[ga] GNSO Council teleconference minutes - 5 June 2003

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

[To: announce@xxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxx]
[To: ga@xxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxx]

ICANN/GNSO
GNSO Council Teleconference on 5 June 2003 - minutes

7 June 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. -absent, apologies,
proxy to Ellen Shankman
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. -( joined late for Item 7 of the
agenda)
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Milton
Mueller
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C.


14 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel

Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison


Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting Philppe Renaut - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030605.GNSOteleconf.mp3



Quorum present at 14:05 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.


Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html

Agenda approved


Item 2: Summary of last meeting

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Marilyn Cade .
The motion was carried unanimously.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.



Item 3: Motion to recommend to the ICANN Board to adjust the quorum
requirements for the GNSO Council in the ICANN Bylaws:
Council recommends that the ICANN Board change the ICANN by-law relating to
quorum in the GNSO (Article X, section 3(8)) from the present text: "Members
entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council
members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business...." with
"A majority of the total number of Council members in office, provided that
those members are entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes
of GNSO Council, shall constitute a quorum".

Philip Sheppard commented that the recommended amendment was aimed at
clarifying an oversight in the bylaws and the new wording aimed at
legitimacy.
Discussion: Marilyn Cade supported the recommendation saying that it
protected broad geographical and Council participation. . Ellen Shankman
supported having as many members of council involved in discussions as
possible.
Ken Stubbs and Jeff Neuman felt that there was no necessity to amend the
bylaws and no cases of abuse had been recorded.
Louis Touton referred to his paper on proposed by-law revisions dated 31 May
2003 (http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-31may03.htm),
where he stated that:

"Philip Sheppard wrote on 12 May 2003 that the GNSO Council, at its meeting
on 22 May 2003, would likely adopt a resolution requesting a change to the
New Bylaws concerning the GNSO Council's quorum rules. He suggested that
such an amendment could be added to the group of amendments to be considered
by the Board at its 2 June 2003 meeting. In fact, the GNSO Council did not
consider the proposed resolution at its 22 May 2003 meeting due to the
overcrowded agenda for that meeting. (It appears likely that the GNSO
Council will meet on 5 June 2003 to complete the agenda of its 22 May 2003
meeting.)
The proposal referenced by Mr. Sheppard would amend Article X, Section 3(8)
of the New Bylaws. Currently there are 18 members on the GNSO Council,
consisting of 6 members from "providers constituencies" and 12 members from
"users constituencies." Votes are equalized, so the two groups of
constituencies each have 12 votes, for a total of 24. Under the quorum
provision in Section 3(8) as currently written, the GNSO Council can act
when members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes on the
Council (i.e. 13 votes) are present. The proposal would require that, in
order to transact business, the GNSO Council would need both a majority of
votes (i.e. 13 votes) and a majority of members (i.e. 10 members) present.
Thus, under the proposal the non-attendance of nine members, having as few
as 37.5% of the votes on the GNSO Council, would prevent the GNSO Council
from acting.

The proposal is a substantive change from the intended effect of equalized
voting, rather than a technical correction consistent with the intended
effect of the Bylaws. As such, it would appear more appropriate to address
the proposal as part of the process for periodic review of ICANN structure
and operations under Article IV, Section 4. Under that Section, the first
periodic review will be initiated within one year following the adoption of
the New Bylaws and will cover the GNSO Council. Among the topics to be
considered in that review should be the equalized voting concept and its
implications."


Philip Sheppard, who originally proposed the motion, suggested it be put to
the vote.

Vote: 7 votes support (Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth, Tony
Harris,Tony Holmes (via proxy to Tony Harris), Laurence Djolakian (via proxy
to Ellen Shankman), Ellen Shankman)

6 votes oppose (Jeff Neuman, Cary Karp, Jordyn Buchanan),

7 votes abstain (Ken Stubbs, Thomas Keller, Bruce Tonkin, Gabriel Pineiro) .

4 voters absent: (Greg Ruth, Milton Mueller, Lynda Roesch, Chun Eung Hwi).
The motion failed.


The motion failed.



Item 4: Update on the deletes implementation committee

Jordyn Buchanan reported that the Deletes Implementation Committee report
was under discussion in the Deletes Task Force and a final report was
expected 7 days before the Montreal meeting.


Item 5: Budget update:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.ICANN-GNSO-finances-recap.html
- status of constituency payments for 2003
- balance of account

The Secretary reported that the unencumbered funds totalled $49 042,11 and
the NCUC dues for 2003 were still outstanding.

On the debt issue, there was currently $103,444.84 in outstanding
receivables in the DNSO financial records. According to ICANN's financial
policies, there has been a bad debt reserve created for this amount as it is
more than 90 days past due. Before completing the processing of closing out
the GNSO accounts, instructions would be needed from the GNSO Council on how
to handle this debt on the ICANN books. If it is to be written off, then
ICANN needs to be advised that the DNSO (now GNSO) wishes to take that
action.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Budget committee make a proposal to the GNSO
Council to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting in July which would
allow for an understanding of the final status of the accounts.


Item 6: Updated GNSO rules of procedure
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.GNSOprocedures.html
- no comments have been received
- schedule for vote at the June meeting Any other business

Bruce Tonkin stated that the GNSO Rules of Procedure have been combined with
the ICANN bylaws to bring them in line and that they should be approved in
July by the ICANN Board.
Louis Touton stated that this was not a requirement, but the Constituency
bylaws had to be submitted and approved by the ICANN Board in July.

Bruce Tonkin referred to the 14 day voting period and the current term for
the GNSO Chair which may want to be changed.

Louis Touton informed the Council that at the Montreal meeting, three
members of the Nominating Committee would be seated and would be eligible to
vote.


Item 7: Any other business

7a. Bruce Tonkin stated that at the last GNSO Council meeting,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
Council voted to form a WHOIS Steering Group.

Two issues to be considered:
1. Membership of the WHOIS Steering Group.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that each constituency should nominate one member who
could be a non council member or a council member.
2. WHOIS Steering Group Chair.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that the chairperson be independent of the
constituencies and recommended Mike Roberts.
The purpose of the WHOIS Steering Group would be to determine the topics and
not to create policy.

Milton Mueller joined the meeting.

Ken Stubbs commented that Mike Roberts would be an excellent person, but if
he were to decline, there should be a methodology in place to another
person. Could a Board member be chosen?
Marilyn Cade mentioned that it would be more advantageous to have a non
Board member.
Milton Mueller proposed Scott Bradner, a member of the Internet Engineering
Task Force.
Tom Keller proposed two persons from each constituency and the Chair chosen
from the European Community.
Bruce Tonkin supported the proposal of two members per constituency.

Louis Touton clarified saying that the WHOIS Steering group would be making
recommendations to the Council for moving forward.

The proposed time line:
Steering Committee in place for the Montreal meeting so the outputs of the
public forums could be considered.
Thirty days for the first drafts, and possible discussion at Council level.
Thirty days to refine the drafts.
Thus a sixty day period to obtain the initial output with a recommendation
for one, two or three task forces with clearly defined purposes for each.

Louis Touton clarified the voting position in the proposed WHOIS Steering
Group, saying that the bylaws do not define the voting in task forces and
steering groups.

Cary Karp left the meeting and handed a proxy to Jeff Neuman.

Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be appropriate for the WHOIS Steering
Group to have liaisons from the GAC and the ALAC.
Audri Mukhopadhyay commented that there were 9 liaisons in the GAC and that
the invitation would be extended to them.

Bruce Tonkin proposed:
That each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS
Steering Group,
- the members may be from outside the GNSO Council
- each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the WHOIS
Steering Group.

Vote: motion carried unanimously.

Decision 2: Each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS
Steering Group - the members may be from outside the GNSO Council - each
constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the WHOIS Steering
Group.

Bruce Tonkin urged the constituencies to appoint one or two members before
Montreal and that the independent chair to the steering group could be
achieved by consensus among the steering group members, or a chair could be
appointed from within the steering group.
Bruce Tonkin supported the request from the ALAC to appoint two
representatives to give flexibility, with the understanding that only one
person has the right to vote and extended the same invitation to the GAC
representation.

7 b. Bruce Tonkin inquired whether there was convergence on the gTLD
committee document.
Philip Sheppard reported that the wording on the issue of International
Domain Names still had to be reviewed and the document would be ready for
the ICANN Montreal meeting on June 24, 2003.

7 c. Audri Mukhopadhyay extended an invitation to the GNSO Council to meet
with the GAC gTLD working group on Monday morning, June 23, 2003, to discuss
whatever issues the Council wished to raise with the GAC which could cover
gTLD policies, deletes and transfers.
It was requested that a list of topics be drawn up by the GNSO Council Chair
and forwarded to the GAC in preparation for the meeting.
The meeting would follow after the GNSO Council breakfast meeting in the
same room at 9:00 AM.

Marilyn Cade requested a list of the GAC working groups.

Action: Secretary will request the list from Christopher Wilkinson,
Secretary to the GAC. and post to GNSO Council list.

7 d. Ken Stubbs said that requests had been received from various users
expressing concern about users who had relied on Internet Service Providers
(ISP) over the last years to manage domain names. The Internet Service
Providers, were experiencing difficult times and some had gone out of
business resulting in the users, who have domains with them, not having any
portability. Would it thus be possible to develop a methodology to deal with
the problem, which could be communicated to the users?

Bruce Tonkin replied that it was an appropriate subject for the Registrar's
constituency to consider.

7 e. Bruce Tonkin asked the GNSO Secretariat for a status report on the
process for the GNSO Council Chair vote.
The secretary explained that nominations would close on Friday June 6, 12:00
UTC
The ballots would be sent out just after the close of nominations.
The GNSO Council will vote by e-mail between Friday , June 6, 15:00 UTC and
Friday, June 20, 15:00 UTC 2003 to elect the GNSO Council Chair.
The vote will be ratified at the GNSO Council meeting in Montreal on June
24, 2003.


Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed

Call ended: 15:20 CET, 13:20 UTC, 23 :20 Melbourne time Thursday 5 , June ,
2003.


Next GNSO Council meeting: Tuesday June 24 , 2003 at 14:00 local time in
Montreal
see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Information from:
 © GNSO Council