[council] Revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 9 August 2007.

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Dear Council Members,

Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 
held on 9 August 2007.
Karen Lentz has requested that the following revisions be noted:

Item 3:
 Under Philip’s first question, old text: “Karen Lentz clarified that
when staff examines the issue, they will propose various options.” 
Changed to:  “Karen Lentz clarified that it would be expected that as 
staff examines the issue, they would be coming back with the various 
options as part of the interaction with the Council.”
3.  Following Craig’s comment underneath this, old text:  “Karen Lentz
clarified that individual negotiations would be avoided in the new gTLD
process and would specifically apply to all past contracts upon contract
renewal.”
Changed to:  "Karen Lentz clarified that the approach developed for fees 
would apply to existing contracts upon renewal, but would not apply
retroactively to existing contracts."


Please let me know if you would like any other changes made.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,
Glen

........................................................................................
9 August 2007

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C -
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries -absent
Cary Karp - gTLD registries - absent -apologies
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC - absent
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

14 Council Members
(18 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff
Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor -Asia Pacific, Office of the 
General
Counsel.
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
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
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies

Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies

Observers

Miriam Sapiro - consultant
Liz Gasster - consultant


MP3 Recording

Avri Doria chaired this meeting

Approval of the agenda

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Tom Keller indicated that he would provide an updated statement of interest.

Item 2: Approval of GNSO Council minutes
- 7 June 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03587.html
- 27 June 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03692.html
- 12 July 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03705.html


- 7 June 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03587.html

Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007

Motion approved
Mawaki Chango abstained

- 27 June 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03692.html

Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007

Motion approved
Cyril Chua abstained

- 12 July 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03705.html

Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007

Motion passed
Tom Keller, Greg Ruth, Mawaki Chango, Ross Rader abstained

Decision 1: The Council approved the
GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007


Item 3: - consideration of recommendations from Contractual Conditions PDP
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07.htm
- discuss staff implementation notes
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSOPDPFeb06-StaffMemo-27jul07.pdf

Karen Lentz commented that the staff implementation notes attempted to 
set out staff actions on implementing each majority supported 
recommendation.
1. Recommendation 1A. There should be a policy guiding registry 
agreement renewal.
Staff would document current registry agreement renewal guidelines,
and establish a draft procedure and timeline, collaborating with the GNSO
and incorporating public comment, that is, formalise and write-up 
current practice
2. Recommendation 1A.2.
The initial term of Registry agreements should be for a commercially 
reasonable length.
ICANN staff contemplated using expert economic analysis to determine 
what was ' reasonable' for the industry and then applying it to all gTLD 
registries under contract.

3. Recommendation 1C There was majority support for the concept of a 
re-bid of registry contracts but there are differing opinions as to the 
conditions under which re-bids would occur.
ICANN staff would examine the current terms when an agreement was 
terminated or not renewed and the consensus where re-bids would be used 
or would be appropriate to be used.
4. Recommendation 2 A The present limitations to Consensus Policies are 
appropriate and should continue.
Staff considered no further action was deemed necessary, the current way 
of dealing with the issue should be continued.
5. Recommendation 2B. Certain policy making responsibility should be 
delegated to the sponsored gTLD operators.
Staff commented that the current form of agreement for sponsored 
top-level domains includes provisions delegating certain policy making 
responsibilities to the Sponsor thus the recommendation appeared to 
confirm the existing practice.
6. Recommendation 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.
In formalizing a consistent model for registry fees, ICANN staff would 
take into account both current practices and the existing fee structure 
for each registry and continue to work in consultation with the GNSO and 
the community to refine the current approach.
7. Recommendation 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.
ICANN Staff agreed to forward the recommendation relating to the budget 
process to the ICANN Board.
8. Recommendation 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 nondiscriminatory 
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.
ICANN staff committed to support and carry out, including writing a 
draft statement of work and securing expert assistance in executing a 
third-party study on various types of registry data, should Council 
decide to undertake such a study.
9. Recommendation 6A. There should not be a policy guiding investments 
in development and infrastructure.
Staff commented that currently there was no policy. Existing gTLD 
registry agreements do not require registry operators or sponsors to 
invest specific amounts in development and infrastructure. Each registry 
agreement contains minimum functional and performance specifications 
which must be met and it was expected that this approach would continue.
10 Recommendation 6B. 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.
It was noted that there were various provisions in the registry 
agreements that were aimed at the preservation of security and stability 
and the ICANN staff agreed to consult with the SSAC in establishing base 
line requirements on security and stability.
Karen Lentz concluded that the Task Force’s report included a 
constructive set of recommendations regarding difficult and 
controversial issues. Staff could act in accordance with these 
recommendations without requiring their adoption as formal policy 
recommendations, and would do so at the direction of the Council.
Philip Sheppard requested that an explicit commentary tied to a time 
line was needed. Staff should revise the implementation document to show 
the status of proposed actions for each recommendation as follows:
ACTION - (explanation) (time line)

NO ACTION because it was consistent with staff's existing practice (time 
line)
NO ACTION because it was consistent with the status quo (time line).

Then Philip posed three specific questions on the recommendations:
- Recommendation 3.1C the fee attached to the re-bid. The overall 
philosophy of the group had been an expectation to have a policy on 
re-bid for all contracts both existing and new and the expectation was 
that staff would specifically advise on implementing a policy of re-bid 
for a contract.
Karen Lentz clarified that it would be expected that as staff examines 
the issue, they would be coming back with the various options as part of 
the interaction with the Council.
- Recommendation 4A - the consistency of fees. The text must be changed 
to show a clear recognition that there is currently no policy, and that 
the objective of this recommendation is a consistent approach, avoiding 
any individual negotiations on ICANN fees (both for future and past TLDS).
Craig Schwartz commented that while consistency across the board was 
desirable, one of ICANN’s core values was to allow competition and 
innovation in the name space, there had to be room to accommodate 
different business models.
Karen Lentz clarified that the approach developed for fees would apply 
to existing contracts upon renewal, but would not apply retroactively to 
existing contracts.
Philip Sheppard thanked staff for the verbal clarification, asked for it 
to be put in writing as an amendment to the staff document and commented 
that it was also a necessary clarification in light of recommendation 4B 
on the budget process.
Avri Doria commented that the ICANN by-laws were unspecific on whether 
the recommendations should be voted as a whole or individually. The 
presumption was that the recommendations would be voted on as a whole in 
the absence of a specific motion and vote requesting that they be voted 
on separately.
No such motion was made.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion that:

The GNSO Council supports the recommendations, as a whole, as set out in 
the Final Report of the Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing 
Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to the ICANN Board.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07.htm

Vote in favour:
Philip Sheppard, based on the specific clarifications that have been 
heard on the call, yes, Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Cyril 
Chua, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango, Avri Doria 
(each holding one vote),
Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Ross Rader (each holding 2 votes)
Total number of votes in favour 16

Vote against: Chuck Gomes (holding 2 votes)
Total number of votes against 2

Council members absent who did not vote: Tony Holmes, Robin Gross, Cary 
Karp, Edmon Chung, Jon Bing, Sophia Bekele.
The motion carried with a supermajority vote as defined in the ICANN 
bylaws, section 16
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA

Decision 2:
The GNSO Council supports by a supermajority vote the recommendations, 
as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the Policies for 
Contractual Conditions Existing Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to 
the ICANN Board.
Liz Williams commented that a Board report would be produced within five 
days, then it would be transmitted to the board with a detail of the 
voting record. Council would be advised of the process.
Item 4: - review of WHOIS status and decision on how to proceed
- include consideration of meeting on 23 August 2007 to consider WHOIS 
recommendation to board
Philip Sheppard reported that the WHOIS working group had completed its 
substantive work, the draft Outcomes Report of the WHOIS Working Group 
version 1.6 was currently being circulated for a week to the WHOIS 
working group to check that all opinions were correctly recorded.
The next, and potentially the final version of Outcome Report of the 
Working Group, version 1.7 would be produced after the Council meeting 
with a period of commentary from the working group and then the work 
would be complete.
Council was welcome to give guidance on how long it was appropriate for 
a potentially final report to be circulated to the group before it closed.
Avri Doria mentioned that a possible Council meeting could be called on 
23 August to discuss the final outcomes report. Some Council members 
considered more time was needed to complete the report and check the 
accuracy of the views represented.
Ross Rader reminded the group that the mandated time line in the WHOIS 
working group charter
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-charter-16apr07.pdf, 
and the schedule set at the GNSO Council meeting in Sao Paulo
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27jun07.shtml
had expired, and encouraged the Council to close off the working group 
as soon as possible.
Ross Rader reminded the Council that the WHOIS working group was not 
asked to produce implementation guidelines, but that the working group 
charter specified seeking further definitions around contentious issues.
To the degree that those definitions were acceptable to Council, they 
should be integrated into the final WHOIS Task Force Report. 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm
Adrian Kinderis, seconded by Chuck Gomes, and accepting the friendly 
amendment proposed by Philip Sheppard, clarifying the dates, proposed that:
The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 20 August 
2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report on 23 
August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 2007.
Resolution passed unanimously by vote of acclamation

Decision 3: The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 
20 August 2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report 
on 23 August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 
2007.
The Council agreed to change the regular meeting time from 12:00 UTC to 
14:00 UTC for all future meetings.
Item 5 - review pending action list,
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf
- includes status from ongoing projects (new gTLD, IGO issues follow up, 
domain tasting follow-up,
- response to board resolution on IDN cc TLDs,
- RN recommendations for existing TLDs

5a - New gTLDs
The draft “Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level 
Domains”
will be published on the ICANN website with a call for comments open 
from 10 August to 30 August 2007.
5b - IGO Issues follow up
Olof Nordling commented on the IGO issues follow up to draft the dispute 
resolution procedure, and said that a final document would be provided 
to the Council on 28 September 2007, so that it could be discussed at 
the scheduled Council meeting on 11 October 2007.
5c - Domain tasting
Avri Doria commented that the due date for the report of the ad hoc 
group was August 30 2007 and the date of September 6 2007 for Council to 
act on the proposal.
Mike Rodenbaugh, coordinator of the ad hoc group, stated that the group 
had sent out a request for information which would be published on the 
ICANN website on Monday 13 August 2007 with the responses due on 
September 15, 2007. The group holds weekly meetings and would need an 
extension to complete the work.
Ross Rader enquired how the domain name tasting ad hoc group fitted into 
the policy development process (PDP).
Avri Doria clarified that the Council received an Issues Report on 
Domain Tasting
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf
While a PDP was listed as one of the possible solutions, a resolution 
was taken at the Council meeting in San Juan to:
1) To create a small, ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and 
consider further research on domain tasting, including but not limited 
to examination of questions posed on page 30 of the issues report, and 
to draft terms of reference for a possible GNSO policy development 
process in a timely way;
2) To direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather 
further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make 
further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP;
3) To consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a 
status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting, and to 
consider whether to launch a policy development process on domain 
tasting at the September 2007 GNSO Council meeting.
Philip Sheppard, Adrian Kinderis and Chuck Gomes confirmed that that was 
their understanding as well.
Mike Rodenbaugh commented that the group understood it was tasked with 
directing further research to frame a draft terms of reference. The 
group's focus was not on defining the actual terms 'domain tasting' and 
'domain kiting', but rather the issues around those terms.
It was further clarified that the members of this group were not 
restricted to constituencies, the mailing list was open but the 
attendance on conference calls was limited.
Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh proposed, and accepted the 
friendly amendment from Mike Rodenbaugh that:
The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain name tasting 
to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council by 4 October 
2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007. 
In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify that 'small' 
in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives from among 
each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee appointees and the 
Advisory Committees.
Resolution passed unanimously

Decision 4: The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain 
name tasting to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council 
by 4 October 2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 
October 2007. In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify 
that 'small' in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives 
from among each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee 
appointees and the Advisory Committees.
5d - Response to board resolution regarding IDN ccTLDs.
Chuck Gomes, the group coordinator, reported that there were six members 
of the small group plus Olof Nordling providing staff support, and a 
couple of observers.
The group was working on a draft document, for consideration by the full 
council. Work was taking place on the mailing list and in a couple of 
teleconferences. The group expected to meet the 13 September 2007 deadline.
5e - RN recommendations for existing TLDs
Chuck Gomes reported on the ICANN IANA names and the single letter or 
digit names at the second or third level. Patrick Jones produced a draft 
implementation guideline that was being reviewed by other staff before 
being distributed.
Delivery date for the staff report would be confirmed and Craig Schwartz 
held the token for this item.
Avri Doria clarified that it was a Council action item and no longer a 
group action item as it was a pending item from the Reserved Names 
working group to discuss the recommendations on IANA names and single 
letters/digits at the Council level.
Ross Rader enquired whether it was still a priority issue for Council.
It was agreed that though not a high priority item the work was 
incomplete and needed to come to a conclusion so that the council was 
efficient across the board on the tasks it undertook.
Avri Doria proposed putting it on the agenda for the next Council meeting.

5f - Developing a plan for holding an extensive comment session on new 
gTLDs in LA
Avri Doria commented that on Monday, 29 October 2007, at the ICANN 
meetings in Los Angeles, a six-hour session would be scheduled to 
discuss the new gTLD recommendations in detail, not as a comment-seeking 
session, but rather in a workshop manner, explaining what was being 
suggested, as well as the reasoning and the arguments that went into the 
recommendations. It would be important to clarify the expectations for 
the audience.
Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Adrian Kinderis agreed to provide a draft plan.

Item 6 AOB

Philip Sheppard, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh, accepted Avri Doria's 
friendly amendment proposed that:
The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting.
Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this 
is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law 
change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the 
Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of 
recusal when using a proxy.
The resolution passed unanimously

Decision 5:The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting.
Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this 
is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law 
change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the 
Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of 
recusal when using a proxy.
Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for 
their participation.
The meeting ended at 14:50 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 30 August 2007 at 14:00 UTC.
see: Calendar

Action items arising from the Minutes:

The Council agreed to change the regular meeting time from 12:00 UTC to 
14:00 UTC for all future meetings.
Item 5f. Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Adrian Kinderis agreed to provide a 
draft plan for the proposed workshop in LA on new gTLDs.
Item 6: Seek opinion from General Counsel ' In considering this request 
the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of 
recusal when using a proxy.'
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org