[council] Revised extract draft minutes GNSO Council 6 september 2007

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

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

Dear Council Members,

Please find a revised extract from the draft minutes of the GNSO Council
teleconference held on 6 September 2007.
Mawaki Chango has revised his statement on recommendation 2.

This is the portion of the minutes that will be included in the Board
report.

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

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,
Glen

Extract from the Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference
6 September 2007

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C - absent apologies
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 - absent - apologies
Adrian Kinderis - 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
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

18 Council Members
(23 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff
John Jeffrey - General Counsel.
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison

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
No updates

Item 2: Discussion of New gTLDs

2.1 - review reports
Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Part A: Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Part B: Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-partb-01aug07.htm

2.2 - review public comments
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/

Liz Williams reported that the Final Report Part A and B, Introduction 
of New Generic Top-Level Domains
posted for the public comments, included the edits posted by individual 
Council members among whom were mentioned Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes, 
incorporated all the small group discussions and the final committee 
meeting on 6 August 2007.
The public comment forum ran from 10 to 30 August 2007
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10aug07.htm
There were 81 comments in all and a synopsis of the comments was posted at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00082.html

The issues fell into three categories.
1. The first category related to recommendations 6 and 20 with similar 
language about the way in which morality and public order issues and 
their lead objection process would be handled.
2. The second category of comments were general ones related to the 
process and urging ICANN to move towards having a robust and objective 
application process available as quickly as possible.
3. The third category's comment related to specific elements which 
included discussions of IDN issues, Recommendation 19 with respect to 
the use of Accredited ICANN Registrars and protecting the rights of others.
The arbitrary cutoff date was midday, CEST on 30 August, 2007 for 
producing the synopsis of comments for Council members. Comments that 
were received after that time (but before the posted deadline) would be 
included in the Board report.
The agreed process was to discuss the principles or recommendations 
where there were issues or comments.
Principle A

New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly, 
timely and predictable way
No comments

Principle B

Some new generic top-level domains should be internationalised domain 
names (IDNs) subject to the approval of IDNs being available in the root.
No comments

Principle C

The reasons for introducing new top-level domains include that there is 
demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII 
and IDN formats. In addition the introduction of new top-level domain 
application process has the potential to promote competition in the 
provision of registry services, to add to consumer choice, market 
differentiation and geographical and service-provider diversity.
Mike Rodenbaugh asked for clarification of the statement "the reasons 
for introducing new TLDs include their demand from potential applicants"
Avri Doria commented that in the absence of statistics or metric of 
demand, anecdotally demand was visible.
Tony Harris commented that there was a lack of available domain options 
which was a good basic reason to introduce new ones.
Chuck Gomes called attention to the wording of the principle,
"there is demand from potential applicant for new top-level domains.."
which did not quantify, but stated that was there is demand from 
potential applicants. Public comments and personal requests received 
attested to the demand from applicants.
Mawaki Chango added that during the ICANN public forum in San Juan 
forum, many participants called for the completion of the process so 
that they could apply for TLDs.
Principle D

A set of technical criteria must be used for assessing a new gTLD 
registry applicant to minimise the risk of harming the operational 
stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.
No comments

Principle E

A set of capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant must be 
used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to 
meets its obligations under the terms of ICANN's registry agreement.
No comments

Principle F

A set of operational criteria must be set out in contractual conditions 
in the registry agreement to ensure compliance with ICANN policies.
No comments

Principle G

The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom 
of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized 
principles of law.
No comments

Recommendation 1

ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new 
top-level domains.
The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should 
respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.
All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated 
against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the 
applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, 
no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the 
selection process.
No comments

Recommendation 2

Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain 
or a Reserved Name.
Mawaki Chango expressed concern about moving away from the terms 
'visually confusing' or 'visually similar' to 'confusingly similar'.
Chuck Gomes clarified that the committee had chosen 'confusingly 
similar' because it was a broader term used in some international 
treaties and that this was fully noted in:
Recommendation 2
iv) The Committee used a wide variety of existing law[42], international 
treaty agreements and covenants to arrive at a common understanding that 
strings should not be confusingly similar either to existing top-level 
domains like .com and .net or to existing trademarks[43]. For example, 
the Committee considered the World Trade Organisation's TRIPS agreement, 
in particular Article 16 which discusses the rights which are conferred 
to a trademark owner.[44] In particular, the Committee agreed upon an 
expectation that strings must avoid increasing opportunities for 
entities or individuals, who operate in bad faith and who wish to 
defraud consumers. The Committee also considered the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights[45] and the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights which address the "freedom of expression" element 
of the Committee's deliberations.
Mawaki Chango also expressed specific concern about the new gTLD policy 
in the content of multi-script TLD strings.
Addressing the reason invoked by his colleagues to reiterate the 
existing concept of “confusingly similar”, Mawaki contended that such 
reiteration is not necessarily without risk for potentially different 
outcomes in a different context (whether historical, spatial or by the 
subject matter.) There may certainly be situations where restating the 
status quo ante in a different context would equate to creating not only 
new rights, but completely new types of rights – thus, a new concept 
under the formal disguise of an old one. We all know that this new gTLD 
policy is developed for a new, international, multi-script domain name 
space. “Confusingly similar” did certainly not mean, more than a century 
ago, to establish an ownership right over meanings or phonemes across 
linguistic contexts. In the present circumstances though, and as I have 
heard in the discussions with my colleagues on the IDN working group, it 
might be used to claim such rights from a linguistic universe to another.
I therefore urge the GNSO Council to make clear in this new gTLD report 
the limits intended to its use of the concept “confusingly similar” in 
this particular context, and later on the ICANN Board to seek further 
advice, as necessary, from legal experts and authorities. The main 
objective for such consultation should be to establish legally and 
internationally valid mechanisms by which this concept may be 
operationalized (and the policy enforced) in the fair spirit – not just 
the letter – of the law as recognized by all parties involved.
Avri Doria commented that there had been specific discussion of 
multiple-script TLD strings.
Mike Rodenbaugh expressed concern that an 'Implementation Plan' was 
mentioned in Recommendation 2 xvii) while in fact it was not yet available.
"There is tension between those on the Committee who are concerned about 
the protection of existing TLD strings and those concerned with the 
protection of trademark and other rights as compared to those who wish, 
as far as possible, to preserve freedom of expression and creativity. 
The Implementation Plan sets out a series of tests to apply the 
recommendation during the application evaluation process."
Staff commented that there was work in progress, experts were being 
consulted, and the goal would be to have confusingly similar disputes 
resolved by an algorithm that would be posted ahead of time.
Avri Doria commented that the draft implementation note from the staff 
indicated that a series of tests using the algorithm have not been 
formulized or finalized.
It was agreed that the language should be changed from "implementation 
plan" to "work in progress".
Recommendation 3

Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are 
recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally 
recognized principles of law.
Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized 
include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention 
for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark 
rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in 
particular freedom of expression rights).
No Comments

Recommendation 4

Strings must not cause any technical instability.

Avri Doria commented that there were public comments on this recommendation.

Recommendation 5

Strings must not be a Reserved Word.

No comments

Recommendation 6

Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating 
to morality and public order that are recognized under international 
principles of law.
Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination 
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the 
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World 
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on 
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).
Robin Gross reiterated NCUC’s continued objection to Recommendation 6 as 
stated in the Statement of DISSENT on Recommendation #6
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc43798015
and called attention to the many comments that were received in the 
public comment period objecting to Recommendation Number 6.
Robin Gross further stated:
"I think that Recommendation Number 6 is so bad that I will vote against 
the entire report based upon Recommendation Number 6 and 20 alone."
Norbert Klein expressed concern that although many comments were 
recorded on recommendation 6, there had been no consequence and they had 
not received sufficient attention.
Chuck Gomes agreed that there were recommendations that not everyone 
could agree on, but in the general approach of trying to reach a rough 
consensus that a strong majority of the group could support, 
considerable time and a sincere and effective effort was made on 
recommendation 6 to try and address the concerns of competing 
constituencies and interests. The NCUC concerns were addressed in a 
reasonable manner considering that there was no way the group could 
reach a position that perfectly met everyone’s interest.
Avri Doria commented personally for the record:
"while I have come to accept this Number 6 because the majority of the 
people in the group did accept it, I am still very concerned about how 
ICANN can actually create fair processes dealing with morality when 
morality is such a broad subject. And I just wanted to reiterate that. 
So even though I have accepted it because the rough consensus was there 
and as a chair, accept it, personally, I still find it very difficult to 
understand how we’ll do it."
Recommendation 7

Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run 
a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out.
No comments

Recommendation 8

Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and 
organisational operational capability.
No comments

Recommendation 9

There must be a clear and pre-published application process using 
objective and measurable criteria.
No comments

Recommendation 10

There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of 
the application process.
No comments

Recommendation 11

[Replaced with Recommendation 20 and Implementation Guideline P and 
inserted into Term of Reference 3 Allocation Methods section]
Recommendation 12

Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to 
the start of the process.
No comments

Recommendation 13

Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of 
demand is clear.
No comments

Recommendation 14

The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable 
length.
No comments

Recommendation 15

There must be renewal expectancy.

No comments

Recommendation 16

Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new 
Consensus Policies as they are approved.
No comments

Recommendation 17

A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base 
contract which could lead to contract termination.
No comments

Recommendation 18

If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines[28] 
must be followed.
There were comments on the public comment list pertaining to this 
recommendation.
Recommendation 19

Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering 
domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.
The Chinese registrar in the public comments suggested that it was not a 
good idea to use ICANN accredited registrars only:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00055.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00049.html

Chuck Gomes commented that the registry community and some public 
comments articulated clear concerns relating to small registries only, 
suggesting that an exception could be made for them. Chuck went on to 
comment that in an effort to support the rough consensus process, the 
registries would support the total package including this recommendation 
in spite of the fact that they did not get what they wanted.
Tony Harris commented that the Chinese registrar
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00055.html
made a valid a point because new TLDs combined with IDNs in regions 
where there are no ICANN accredited registrars would require other 
options in the development of new TLDs.
Avri Doria commented that an implication of recommendation 19 could be a 
possible review of the registrar accreditation processes, costs and 
eventual barriers to accrediting registrars in non-developed areas.
Chuck Gomes expressed empathy for the Chinese registrar and others in 
similar situations and supported a review of accreditation requirements 
to assure that they adequately meet the needs of regions sparsely 
populated by registrars.
Kurt Pritz commented that ICANN had undertaken coaching new registries 
to acquaint them with ways in which they could satisfy the registrar 
requirements. ICANN, in the past couple of years has held outreach 
meetings, the most recent being in Hong Kong with a large number of 
registrar representatives from Asian and other countries.
Kurt was optimistic that in the implementation of recommendation 19, 
ICANN would facilitate the implementation of new registrars in thinly 
registrar-populated regions.
Adrian Kinderis repeated former comments that the recommendation tried 
to be all-encompassing and combined two distinct channels
1. Registries should use ICANN accredited registrars
2. Registries must use a registrar
If broken down, it could address the issue that if registrars were used, 
they must be be ICANN accredited or as a registry, if it was decided to 
use a registrar, then they should be ICANN accredited.
Adrian added that from a registrar point of view it would be a problem 
going forward because it could rule out potential new TLDs.
Avri Doria commented that while there was discussion at the committee 
level after Adrian joined the committee, no changes were made to the 
recommendation.
Chuck Gomes confirmed that registrars had the option of offering which 
ever TLDs they wished and that this was one of the rationales behind the 
registry’s concern, because some TLDs business models were too weak for 
registrars to support, thus registries were at the mercy of the 
registrars who justifiably might not be interested in providing any 
support at all for the new TLD.
Adrian Kinderis acknowledged that the Registry Constituency’s support of 
Recommendation 19 was as a part of the “total package” as reflected in 
Chuck Gomes’ comments on the call and not potentially of Recommendation 
19 in isolation. The Registrars Constituency, having helped author the 
recommendation completely support Recommendation 19 in its entirety.
Adrian Kinderis also made comment that he believed that no other 
constituencies or groups within the gNSO had really thought about the 
ramifications of Recommendation 19 and as such it is only the Registry 
Constituency and the Registrar Constituency that could comment with any 
authority. In this circumstance, because of the lack of understanding, 
Adrian Kinderis also pointed out that the Registry Constituency was “on 
a hiding to nothing” if it spoke against the recommendation which was an 
unfortunate position.
Avri Doria confirmed that the current discussion was noted in the 
discussion in the report under recommendation 19 and that there was 
ongoing dialogue between registrars and registries where new agreements 
may come on line that would change the condition for the recommendation.
Alan Greenberg commented that because existing registries and registrars 
might be willing to accept the recommendation, did not factor in that it 
concerned potential new TLDs in areas where they may be no registrars 
and no registries and it would be a no-win situation for a geographic 
TLD in an area where there were no registrars.
Kurt Pritz commented that the accredited registrars operated through a 
contract with ICANN and that provided certain protection for 
registrants. Current debate is taking place that is strengthening 
protection for registrants through making changes to the RAA and making 
registrars more responsive to the needs of the user such as addressing 
small registries and amending their agreement to allow for graduated 
sanctions. Replacing this with another model would require deeper 
discussion and reflection.
Avri Doria suggested that when it came to the vote, recommendation 19 
could be voted on separately if councillors so wished.
Recommendation 20

An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there 
is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the 
community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.
Liz Williams drew Council's attention to where the discussion of 
Recommendation 20 was to be found, that is in the Terms of Reference 
Three - Allocation Methods and that Recommendation 19 was to be found in 
the Terms of Reference Four - Contractual Conditions and was the last in 
the flow of the recommendations through the report.
Robin Gross reiterated an objection to recommendation 20, just as for 
recommendation 6, largely because of the harmful impact to freedom of 
expression that these recommendations still contained.
Particularly, the NCUC finds Recommendation 20 to have unpredictable, 
non-transparent criteria. The NCUC is concerned because it lacks 
objectivity and its advantages established institutions and industry 
incumbents at the expense of start up and non-commercial users. 
Unfortunately, Number 6 and Number 20 unravel all the other attempts and 
all the other recommendations that propose predictable and objective 
criteria.
" So, based on the harmful impact of freedom of expression, I’m inclined 
to vote against the entire report based upon Recommendations 20 and 6. "
Mawaki Chango commented given the definition provided for 'community' 
and for 'explicit and implicit target' Council needed to define what was 
a 'TLD that was targeted to a community' in order to help the community 
understand what TLD would not be included in the category of TLD 
applications that explicitly or implicitly targeted a community.
Avri Doria commented that there was no requirement that a TLD be 
explicitly targeted towards the community and there may well be TLD 
applications that do not specifically target a community.
Chuck Gomes cited as an example that if .Berlin was proposed but the 
proposer did not state that it was targeting the members of the Berlin 
communities around the world, there would still seem to be an implicit 
targeting of that community.
Mike Rodenbaugh asked what would happen in the event that a community 
was targeted in the original application, then they changed their 
business model, as has been the case in several of the country code TLDs 
to date.
Should there be a promise that the applicant makes that they would stick 
to their intention to target a community for a certain amount of time?
Tony Harris commented and questioned that with sponsored TLD 
applications, there could be requirements which would have to be respected.
Alan Greenberg reiterated previous comments, giving dot China as an 
example, whether it would refer to the country or pottery and believed 
the answer was, that the contractual agreements included the 
applications as part of its documentation, and they are held largely to 
that, although business model changes could be accommodated.
Kurt Pritz commented that it was a complex issue that had not yet been 
settled.
The way the recommendations were written to staff indicated that the 
implementation should include an ability for the applicant, in case of a 
string contention, to show that the string representing a community 
brings some value to the domain name space and that it should be 
considered in a string contention.
On the other hand, it is not envisaged that ICANN should police a string 
or a TLD to ensure that it would continue to dedicate itself towards 
that community. ICANN's function lies in writing contracts and seeing 
that businesses are launched
Adrian Kinderis commented on the definition of gTLD and that the premise 
of the entire document fell under the banner of gTLD.
Chuck Gomes commented that historically, the definition of the gTLD, 
included both sTLDs and unsponsored TLDs. In fact in the registry 
constituency, has divided its members into those two categories.
In the current round a specific sTLD category is not being suggested and 
old sTLD are still considered gTLD. A gTLD is not a ccTLD in the 
broadest definition of the term. There is no requirement to be sponsored 
in this round.
Adrian Kinderis confirmed that a supported or non supported community 
could equally apply for a gTLD.
Mike Rodenbaugh expressed the concern and asked what would be the role 
of ICANN in the case of an applicant with a sponsored community, 
applying to ICANN for a gTLD, ICANN granting the application, and then 
the applicant essentially changing its business model completely. For 
example, if dot Cat became a TLD for actual feline cat owners, instead 
of Catalan speakers.
Mike Rodenbaugh commented that there was a difference between policing 
and acting on complaints.
Kurt Pritz commented that the sponsoring community was free to arrive at 
an agreement with the registry sponsor or the registry itself. And in 
order to support that registry and have an agreement between them, that 
would be a form of guarantee for them that the registry operations would 
continue to support the original intent of the sponsored community 
represented TLD.
Alan Greenberg commented that Kurt's comment was different from what 
came out in the committee discussions, that it was acknowledged at that 
point that ICANN was not going to police but could, since the original 
application was part of the contract, react to complaints, which was 
very different from policing and very different from what Kurt had said 
that that a separate contract would be required between the two bodies 
if the sponsored organization wants to try to enforce anything.
Robin Gross commented it was important to leave room for innovation In 
the domain name space. For a domain name to be registered for one 
purpose, and then used for an entirely different purpose was perfectly 
lawful as long as there was not any kind of broader misrepresentation 
for which there would be legal recourse anyway.
Avri Doria called for comments on the Implementation Guidelines to be 
found in the Summary - Principles, Recommendations and Implementation 
Guidelines
Avri Doria clarified that input from the discussion, with regard to the 
guidelines, could be added in the report but wording would not be changed.
Liz Williams confirmed that a full analysis of the public comments 
including Mawaki Chango's comment on paragraph H, line T in the 
Implementation Guidelines on page 22 of the Report Part A and all the 
other comments would be included for the board report.
There would also be an opportunity to raise issues at the new gTLD 
workshop during the Los Angeles meetings.
Mike Rodenbaugh requested clarification on paragraph I
"An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within a fixed timeframe 
which will be specified in the application process."
It was clarified that the guideline referred to a timeframe.

Avri Doria called for a vote on all the recommendations as a block, 
unless there was a proposed and seconded a motion which obtained a 
majority vote in favor of separating out any question, any 
recommendation or any set of recommendations for a separate and prior 
vote. There could be more than one motion for separation.
Norbert Klein, seconded by Robin Gross proposed a motion to separate 
recommendation 6 and recommendation 20 as a unit for a separate vote.
Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion.

Vote in favour: Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing

Total number of votes in favour: 4

Vote against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina 
Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Sophia Bekele 
(each holding one vote),
Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each holding 2 votes)

Total number of votes against: 17

Abstention: Tom Keller (holding 2 votes)

Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, 
Ross Rader.
The motion did not carry.

Mawaki Chango proposed a motion of separating Recommendation 2 from the 
rest of the recommendations.
There was no second for the motion, thus there was no vote.

Avri Doria seconded by Tony Harris proposed the motion:

The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out 
in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation 
on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote.

Vote in favour:
Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony 
Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Jon Bing, Sophia Bekele (each holding one 
vote),
Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each 
holding 2 votes)
Total number of votes in favour 19

Vote against:
Robin Gross 1 vote

Abstain:
Cyril Chua, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango (3 votes)

Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, 
Ross Rader. (4 votes)
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

Councilor's comments on the voting:
Votes in favour
Mike Rodenbaugh:
"The business constituency, as we’ve said in our recent public comments, 
have some pretty serious concerns about what will happen in new TLDs. We 
think that these recommendations do not address those concerns at all, 
but we have been actively participating in this process now for two years.
We feel like this forum, perhaps, wasn’t the best forum to deal with 
those concerns about abusive registrations since they need to deal with 
existing TLDs as well.
We’re hopeful that our participation and our acceptance of these 
recommendations will result in Council and ICANN taking seriously our 
issues about abusive registrations in existing and new TLDs, and in the 
interest of consensus, we will support these recommendations."
Kristina Rosette:
"Support with the observation that there appears to be a logical 
inconsistency between on the one hand including Recommendations 2 and 3, 
but on the other hand refusing to recommend to new TLD applicants that 
they provide rights protection mechanisms."
Votes against

Robin Gross:
" I vote against the report largely because of the harmful impact on 
freedom of expression that Recommendations Number 6 and 20, the 
noticeable lack of legitimate authority for ICANN to adjudicate people’s 
rights has not gone unnoticed in this process, so I vote against the 
report."
Abstentions

Norbert Klein:
"I will abstain, but I hope that all the discussion which went on will 
be also forwarded to the board."
Mawaki Chango:
"I abstain because I am in favor of introducing new gTLDs and I would 
have loved to support this policy. But I still have a substantial issues 
with some of the recommendations namely the Recommendation 2. "
Decision 1:
The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out 
in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation 
on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.

--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org