19 August 2004 Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. - proxy to Grant Forsyth (if required)
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - joined call late
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Niklas Lagergren
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C.
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Jisuk Woo
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc Schneiders/Jisuk Woo
Alick Wilson - absent
Demi Getschko - absent
Amadeu Abril I Abril - absent - apologies 13 Council Members
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Vittorio Bertola - ALAC Liaison Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat - absent
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent
Jeff Neuman - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair
Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 Recording
Quorum present at 12:05 UTC,
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Agenda approved
Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004
Ken Stubbs seconded by Marilyn Cade moved the adoption of the Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004
The motion carried unanimously
Decision 1: The Minutes of 20 July 2004 and the Minutes of 5 August 2004 were adopted
Item 2: Draft initial report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry.
Bruce Tonkin stated that the purpose of the agenda item was for Council to decide whether further changes would be required or whether the report could be published for the first 20 day public comment period.
Philip Colebrook expressed concern about:
a. the general lack of timelines in the process and
b. the manner in which ICANN would fulfill its functions.
Kurt Prtitz responded that any request for registry change would come to ICANN through the registry liaison group and at that point a project team would be created to evaluate that registry change. The team would vary, depending on the nature of the registry change, with the right skills, such as business or technical liaisons, to evaluate rapidly. There may be parallel consultation with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and outside expert business analysis. The target timeline for a quick look process would be 2 months between the registry submitting a request and receiving approval for that request.
Ken Stubbs stated the need for a process:
a. that assured confidentiality between the registry operator and ICANN once the request had been made,
b. such as stratifying the nature of the request at the beginning, so that the ICANN staff could effectively quote a timeframe to help with business planning for registrars and registries.
He reminded Council that Registries were required to give Registrars a 90 day notice period for any significant change implementation and proposed that the notice period to registrars to be concurrent with the entry into a process.
Ken Stubbs expressed concern that during the reconsideration process there could be a halt in the registry operation approved by ICANN if a third party contested the approval.
Marilyn Cade agreed with Ken Stubbs that flexibility in the business model was needed in response to the community needs. Kurt Pritz suggested that the quick look process including Board approval could be completed in 2 months, and the ICANN General Council could respond within 2 weeks to provide ICANN's view on whether the registry change required approval under the registry agreement.
Kurt asked the gTLD registry constituency for input on a reasonable timeline target for the process?
Philip Colebrook responded that the registry constituency had not determined a position on this yet.
Paul Verhoef stated the importance of determining the timing of each step so the operational reality matched the expectations The general view on the report was:
a. Timelines needed to be clarified
- ICANN staff required feedback from the GNSO members a reasonable timeframe,
- GNSO Council required feedback from ICANN staff on the timelines
b. General Counsel's advice be sought on the gTLD registry constituency concern about the reconsideration process
c. More readable public comment format for the report
Bruce Tonkin proposed scheduling a GNSO Council call on September 9, 2004 to finalize the report for public comment with the aim to provide clarity on the timelines and answers to the questions on the reconsideration process.
Item 3: Update on policy implementation from ICANN
Bruce Tonkin commented that policy implementation would be a regular item on the GNSO Council agendas in order to the review the status of policies that have already been approved by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
- to determine whether the policy had been implemented and
- at a future date, input on what measurement had been taken to measure whether the policy had met its objective.
3.2 WHOIS: (approved by ICANN Board 27 March 2003) http://www.icann.org/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm
Bruce Tonkin referred to the Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) which took effect in October 2003. and asked Kurt Pritz about other elements of that policy.
Kurt Pritz announced that ICANN was required to deliver a report to the Department of Commerce (DOC) in November 2004 on the status and efficacy of the implemented WDRP policy. As a result ICANN would be requesting registrars to complete a questionnaire on the policy implementation.
Some policies were not followed through by ICANN to the implementation, for example, deleting names which was considered to be a completed policy because registries were effectively deleting names.
3.2 WHOIS: (approved by ICANN Board 27 March 2003)
ICANN recently posted two policies which would be formally effective on 12 November 2004.
- Whois Marketing Restriction Policy Policy documentation is available at http://www.icann.org/registrars/wmrp.htm.
- Restored Names Accuracy Policy Policy documentation is available at http://www.icann.org/registrars/rnap.htm.
Kurt Pritz noted the bylaws requirement to post the policies where a complete overview of Consensus Policies applicable to ICANN accredited registrars could be found and the registrars were given a fax written notice of the policy.
Marilyn Cade expressed concerned about community awareness of the implemented policies.
Bruce Tonkin suggested that a formal notice be sent to Council so that the constituencies could be informed and suggested a link on the front page of the ICANN website.
Item 4: Update on process for new gtlds The MOU between ICANN and US Department of Commerce requires:
Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of:
a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions;
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and,
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.
Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Bruce Tonkin requested guidance from ICANN staff on what the steps were for implementing a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs and the timing of those steps. Paul Verhoef stated that ICANN staff were not yet in a position to report back as they were still in the process of checking with the Department of Commerce. The OECD report was delivered as well as a report on the business aspects of the gTLDs already implemented that would be made available to the Council and there was outside expertise flowing into the process. Marilyn Cade expressed concern about the timelines and that there may not be time to consult with Council before finalizing the strategy and suggested that timely background information directly available to the GNSO Council would be most useful. Bruce Tonkin proposed requesting a Status report for the next meeting. Item 5: Any Other Business: 1. Update on joint Whois Task Force 1 and 2:
Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan, co-chairs of the joint Whois task 1 and 2 which is currently called:
"Improving informed consent to the publication of contact data and improving controls for 3rd party access to published contact data"
gave an update stating that an initial list of issues obtainable in the near term had been created, the status of previous recommendations would be examined, the focus was on the feasibility of tiered access and sub groups would examine these issues. 2. Marilyn Cade suggested a review of the timelines in the policy development process and a review of the GNSO Council and proposed drafting a motion with the ICANN staff for the next meeting.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan and everybody for participating.
The meeting ended: 13:15 UTC.
| 