Re: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 7 June 2007
- To: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 7 June 2007
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=yYUrE016/NzY84YylyHh9U3d2BczU8briwNm+1y/pYOKNY2GjOytTdoTsb5KJ+4guMY6jsR5My+W3kyCbNI0I4e73hv7WWalAg2AopVjSolJs/qJEON+Z5CilSX7aGs1veKoZtKbUhqnYASfZshGw412+J+l8so6XN1wPSwsfto=;
- In-reply-to: <46752ABD.email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It looks to me as if from item 4 at least, the minutes are not
intended to reflect the minute discussion during the call. Is
this made on purpose, and Ok? If so, when the council approve
minutes, is it the written form of the outcomes (decisions,
resolutions, etc.) that is approved, or is it the minute
reporting of the discussions? I guess it's useful to know in
order to express one's vote on the minutes.
> [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
> Dear Council Members,
> Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council
> teleconference held on
> 7 June 2007.
> Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
> 7 June 2007
> Proposed agenda and documents
> List of attendees:
> Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
> Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent
> Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C
> Greg Ruth - ISCPC
> Antonio Harris - ISCPC
> Tony Holmes - ISCPC
> Thomas Keller- Registrars
> Ross Rader - Registrars
> Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
> Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
> Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
> Cary Karp - gTLD registries
> Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
> Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
> Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
> Robin Gross - NCUC
> Norbert Klein - NCUC.
> Mawaki Chango - NCUC
> Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent
> Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
> Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
> 17 Council Members
> (23 Votes - quorum)
> ICANN Staff
> Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
> Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
> Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
> Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
> Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
> Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer
> Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
> Karin Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
> GNSO Council Liaisons
> Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
> Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
> Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member
> Invited observers to the new gTLD PDP
> Adrian Kinderis - Registrar constituency observer
> Marilyn Cade - CBUC
> Mark McFadden - ISPCP Secretariat
> Jon Nevett - Registrar constituency chair
> Werner Staub - Registrar constituency
> Ken Stubbs - Registry constituency
> Victoria McEvedy - NCUC
> Miriam Sapiro - consultant
> Ray Fassett - registry
> Quorum present at 12:10 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 24 May 2007
> Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes, 24
> May 2007
> Motion approved.
> Mawaki Chango abstained
> Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 24 May 2007
> Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 24 May 2007 were
> Item 3: Ratify the result of the election for the GNSO Council
> The chair must receive affirmative votes comprising a majority
> of the
> votes of all the members of the GNSO Council ? ie at least 14
> The election results were:
> 15 FOR Avri Doria
> 9 FOR Philip Sheppard
> 0 ABSTAIN
> There were 27 votes in total accounting for 21 Council
> 19 Council members voted - accounting for 24 votes. 2 Council
> did not return their ballots accounting for 3 votes, one
> council member
> holding a single vote and one holding a double vote.
> Bruce Tonkin proposed a procedural motion to ratify the
> results of the
> GNSO Council Chair election and congratulate Avri Doria as the
> new GNSO
> Council chair.
> The motion passed by a unanimous vote of acclamation.
> Decision 2: The GNSO Council ratified the results of the GNSO
> chair election and congratulated Avri Doria as the new GNSO
> Council chair.
> Item 4: Review new gTLD recommendations
> The purpose of this discussion is to review any
> changes/updates to the
> draft recommendations since Lisbon.
> Council discussed the recommendations and the following
> changes were
> made on the call.
> (The italics indicate text that was struck, and the bold
> indicates text
> that was added.)
> NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAIN INTRODUCTION:
> PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
> RECOMMENDATION 1.
> ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of
> top-level domains.
> The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries
> respect the principles of fairness, transparency and
> All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be
> against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available
> to the
> applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally,
> no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in
> selection process.
> RECOMMENDATION 2.
> Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing
> top-level domain.
> Text struck:
> In the interests of consumer confidence and security, new
> gTLDs should
> not be confusingly similar to existing TLDs. To avoid
> confusion with
> country-code Top Level Domains no two letter gTLDs should be
> RECOMMENDATION 3
> Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others
> that are
> recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and
> recognized principles of law.
> Examples of these legal rights that are internationally
> include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris
> for the Protection of Industrial Property (in particular
> rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular freedom
> of speech
> Text struck:
> The process for introducing new gTLDs must make proper
> allowance for
> prior third party rights, in particular trademark rights as
> well as
> rights in the names and acronyms of inter-governmental
> (IGOs). [GAC2.3]
> RECOMMENDATION 4
> Strings must not cause any technical instability.
> RECOMMENDATION 5
> Strings must not be a Reserved Word.
> Text struck:
> ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and
> territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless
> agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities.
> RECOMMENDATION 6.
> Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms
> to morality and public order that are enforceable under
> accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
> Examples of such limitations that are internationally
> include, but are not limited to, restrictions defined in the
> Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (in
> restrictions on the use of some strings as trademarks), and
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in particular
> limitations to
> freedom of speech rights).
> Text struck
> New gTLDs should respect:
> a) The provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> seek to affirm "fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
> worth of
> the human person and in the equal rights of men and women".
> b) The sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural,
> and religious significance. [GAC2.1]
> RECOMMENDATION 7:
> Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical
> capability to run
> a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets
> RECOMMENDATION 8:
> Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and
> organisational operational capability.
> Text struck
> An application will be rejected or otherwise deferred if it is
> determined, based on public comments or otherwise, that there
> substantial opposition to it from among significant
> institutions of the economic sector, or cultural or language
> to which it is targeted or which it is intended to support.
> RECOMMENDATION 9:
> There must be a clear and pre-published application process
> objective and measurable criteria.
> RECOMMENDATION 10:
> There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the
> beginning of
> the application process.
> Text and recommendation struck
> RECOMMENDATION 11:
> Staff Evaluators will be used to make preliminary
> determinations about
> applications as part of a process which includes the use of
> panels to make decisions.
> RECOMMENDATION 12:
> Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established
> prior to
> the start of the process.
> RECOMMENDATION 13:
> Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the
> scale of
> demand is clear.
> RECOMMENDATION 14:
> The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially
> RECOMMENDATION 15:
> There must be renewal expectancy.
> RECOMMENDATION 16:
> Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt
> Consensus Polices as they are approved.
> RECOMMENDATION 17:
> A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in
> the base
> contract which could lead to contract termination.
> RECOMMENDATION 18:
> If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN?s IDN
> guidelines must
> be followed.
> RECOMMENDATION 19:
> Registries must use ICANN accredited registrars.
> RECOMMENDATION 20
> An application will be rejected if it is determined, based on
> comments or otherwise, that there is substantial opposition to
> it from
> among significant established institutions of the economic
> sector, or
> cultural or language community, to which it is targeted or
> which it is
> intended to support
> Item 5: Review options for voting on the recommendations (note
> a vote
> will not be conducted at this meeting, but the aim is to
> discuss the how
> such a vote would be managed):
> Options include:
> (a) Each Council member votes on recommendations as a whole
> (b) Each Council member votes on each individual
> (c) We separate recommendations that are "complete", versus
> those that
> need further work
> Bruce Tonkin drew attention to the fact that Council votes on
> recommendations of the new gTLD committee and does not
> actually approve
> the report, compiled by staff, that consists of appendices,
> records of
> public comments and constituency statements and such like
> which is sent
> to the ICANN Board for consideration.
> There was general agreement that the Council would wait for an
> version and further discussion at the meetings in San Juan and
> vote on all the recommendations together, after the ICANN
> meetings in
> Puerto Rico.
> Item 6: Any other business
> 6.1 Domain Name Tasting Issues Report
> Bruce Tonkin commented that the key issue was to have clear
> terms of
> reference to start the Policy Development Process (PDP) and
> that if constituencies or Council members considered going
> ahead with
> the process they should draft a proposed terms of reference
> consideration by the Council at its meeting in San Juan, or
> alternatively the Council may request that staff conduct
> further fact
> finding and research before initiating a PDP.
> Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Avri Doria.
> Avri Doria thanked Bruce Tonkin personally, and on behalf of
> the Council
> for his excellent leadership and wished him the best of luck
> as a Board
> Avri Doria formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone
> for their
> The meeting ended: 15:25 UTC
> Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 27 June 2007 at 10:30
> local time in
> San Juan, Puerto Rico. .
> see: Calendar
> Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes:
> Item 4. Staff to update new gTLD recommendations and report
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN