
> identified 
> in I.B.
> 
> 2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive 
> registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of 
> registrations that are purely defensive
> 
> 3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of 
> registrations; challenger success rate
> 
> 4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues 
> identified in I.B.
> 
> F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness
> 
> 1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any 
> evaluation 
> in light of issues identified in I.B.
> 
> 2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period
> 
> 3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a 
> cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B.
> 
> 4. Evaluate qualitative effectivess in light of issues 
> identified in I.B.
> 
> G. Impact on registries and registrars
> 
> 1. Resource allocation
> 
> a) Development of rights protection mechanism
> 
> b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism
> 
> 2. Other considerations
> 
> H. Impact on other affect parties
> 
> II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights 
> protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties.
> 
> A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances
> 
> B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances
> 
> 1. Submission
> 
> 2. Review
> 
> 3. Challenge
> 
> C. Level of Satisfaction
> 
> 1. Prior Rights Owners
> 
> 2. Registrars
> 
> 3. Registries
> 
> 4. Other Categories
> 
> III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms
> 
> A. Feasibility
> 
> Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on 
> registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns 
> of IP owner 
> and holders of other rights
> 
> B. Implementation Considerations
> 
> IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms
> 
> A. Alternatives
> 
> B. Evaluation
> 
> Suggested Working Group Membership
> 
> The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that 
> would provide 
> useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative.
> 
> * Owners of globally famous brands from different regions.
> * INTA Internet Committee member
> * Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist
> * Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
> * Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection 
> mechanisms
> * Registries with experience in preventive rights protection 
> mechanisms
> * Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
> * Commercial financial institution representative (because of 
> concerns 
> over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and 
> identity theft)
> * IPC designee
> * NCUC designee
> * ISP designee
> * BC designee
> * WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing 
> rights protection mechanisms)
> 
> 1. Voting:
> 
> In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus 
> approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions 
> that most 
> or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw 
> poll voting" 
> should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on 
> particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not 
> have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, 
> regardless 
> of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual 
> nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.
> 
> 2. Membership
> 
> The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO 
> Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) 
> may appoint 
> non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the 
> constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of 
> the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives 
> participate 
> as observers because there may be implications for the 
> treatment of the 
> two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. 
> The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors 
> (in the role 
> of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to 
> the effort.
> 
> Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group 
> include and 
> consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more 
> important 
> that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
> every constituency or group to have representation or equal 
> numbers of 
> members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are 
> developed that 
> have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, 
> with balanced 
> representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, 
> will then 
> have opportunity to act.
> 
> Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the 
> next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted 
> accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).
> 
> The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or 
> co-chairs] and 
> the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or 
> confirm the 
> chair and co-chair(s).
> 
> 3. Working Timeline
> 
> The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest 
> possible time and 
> to achieve the following targets:
> 1. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon 
> ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
> 2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 
> GNSO Council 
> meeting.
> 
> Timeline:
> 
> The working group should conclude its work in time to provide 
> a report 
> for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007
> 
> Kristina Rosette proposed a procedural motion that the 
> Council approve 
> extending the timeline for the working group on the Protection of the 
> Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the 
> report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007.
> 
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
> 
> Decision 3: The Council extended the timeline for the working 
> group on 
> the Protection of the Rights of Others from the end of April 
> to May 17, 
> in order for the report to be considered at the GNSO Council 
> meeting on 
> 24 May 2007.
> 
> Item 4: Observers in working groups
> 
> - Ratify observer rules for working groups at:
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03272.html
> "Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to 
> vote on the 
> working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate 
> on equal 
> footing with members of the working group. In particular 
> observers will 
> be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences 
> or physical 
> meetings."
> 
> To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with 
> unregulated 
> mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, 
> organisation (if 
> associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO 
> secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least 
> their email 
> address and phone contact information. Observers will also be 
> requested 
> to provide a public statement of interest, as for working 
> group members.
> 
> Where a person joins an already established working group, 
> this will be 
> on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing 
> documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing 
> list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been 
> dealt with by the working group.
> 
> During the discussion the following comments were highlighted:
> 
> The question was posed whether the working group structure was within 
> the Council's scope to consider because there appeared to be 
> a potential 
> recommendation for modifying the current constituency 
> structure, which 
> belonged in the broader spectrum of GNSO improvements under 
> consideration.
> 
> With regards to disruptive observer behaviour, it was 
> suggested that the 
> chair of the working group and the working group itself deal 
> with such 
> issues, and this measure failing, the issue could be raised for the 
> Council to review and a sub-committee formed to consider the 
> issue and 
> make recommendations to the Council.
> Private email exchange would be preferable to open list 
> exchange in the 
> case of obstructive or disruptive behaviour, while the 
> suspension of a 
> member should be undertaken with the agreement of the group.
> 
> Historical experience indicated that another form of sanction to be 
> considered would be empowering the working group or task 
> force chair to 
> temporarily suspend posting rights for the offending member. 
> While, in 
> terms of a more permanent sanction, Council should make the 
> decision as 
> elected representatives.
> Council should establish Working group procedures reserving 
> the right to 
> change if necessary.
> 
> Concern was expressed that not only was disruptive behaviour 
> an issue, 
> but that observers could deliberately shift the focus of the work to 
> suit special interest groups. Balancing out requests for 
> participation 
> at the outset, so that no one group could dominate would be a way of 
> preventing capture positions.
> 
> The number of participants in a working group should be flexible and 
> could be managed by assigning the work to sub-groups. There should be 
> relative flexibility with regard to who joins the working to 
> the extent 
> that it would be manageable as this would be favourably 
> perceived by the 
> community.
> The working group should not be considered as a decision-making body.
> 
> In the case of late-comers to the group the responsibility 
> should be on 
> the individual to inform themselves of the prior work. There 
> should be a 
> cut off date for joining the group.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin seconded by Alistair Dixon proposed, endorsing 
> the observer 
> rules for working groups.
> 
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
> 
> Decision 4: The Council endorsed the observer rules for 
> working groups.
> 
> "Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to 
> vote on the 
> working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate 
> on equal 
> footing with members of the working group. In particular 
> observers will 
> be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences 
> or physical 
> meetings."
> 
> To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with 
> unregulated 
> mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, 
> organisation (if 
> associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO 
> secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least 
> their email 
> address and phone contact information. Observers will also be 
> requested 
> to provide a public statement of interest, as for working 
> group members.
> 
> Where a person joins an already established working group, 
> this will be 
> on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing 
> documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing 
> list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been 
> dealt with by the working group.
> 
> Council further recommended that the suggestions made during the 
> meeting, should be ratified as further working procedures, at the 
> following Council meeting on Wednesday 27 March 2007.
> 
> Item 5: Update progress from IDN working group
> - report from Ram Mohan
> 
> Ram Mohan reported that the GNSO IDN working group, consisting of 30 
> plus voting members and 5 observers had made excellent 
> progress. There 
> had been robust communication on the mailing list and during 
> teleconferences. The group started in January with paired 
> meetings twice 
> a week, to accommodate different time zones but went to one 
> call a week. 
> The charter was to examine four key IDN-based documents, then 
> to review 
> a number of open policy items in order to arrive at some conclusions 
> whether there were policy items requiring further investigation in a 
> policy development process.
> A draft outcomes report indicating areas of agreement and areas of 
> support by the working group membership is due to be released to the 
> Council on March 21 2007.
> 
> The group was productive in bringing together a wide range of 
> individuals, with different levels of knowledge and 
> experience, some who 
> represented constituencies and others who partook in their own 
> individual capacity.
> 
> Some of the IDN working groups' output has been reflected in the 
> outcomes of the Reserved Names working group and the Protection of 
> Rights of Others working group.
> 
> The chairs of the GAC IDN committee, and the ccNSO IDN working group, 
> have liaised regularly and kept each other updated on their 
> respective 
> committees work. The GNSO IDN working group appointed one of 
> its members 
> as a liaison to the joint ccTLD-GAC working group on IDN. There was 
> however no formal liaison with the President's Advisory 
> Committee on IDNs.
> 
> The report is due to be circulated to the ccNSO and the GAC working 
> groups for their comments as well as to the President's Advisory 
> Committee on IDNs. The working group mandate has concluded after the 
> last call on 20 March.
> 
> Item 6: Update from WHOIS task force
> - final report
> - meeting with GAC in Lisbon
> - next steps - possible implementation working group
> 
> Jordyn Buchanan reported that the WHOIS task force had issued 
> its final 
> report. The task force recommended a set of policy recommendations in 
> the form of the OPoC proposal,
> supported by a majority on the task force which are the 
> recommendations 
> of the task force.
> A minority position was endorsed by three of the constituency's 
> representatives.
> Summary of the task force recommendations:
> The amount of information that is displayed in the WHOIS 
> system for the 
> registrant is significantly reduced.The only information that 
> would be 
> displayed would be the registrants name, information about 
> the country 
> and technical information about the domains.
> 
> The administrative and technical contact would be replaced by 
> a new form 
> of contact called the Operational Point of Contact. That 
> person would be 
> responsible for resolving or passing on information to help 
> to resolve 
> any operational issues within the domain.
> 
> Changes include the way complaints about accuracy are handled. A 
> requirement is introduced that registrars, upon discovering the 
> information or upon being notified that the information is 
> inaccurate, 
> and confirming that to be so, actually, either suspend the 
> domain name 
> or delete it.
> 
> There are changes that require the registrar to verify, that 
> the email 
> address that's provided in response to a complaint to update the 
> information actually works and is responded to by whoever the 
> contact is.
> 
> There was a strong minority that had a different set of policy 
> recommendations that have also been included in the report, 
> called the 
> Special Circumstances proposal.
> 
> This proposal doesn't change the default information that's 
> displayed in 
> WHOIS.
> 
> If information in WHOIS were used for a specific bad purpose by some 
> third party, it would allow a registrant to request their 
> information be 
> removed from WHOIS.
> 
> That request would be evaluated by a third party based on the set of 
> criteria, and if the criteria were met, the registrant 
> information would 
> be removed from WHOIS.
> 
> One other point worth noting, in the terms of reference was if the 
> information that was displayed in WHOIS were changed, there 
> should be an 
> alternative means of getting access to that information. 
> There were not 
> clear proposals on how to deal with this particular issue other than 
> simply contact the registrar and obtain the information that way.
> 
> The current report finalizes the rest of the terms of 
> reference and The 
> work of the WHOIS task force has concluded.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin thanked Jordyn Buchanan and the WHOIS task force 
> for their 
> long and sustained work.
> The following steps would be to consider forming an implementation 
> working group.
> 
> Chuck Gomes commented that the registries would oppose 
> implementing the 
> OPoC proposal before a solution to access had been resolved.
> Philip Sheppard expressed concern about the language used to describe 
> the outcomes of the report about the characterization of 
> minority report 
> as being basically, three constituencies, representative of 
> thousands of 
> people, of thousands of organizations around the world, being 
> characterized in that way.The reason why some voted against was that 
> there was a substantial list of unresolved issues.
> 
> Maria Farrell clarified that the staff was preparing a document on 
> potential implementation issues arising from the task force 
> recommendation of the OPoC proposal, and the Special Circumstances 
> proposal, to clarify outstanding issues in both proposals.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be useful for the groups 
> who have 
> opposed the supermajority to articulate what they consider as 
> difficult 
> to accept as Council should identify the remaining issues 
> that might be 
> solvable in an attempt to increase the majority.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin proposed working on further improvements to the OPoC and 
> the special circumstances separately, with the Opoc proposal being 
> considered first, on that basis that the two proposals were 
> not mutually 
> exclusive. The further work on OpoC could be done via an 
> implementation 
> working group - similar to that used to finalise the 
> recommendations of 
> the transfers task force before submitting them to the Board.
> 
> Suzanne Sene commented that the GAC would be interested in better 
> understanding what the Council intended to do with the task 
> force report 
> and the next steps that lay ahead.
> 
> Item 7: Update on PDP-Feb 06 - contractual conditions for 
> existing gTLDs
> - final report
> - summary of any consensus recommendations
> 
> Liz Williams reported that the draft final task force report on the 
> PDP-Feb 06 - contractual conditions for existing gTLDs had been 
> published for public comment which will run through to 28 March 2007.
> 
> The policy recommendations are:
> 
> There should be a policy guiding registry agreement renewal.
> 
> 1A.2 Registry agreements should be a commercially reasonable length.
> 
> 2A The present limitations to Consensus Policies are appropriate and 
> should continue.
> 
> 2B Certain policy making responsibility should be delegated to the 
> sponsored gTLD operators.
> 
> 4A In order to improve ICANN accountability and effective business 
> planning by registries, ICANN staff should immediately implement a 
> system that avoids individual negotiations of ICANN fees and provides 
> consistency unless there is an established justification for 
> disparate 
> treatment.
> 
> 4B The ICANN Board should establish a Task Force or Advisory 
> Committee 
> to examine budgeting issues, including the manner and allocation of 
> revenue collection, budget oversight and budget approval 
> processes. This 
> group should solicit and review public comments on the issues.
> 
> 5 In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus 
> policy on the collection and use of registry data, including traffic 
> data, for purposes other than which is was collected, there 
> is first a 
> need for a properly targeted study by an independent third 
> party on the 
> data collected and the uses to which it is put.
> 
> The study should provide appropriate safeguards to protect any data 
> provided for the purposes of the study, and the 
> confidentiality of which 
> registry, or other group, provides the data. The findings of 
> the study 
> should be published and available for public review. A 
> Statement of Work 
> should be developed by the GNSO Council, with appropriate 
> public review, 
> to cover an analysis of the concerns for data collection and use, the 
> practice involved in collection and use of data - including traffic 
> data, and the availability, when appropriate, for non-discriminatory 
> access to that data.
> 
> It is recommended that a current processes document be developed, 
> describing the current registry practices for the collection 
> of data and 
> the uses of that data, for example, but not limited to, operating the 
> registry; preparing marketing materials to promote registration of 
> domain names; gathering of 'null' returns, ensuring the 
> integrity of the 
> Registry, or the DNS. This report should be available to the 
> group doing 
> the external study and should be made available to the public 
> for comment.
> 
> After examining the results of the independent study and public 
> discussions recommended above, the GNSO Council should examine the 
> findings and determine what, if any, further policy process 
> is required.
> 
> 6A ICANN should establish baseline requirements for the security and 
> stability of registries and anything above that would be 
> negotiated on a 
> case-by-case basis, if necessary. Baseline requirements should be 
> recommended to the Board by the Security and Stability Advisory 
> Committee (SSAC) after consultation with the gTLD registry 
> operators. In 
> determining those recommendations, the SSAC should solicit 
> and consider 
> public comments.
> 
> The Council is not expected to take action on the report 
> until after the 
> Lisbon meeting at the conclusion of the public comment period on 28 
> March 2007.
> 
> Item 8: Update on PDP-Dec 05 - new gTLDs
> 
> - status of report for Lisbon
> 
> - meeting with GAC in Lisbon
> 
> - further work to be done
> 
> The draft final report on the PDP-Dec 05 - new gTLDs has been 
> published
> 
> 3 elements of work still need to be concluded:
> 
> - A discussion on dispute resolutions to understand the options was 
> proposed for the GNSO new gTLD committee.
> 
> - The work of the Reserved Names and the Protection of Rights 
> of Others 
> working group which would provide input to the new gTLDS process.
> 
> - The elements that relate to string criteria would be 
> reviewed in light 
> of any final GAC principles relating to new gTLDs.
> 
> Item 9: Update progress from Reserved Names working group
> - report from Chuck Gomes
> 
> Chuck Gomes reported that the Reserved Names working group 
> had concluded 
> its work and published a report to meet the deadline 16 March, for 
> consideration during the New gTLD committee work in Lisbon.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin clarified that procedurally, the GNSO Council 
> does not need 
> to wait for the GAC to provide its recommendations. The 
> Council, could 
> complete the work, submit it to the Board which may then 
> receive GAC input.
> 
> Item 10: GNSO Board election
> 
> - Bruce Tonkin hand over the chair, and will not participate as a 
> Council member
> 
> - update from staff on next steps
> 
> - opportunity for Council and constituency leadership to interview
> candidates
> 
> Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard the past 
> chair of the 
> Council.
> Philip Sheppard referred to the election procedures and the 
> candidate's 
> statement .
> 
> Philip Sheppard proposed an interactive session during the Lisbon 
> meetings to interview Bruce Tonkin, the only candidate for 
> the position 
> and to further proceed with the scheduled election procedures.
> 
> Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone 
> for their 
> participation.
> 
> The meeting ended: 21 :40 UTC
> 
> Next GNSO Council meeting will be in the Corinthia hotel in 
> Lisbon on 27 
> March 2007 at 10:30 UTC.
> see: Calendar
> 
> Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes:
> 
> 1.Compile the suggestions for observer participation in 
> working groups 
> and present for ratification at the next Council meeting.
> 
> 2. Schedule working group meetings in Lisbon as well as a session for 
> dispute resolution options
> 
> 3. Schedule an Interactive session during the Lisbon meetings to 
> interview Bruce Tonkin, candidate for Board seat 13. 5 March 2007
> 
> Proposed agenda and related documents
> 
> List of attendees:
> Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
> Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
> Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C
> Greg Ruth - ISCPC
> Antonio Harris - ISCPC
> Tony Holmes - ISCPC
> Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent apologies
> Ross Rader - Registrars -absent
> Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
> Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
> Edmon Chung - gTLD registries - absent
> Cary Karp - gTLD registries
> Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
> Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent apologies
> Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
> Robin Gross - NCUC.
> Norbert Klein - NCUC.
> Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies
> Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent -apology 
> received after meeting
> Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
> Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee- absent - apologies
> 
> 13 Council Members
> (14 Votes - quorum)
> 
> ICANN Staff
> Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
> Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor, Asia-Pacific, 
> General Counsel
> Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
> Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
> Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
> Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer
> Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
> 
> Invited guests:
> Jordyn Buchanan - WHOIS task force chair
> Ram Mohan - GNSO IDN working group chair
> 
> Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
> 
> GNSO Council Liaisons
> Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
> Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
> 
> Quorum present at 20:10 UTC.
> 
> MP3 Recording
> 
> Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting
> 
> Approval of the agenda
> 
> Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
> No updates
> 
> Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 1 February 2007
> Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 
> 1 February 
> 2007
> 
> Motion approved.
> 
> Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 1 February 2007
> 
> Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 1 February 2007 were adopted.
> 
> Item 3: Working Group on "Protecting the rights of others"
> - Ratify statement of work at:
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03230.html
> 
> - propose extension of deadline until May 2007
> 
> Kristina Rosette proposed a motion that the revised charter for the 
> working group on "Protecting the rights of others" be adopted by the 
> GNSO Council.
> 
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03230.html
> 
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
> 
> Decision 2: The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the 
> working group on "Protecting the rights of others
> Background
> 
> There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy 
> recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In 
> addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering
> guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an 
> application 
> process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry 
> operators.
> 
> The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that 
> Registered 
> Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered 
> Name Holder's 
> knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the 
> Registered Name, 
> nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, 
> infringes the 
> legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy 
> called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is 
> intended for 
> resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party 
> over the 
> registration and use of an Internet domain name.
> 
> In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been 
> required to 
> implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that 
> infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names 
> to prevent 
> inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive 
> registrations; comply 
> with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and 
> provide protections (other than exceptions that may be 
> applicable during 
> the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have 
> been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to 
> registrants and third parties affected by registration, and 
> effectiveness.
> 
> As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has 
> been some 
> discussion about what additional protections beyond the 
> current terms in 
> the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms
> should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others 
> during the 
> domain name registration process, particularly during the 
> initial start 
> up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what 
> Registrants perceive
> as the "best" names.
> 
> Purpose:
> 
> The purpose of the working group is to:
> 
> (1) Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD 
> operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and 
> existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the 
> legal rights 
> of others during the domain name registration process, particularly 
> during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is 
> contention for 
> what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The 
> documentation should 
> identify the problems that the protections were intended to 
> solve. The 
> working group should establish definitions of terms used in this 
> document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of 
> the working 
> group. These definitions would only be in the context of the 
> document, 
> and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other 
> legal contexts.
> 
> (2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best 
> practices approach 
> to providing any additional protections beyond the current 
> registration 
> agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the
> domain name registration process, particularly during the 
> initial start 
> up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what 
> Registrants perceive 
> as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated 
> into the material for the application process for new gTLD 
> applicants. 
> The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process 
> (PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.
> 
> Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan
> 
> I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms
> 
> A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs)
> 
> B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms 
> are designed 
> to solve and new issues that may have developed
> 
> C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms
> 
> 1. Eligibility
> 
> 2. Rights bases or requirements
> 
> 3. Submission process and costs of submission
> 
> 4. Review of applications
> 
> 5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism
> 
> D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection 
> mechanisms
> 
> 1. Eligibility
> 
> 2. Rights bases or requirements
> 
> 3. Review of applications
> 
> 4. Allocation
> 
> E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between 
> preventing the 
> dispute and resolving the dispute
> 
> 1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues 
> identified 
> in I.B.
> 
> 2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive 
> registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of 
> registrations that are purely defensive
> 
> 3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of 
> registrations; challenger success rate
> 
> 4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues 
> identified in I.B.
> 
> F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness
> 
> 1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any 
> evaluation 
> in light of issues identified in I.B.
> 
> 2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period
> 
> 3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a 
> cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B.
> 
> 4. Evaluate qualitative effectivess in light of issues 
> identified in I.B.
> 
> G. Impact on registries and registrars
> 
> 1. Resource allocation
> 
> a) Development of rights protection mechanism
> 
> b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism
> 
> 2. Other considerations
> 
> H. Impact on other affect parties
> 
> II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights 
> protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties.
> 
> A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances
> 
> B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances
> 
> 1. Submission
> 
> 2. Review
> 
> 3. Challenge
> 
> C. Level of Satisfaction
> 
> 1. Prior Rights Owners
> 
> 2. Registrars
> 
> 3. Registries
> 
> 4. Other Categories
> 
> III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms
> 
> A. Feasibility
> 
> Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on 
> registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns 
> of IP owner 
> and holders of other rights
> 
> B. Implementation Considerations
> 
> IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms
> 
> A. Alternatives
> 
> B. Evaluation
> 
> Suggested Working Group Membership
> 
> The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that 
> would provide 
> useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative.
> 
> * Owners of globally famous brands from different regions.
> * INTA Internet Committee member
> * Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist
> * Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
> * Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection 
> mechanisms
> * Registries with experience in preventive rights protection 
> mechanisms
> * Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
> * Commercial financial institution representative (because of 
> concerns 
> over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and 
> identity theft)
> * IPC designee
> * NCUC designee
> * ISP designee
> * BC designee
> * WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing 
> rights protection mechanisms)
> 
> 1. Voting:
> 
> In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus 
> approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions 
> that most 
> or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw 
> poll voting" 
> should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on 
> particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not 
> have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, 
> regardless 
> of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual 
> nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.
> 
> 2. Membership
> 
> The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO 
> Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) 
> may appoint 
> non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the 
> constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of 
> the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives 
> participate 
> as observers because there may be implications for the 
> treatment of the 
> two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. 
> The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors 
> (in the role 
> of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to 
> the effort.
> 
> Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group 
> include and 
> consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more 
> important 
> that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
> every constituency or group to have representation or equal 
> numbers of 
> members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are 
> developed that 
> have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, 
> with balanced 
> representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, 
> will then 
> have opportunity to act.
> 
> Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the 
> next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted 
> accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).
> 
> The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or 
> co-chairs] and 
> the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or 
> confirm the 
> chair and co-chair(s).
> 
> 3. Working Timeline
> 
> The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest 
> possible time and 
> to achieve the following targets:
> 1. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon 
> ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
> 2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 
> GNSO Council 
> meeting.
> 
> Timeline:
> 
> The working group should conclude its work in time to provide 
> a report 
> for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007
> 
> Kristina Rosette proposed a procedural motion that the 
> Council approve 
> extending the timeline for the working group on the Protection of the 
> Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the 
> report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007.
> 
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
> 
> Decision 3: The Council extended the timeline for the working 
> group on 
> the Protection of the Rights of Others from the end of April 
> to May 17, 
> in order for the report to be considered at the GNSO Council 
> meeting on 
> 24 May 2007.
> 
> Item 4: Observers in working groups
> 
> - Ratify observer rules for working groups at:
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03272.html
> "Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to 
> vote on the 
> working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate 
> on equal 
> footing with members of the working group. In particular 
> observers will 
> be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences 
> or physical 
> meetings."
> 
> To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with 
> unregulated 
> mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, 
> organisation (if 
> associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO 
> secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least 
> their email 
> address and phone contact information. Observers will also be 
> requested 
> to provide a public statement of interest, as for working 
> group members.
> 
> Where a person joins an already established working group, 
> this will be 
> on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing 
> documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing 
> list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been 
> dealt with by the working group.
> 
> During the discussion the following comments were highlighted:
> 
> The question was posed whether the working group structure was within 
> the Council's scope to consider because there appeared to be 
> a potential 
> recommendation for modifying the current constituency 
> structure, which 
> belonged in the broader spectrum of GNSO improvements under 
> consideration.
> 
> With regards to disruptive observer behaviour, it was 
> suggested that the 
> chair of the working group and the working group itself deal 
> with such 
> issues, and this measure failing, the issue could be raised for the 
> Council to review and a sub-committee formed to consider the 
> issue and 
> make recommendations to the Council.
> Private email exchange would be preferable to open list 
> exchange in the 
> case of obstructive or disruptive behaviour, while the 
> suspension of a 
> member should be undertaken with the agreement of the group.
> 
> Historical experience indicated that another form of sanction to be 
> considered would be empowering the working group or task 
> force chair to 
> temporarily suspend posting rights for the offending member. 
> While, in 
> terms of a more permanent sanction, Council should make the 
> decision as 
> elected representatives.
> Council should establish Working group procedures reserving 
> the right to 
> change if necessary.
> 
> Concern was expressed that not only was disruptive behaviour 
> an issue, 
> but that observers could deliberately shift the focus of the work to 
> suit special interest groups. Balancing out requests for 
> participation 
> at the outset, so that no one group could dominate would be a way of 
> preventing capture positions.
> 
> The number of participants in a working group should be flexible and 
> could be managed by assigning the work to sub-groups. There should be 
> relative flexibility with regard to who joins the working to 
> the extent 
> that it would be manageable as this would be favourably 
> perceived by the 
> community.
> The working group should not be considered as a decision-making body.
> 
> In the case of late-comers to the group the responsibility 
> should be on 
> the individual to inform themselves of the prior work. There 
> should be a 
> cut off date for joining the group.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin seconded by Alistair Dixon proposed, endorsing 
> the observer 
> rules for working groups.
> 
> The motion passed by vote of acclamation.
> 
> Decision 4: The Council endorsed the observer rules for 
> working groups.
> 
> "Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to 
> vote on the 
> working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate 
> on equal 
> footing with members of the working group. In particular 
> observers will 
> be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences 
> or physical 
> meetings."
> 
> To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with 
> unregulated 
> mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, 
> organisation (if 
> associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO 
> secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least 
> their email 
> address and phone contact information. Observers will also be 
> requested 
> to provide a public statement of interest, as for working 
> group members.
> 
> Where a person joins an already established working group, 
> this will be 
> on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing 
> documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing 
> list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been 
> dealt with by the working group.
> 
> Council further recommended that the suggestions made during the 
> meeting, should be ratified as further working procedures, at the 
> following Council meeting on Wednesday 27 March 2007.
> 
> Item 5: Update progress from IDN working group
> - report from Ram Mohan
> 
> Ram Mohan reported that the GNSO IDN working group, consisting of 30 
> plus voting members and 5 observers had made excellent 
> progress. There 
> had been robust communication on the mailing list and during 
> teleconferences. The group started in January with paired 
> meetings twice 
> a week, to accommodate different time zones but went to one 
> call a week. 
> The charter was to examine four key IDN-based documents, then 
> to review 
> a number of open policy items in order to arrive at some conclusions 
> whether there were policy items requiring further investigation in a 
> policy development process.
> A draft outcomes report indicating areas of agreement and areas of 
> support by the working group membership is due to be released to the 
> Council on March 21 2007.
> 
> The group was productive in bringing together a wide range of 
> individuals, with different levels of knowledge and 
> experience, some who 
> represented constituencies and others who partook in their own 
> individual capacity.
> 
> Some of the IDN working groups' output has been reflected in the 
> outcomes of the Reserved Names working group and the Protection of 
> Rights of Others working group.
> 
> The chairs of the GAC IDN committee, and the ccNSO IDN working group, 
> have liaised regularly and kept each other updated on their 
> respective 
> committees work. The GNSO IDN working group appointed one of 
> its members 
> as a liaison to the joint ccTLD-GAC working group on IDN. There was 
> however no formal liaison with the President's Advisory 
> Committee on IDNs.
> 
> The report is due to be circulated to the ccNSO and the GAC working 
> groups for their comments as well as to the President's Advisory 
> Committee on IDNs. The working group mandate has concluded after the 
> last call on 20 March.
> 
> Item 6: Update from WHOIS task force
> - final report
> - meeting with GAC in Lisbon
> - next steps - possible implementation working group
> 
> Jordyn Buchanan reported that the WHOIS task force had issued 
> its final 
> report. The task force recommended a set of policy recommendations in 
> the form of the OPoC proposal,
> supported by a majority on the task force which are the 
> recommendations 
> of the task force.
> A minority position was endorsed by three of the constituency's 
> representatives.
> Summary of the task force recommendations:
> The amount of information that is displayed in the WHOIS 
> system for the 
> registrant is significantly reduced.The only information that 
> would be 
> displayed would be the registrants name, information about 
> the country 
> and technical information about the domains.
> 
> The administrative and technical contact would be replaced by 
> a new form 
> of contact called the Operational Point of Contact. That 
> person would be 
> responsible for resolving or passing on information to help 
> to resolve 
> any operational issues within the domain.
> 
> Changes include the way complaints about accuracy are handled. A 
> requirement is introduced that registrars, upon discovering the 
> information or upon being notified that the information is 
> inaccurate, 
> and confirming that to be so, actually, either suspend the 
> domain name 
> or delete it.
> 
> There are changes that require the registrar to verify, that 
> the email 
> address that's provided in response to a complaint to update the 
> information actually works and is responded to by whoever the 
> contact is.
> 
> There was a strong minority that had a different set of policy 
> recommendations that have also been included in the report, 
> called the 
> Special Circumstances proposal.
> 
> This proposal doesn't change the default information that's 
> displayed in 
> WHOIS.
> 
> If information in WHOIS were used for a specific bad purpose by some 
> third party, it would allow a registrant to request their 
> information be 
> removed from WHOIS.
> 
> That request would be evaluated by a third party based on the set of 
> criteria, and if the criteria were met, the registrant 
> information would 
> be removed from WHOIS.
> 
> One other point worth noting, in the terms of reference was if the 
> information that was displayed in WHOIS were changed, there 
> should be an 
> alternative means of getting access to that information. 
> There were not 
> clear proposals on how to deal with this particular issue other than 
> simply contact the registrar and obtain the information that way.
> 
> The current report finalizes the rest of the terms of 
> reference and The 
> work of the WHOIS task force has concluded.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin thanked Jordyn Buchanan and the WHOIS task force 
> for their 
> long and sustained work.
> The following steps would be to consider forming an implementation 
> working group.
> 
> Chuck Gomes commented that the registries would oppose 
> implementing the 
> OPoC proposal before a solution to access had been resolved.
> Philip Sheppard expressed concern about the language used to describe 
> the outcomes of the report about the characterization of 
> minority report 
> as being basically, three constituencies, representative of 
> thousands of 
> people, of thousands of organizations around the world, being 
> characterized in that way.The reason why some voted against was that 
> there was a substantial list of unresolved issues.
> 
> Maria Farrell clarified that the staff was preparing a document on 
> potential implementation issues arising from the task force 
> recommendation of the OPoC proposal, and the Special Circumstances 
> proposal, to clarify outstanding issues in both proposals.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be useful for the groups 
> who have 
> opposed the supermajority to articulate what they consider as 
> difficult 
> to accept as Council should identify the remaining issues 
> that might be 
> solvable in an attempt to increase the majority.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin proposed working on further improvements to the OPoC and 
> the special circumstances separately, with the Opoc proposal being 
> considered first, on that basis that the two proposals were 
> not mutually 
> exclusive. The further work on OpoC could be done via an 
> implementation 
> working group - similar to that used to finalise the 
> recommendations of 
> the transfers task force before submitting them to the Board.
> 
> Suzanne Sene commented that the GAC would be interested in better 
> understanding what the Council intended to do with the task 
> force report 
> and the next steps that lay ahead.
> 
> Item 7: Update on PDP-Feb 06 - contractual conditions for 
> existing gTLDs
> - final report
> - summary of any consensus recommendations
> 
> Liz Williams reported that the draft final task force report on the 
> PDP-Feb 06 - contractual conditions for existing gTLDs had been 
> published for public comment which will run through to 28 March 2007.
> 
> The policy recommendations are:
> 
> There should be a policy guiding registry agreement renewal.
> 
> 1A.2 Registry agreements should be a commercially reasonable length.
> 
> 2A The present limitations to Consensus Policies are appropriate and 
> should continue.
> 
> 2B Certain policy making responsibility should be delegated to the 
> sponsored gTLD operators.
> 
> 4A In order to improve ICANN accountability and effective business 
> planning by registries, ICANN staff should immediately implement a 
> system that avoids individual negotiations of ICANN fees and provides 
> consistency unless there is an established justification for 
> disparate 
> treatment.
> 
> 4B The ICANN Board should establish a Task Force or Advisory 
> Committee 
> to examine budgeting issues, including the manner and allocation of 
> revenue collection, budget oversight and budget approval 
> processes. This 
> group should solicit and review public comments on the issues.
> 
> 5 In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus 
> policy on the collection and use of registry data, including traffic 
> data, for purposes other than which is was collected, there 
> is first a 
> need for a properly targeted study by an independent third 
> party on the 
> data collected and the uses to which it is put.
> 
> The study should provide appropriate safeguards to protect any data 
> provided for the purposes of the study, and the 
> confidentiality of which 
> registry, or other group, provides the data. The findings of 
> the study 
> should be published and available for public review. A 
> Statement of Work 
> should be developed by the GNSO Council, with appropriate 
> public review, 
> to cover an analysis of the concerns for data collection and use, the 
> practice involved in collection and use of data - including traffic 
> data, and the availability, when appropriate, for non-discriminatory 
> access to that data.
> 
> It is recommended that a current processes document be developed, 
> describing the current registry practices for the collection 
> of data and 
> the uses of that data, for example, but not limited to, operating the 
> registry; preparing marketing materials to promote registration of 
> domain names; gathering of 'null' returns, ensuring the 
> integrity of the 
> Registry, or the DNS. This report should be available to the 
> group doing 
> the external study and should be made available to the public 
> for comment.
> 
> After examining the results of the independent study and public 
> discussions recommended above, the GNSO Council should examine the 
> findings and determine what, if any, further policy process 
> is required.
> 
> 6A ICANN should establish baseline requirements for the security and 
> stability of registries and anything above that would be 
> negotiated on a 
> case-by-case basis, if necessary. Baseline requirements should be 
> recommended to the Board by the Security and Stability Advisory 
> Committee (SSAC) after consultation with the gTLD registry 
> operators. In 
> determining those recommendations, the SSAC should solicit 
> and consider 
> public comments.
> 
> The Council is not expected to take action on the report 
> until after the 
> Lisbon meeting at the conclusion of the public comment period on 28 
> March 2007.
> 
> Item 8: Update on PDP-Dec 05 - new gTLDs
> 
> - status of report for Lisbon
> 
> - meeting with GAC in Lisbon
> 
> - further work to be done
> 
> The draft final report on the PDP-Dec 05 - new gTLDs has been 
> published
> 
> 3 elements of work still need to be concluded:
> 
> - A discussion on dispute resolutions to understand the options was 
> proposed for the GNSO new gTLD committee.
> 
> - The work of the Reserved Names and the Protection of Rights 
> of Others 
> working group which would provide input to the new gTLDS process.
> 
> - The elements that relate to string criteria would be 
> reviewed in light 
> of any final GAC principles relating to new gTLDs.
> 
> Item 9: Update progress from Reserved Names working group
> - report from Chuck Gomes
> 
> Chuck Gomes reported that the Reserved Names working group 
> had concluded 
> its work and published a report to meet the deadline 16 March, for 
> consideration during the New gTLD committee work in Lisbon.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin clarified that procedurally, the GNSO Council 
> does not need 
> to wait for the GAC to provide its recommendations. The 
> Council, could 
> complete the work, submit it to the Board which may then 
> receive GAC input.
> 
> Item 10: GNSO Board election
> 
> - Bruce Tonkin hand over the chair, and will not participate as a 
> Council member
> 
> - update from staff on next steps
> 
> - opportunity for Council and constituency leadership to interview
> candidates
> 
> Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard the past 
> chair of the 
> Council.
> Philip Sheppard referred to the election procedures and the 
> candidate's 
> statement .
> 
> Philip Sheppard proposed an interactive session during the Lisbon 
> meetings to interview Bruce Tonkin, the only candidate for 
> the position 
> and to further proceed with the scheduled election procedures.
> 
> Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin.
> 
> Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone 
> for their 
> participation.
> 
> The meeting ended: 21 :40 UTC
> 
> Next GNSO Council meeting will be in the Corinthia hotel in 
> Lisbon on 27 
> March 2007 at 10:30 UTC.
> see: Calendar
> 
> Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes:
> 
> 1.Compile the suggestions for observer participation in 
> working groups 
> and present for ratification at the next Council meeting.
> 
> 2. Schedule working group meetings in Lisbon as well as a session for 
> dispute resolution options
> 
> 3. Schedule an Interactive session during the Lisbon meetings to 
> interview Bruce Tonkin, candidate for Board seat 13.
> -- 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>