<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="14 August 2003"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes'"-->
<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="24 June 2003"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Meeting Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15 August 2003. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml">agenda</a>
and related documents <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>List of attendees:</b><br>
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.<br>
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.<br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. <br>
Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris/Greg Ruth<br>
Thomas Keller- Registrars <br>
Ken Stubbs - Registrars <br>
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
Jeff Neuman - gTLD <br>
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD <br>
Cary Karp - gTLD <br>
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Laurence Djolakian<br>
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.<br>
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. <br>
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. <br>
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton
Mueller<br>
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent <br>
Alick Wilson <br>
Demi Getschko <br>
Amadeu Abril I Abril </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
- absent, apologies<br>
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison <br>
<br>
Roger Cochetti, Budget committee chair attended for item 7 on the agenda. <br>
<br>
Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
Quorum present at 14:07 CET<br>
MP3 recording<br>
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20030814.mp3 <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin </b>chaired this
teleconference.</font></p>
<ul>
<p>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 1: Approval of the <a href="http://www.gnso.icann/Meetings/agenda-14aug03.shtml">Agenda</a></b><br>
<br>
<b>Agenda approved</b><br>
</font>
<p>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings-gnso-24jun03.shtml">Summary
of last meeting</a> </b><br>
<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard/Ken Stubbs</b> moved the adoption of the minutes seconded
by <b>Marilyn Cade.</b><br>
<br>
The Council approved the adoption of the minutes, with Amadeu Abril l Abril
abstaining <br>
<b>Decision 1: Motion adopted. <br>
<br>
Matters arising from the minutes:<br>
</b>1. The GNSO<b> </b>chair was asked to liaise with the president of ICANN
in connection with GNSO Council communication with the ICANN Board. Bruce
Tonkin did not discuss this but posted a suggestion to Council explaining
that the aim was to meet quarterly, via teleconference with the ICANN Board,
to brief it on policy work undertaken and address any issues with regard to
processes and procedures.<br>
2. Liaise with the ICANN President on WIPO II recommendations - Item 3 on
the agenda. <br>
3. Discussion about new gTLDs as raised by Jeff Newman to be addresses in
Item 8 Any Other Business<br>
<b><br>
<br>
</b></font></li>
<li><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 3: Update on ICANN President's
working group on WIPO-II recommendations<br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">reported
that the ICANN President had invited 6 members from the Government Advisory
Committee to participate in the working group and asked the GNSO Council to
nominate 6 participants. Bruce recommended that each constituency should nominate
one person so that the GNSO Council representatives on the President's working
group would represent a broad cross section of interests. <br>
<br>
In response to a question from Jeff Neuman as to the purpose of the group,
Bruce Tonkin referred to:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
A <a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02jun03.htm">discussion by
the Board</a> regarding the appropriate next steps for consideration of the
WIPO recommendations<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Whereas, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) sent ICANN a
letter dated 21 February 2003 providing information about two decisions, concerning
recommendations about the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental
Organizations and about the names of countries, which WIPO member states requested
be transmitted to ICANN; <br>
<br>
Whereas, in resolution 03.22 the Board requested the President to inform the
Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the other
Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from WIPO and to invite
their comments; <br>
<br>
Whereas, advice and comments were received from the At-Large Advisory Committee
(ALAC), the GNSO Council, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the
Intellectual Property Interests and the Commercial and Business Users Constituencies
of the GNSO; <br>
<br>
Whereas, the Board has considered the advice and comments received, as well
as the discussion and analysis in the 1 June 2003 General Counsel's Briefing
Concerning Policy-Development Process on WIPO-2 Recommendations; <br>
<br>
Resolved [03.83] that the President is directed to form, in consultation with
the chairs of the GNSO Council, the ALAC, and the GAC, a working group including
participants in the GNSO, the ALAC, and the GAC as well as Board members,
for the purpose of analyzing the practical and technical aspects of implementing
the WIPO recommendations, and notably the implications for the UDRP; and <br>
<br>
Further resolved [03.84] that the President and General Counsel are directed
to investigate and analyze legal aspects of the relationship between ICANN's
mission and the recommendations conveyed by the 12 February 2003 letter from
WIPO, and to report to the Board and to the working group formed under resolution
03.83 on the result of that investigation and analysis. Among topics to be
considered should be whether implementation of the WIPO recommendations would
require ICANN to prescribe adherence to normative rules, not based on established
laws, for the resolution of competing third-party claims to rights to register
names. <br>
<br>
<b>Amadeu Abril l Abril </b>clarified that the purpose of the ICANN President's
working group was not to look at implementation but to study the implications,
how, if and what, and to map out the question. Difficult legal questions arise
where protection is sought for matters which are not protected under law at
a national level. Six participants from the GNSO are preferable to one, and
at least some of those participants should have a legal background in international
law. <br>
<br>
<b>Marilyn Cade </b>drew attention to the way WIPO l and WIPO ll had come
about. The former was a request for a fast track study with broad participation
followed by a process in ICANN to determine what outcome should be related
to the UDRP. The latter was a study of the implications of the recommendations
that came from within WIPO itself.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Milton Mueller</b>, proposed:<br>
<b><br>
that the GNSO Council requires each constituency to nominate one person to
represent the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the
WIPO ll recommendations.<br>
<br>
The Council unanimously approved the motion.<br>
<br>
Decision 2. Each constituency is required to nominate one person to represent
the GNSO Council on the President's working group to deal with the WIPO ll
recommendations.<br>
<br>
<br>
</b></font></li>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 4. Discussion of <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm">Staff
Managers</a> report on UDRP<br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized saying that the report was divided into procedural
and substantive issues. The Acting General Counsel of ICANN considered that
most of the substantive issues and some of the procedural issues would extend
beyond ICANN's mission.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Procedural Issues:</b><br>
01. Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative
panel decisions<br>
02. Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available<br>
03. Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement
their filings? <br>
04. Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address
concerns about potential conflicts of interest? <br>
05. Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated?
<br>
06. Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?<br>
07. Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be mandatory
and standardized? <br>
08. Should the notice requirements be amended? <br>
09. Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations
be amended?<br>
10.Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate
review?<br>
<b>Substantive Issues:</b><br>
11. Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal
deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders? <br>
12. Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for non-registered
marks? <br>
13. Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the interpretation
of "confusing similarity"? <br>
14. Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration
and registrant? <br>
15. Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes
"use"? <br>
16. Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible
evidence of bad faith? <br>
17. Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in
order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? <br>
18. Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?<br>
19. Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?<br>
20. Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration – allowing subsequent
re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy? <br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> supported by <b>Marilyn Cade</b>, proposed that each constituency
prioritize five issues from the total and then the GNSO Council would ask
if they were in ICANN's scope in an answer to Council members who did not
agree with the delimitation considered by ICANN that most of the substantive
issues would extend beyond ICANN's mission and that some of the issues could
be possible changes but in fact were not solicited by anyone.<br>
Bruce Tonkin also proposed that after the elements were identified, there
should be a discussion with ICANN General Counsel as to the scope of the issues
within ICANN's mission.<br>
<b>Thomas Roessler</b>, ALAC Liaison, said that ICANN should certainly not
extend the UDRP to take up complex cases better dealt with in court, but that
-- on the other hand -- it is certainly within ICANN's mission to either cut
back or fix policy where it has already invaded realms better left to courts.
On outreach done by the ALAC, it was felt that there was too little time for
thorough outreach on these complex issues, but that ALAC had some expertise
available on UDRP, and would be interested in continuing to participate in
the discussion. <br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Milton Mueller</b>, proposed:</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That the GNSO requests each constituency
to review the list of issues presented in the Staff Manager's report on UDRP
and identify the top five issues from the report that the constituency believes
has the highest priority for policy development. <br>
This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25. <br>
<br>
<b><br>
The Council unanimously approved the motion.<br>
</b><br>
<b>Decision 3</b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> : Each
constituency is requested to review the list of issues presented in the Staff
Manager's report on UDRP and identify the top five issues from the report
that the constituency believes has the highest priority for policy development.
This should be done by the next GNSO Council meeting on September 25. </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy
Steering Group </b><br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, acting chair of the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee,
reported that during the teleconference<b> </b>held on 7/8 August, each<b>
</b>member had been asked to identify five top issues in the <a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/whois-privacy-report-13may03.htm">Staff
Manager's report on WHOIS privacy issues</a>.<br>
<br>
1. Two issues in general received the majority of votes:</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
5. Are the current requirements that registrars make disclosures to, and obtain
consent by, registrants concerning the uses of collected data adequate and
appropriate? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.4 to 3.7.7.6.) <br>
10. Are the current means of query-based access appropriate? Should both web-based
access and port-43 access be required? (RAA § 3.3.1.) <br>
<br>
2. The chair, requested as outcome of the streering group, that each constituency
should formally review the top five issues and report back their positions
to the GNSO Secretariat so that the issues could be collated and developed
as the terms of reference for one or more task forces.<br>
<br>
3. Related to the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee work, the ICANN President,
Paul Twomey informally chairs a group that coordinates representatives from
GAC, RIRs, IETF to identify what issues raised in the WHOIS workshop are appropriate
for further analysis. The topics discussed included status of the IETF CRISP
work, documenting uses for each data element collected at the time of registration,
possibility of classifying types of registrants, and different approaches
taken by cctld operators. <br>
<br>
4. Work is going on in Internet Engineering Task Force on new registry data
access protocol. John Klensin, the IETF liaison on the ICANN Board requested
input from each GNSO constituency on the requirements of this protocol.<br>
<br>
<br>
5. Alick Wilson recommended, that each constituency review the data that must
be collected by registrars currently, identify which elements should be mandatory
and, in addition, identify for each of these elements the consequences if
the data element was not available. <br>
<br>
6. The information gathered is to be shared with the other ICANN Groups.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b><br>
</b></font></li>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 6. </b>Discussion on council
structure <br>
- The <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm">ICANN
nominating committee</a> appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council in June 2003<br>
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm <br>
- the <a href="http://wwwicann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X">ICANN by-laws</a>
require each constituency to appoint 2 representatives to the GNSO to take
up office at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003 <br>
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X <br>
- the <a href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#lV">ICANN by-laws</a>
require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following the adoption of the ICANN
by-laws (15 Dec 2002)<br>
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV<br>
<br>
</font></li>
<li><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">summarized
saying that the ICANN bylaws provide for the appointment of two, and no longer
three, constituency representatives on the GNSO council after the ICANN general
meeting in 2003. The bylaws further require a review of the GNSO to be initiated
no later than 15 December 2003 and to be completed in time for Board consideration
at ICANN's annual meeting in 2004.<br>
Members of the Council requested a change as stated in the motion below.<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b>, one of the originators of the motion, along with <b>Ken
Stubbs</b>, <b>Ellen Shankman</b> and <b>Antonio Harris</b>, stated that the
essence of the motion was a change in timetable, which called for the review
first and then an examination whether the change from 3 to 2 representatives
per constituency was necessary.<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b> accepted the motion as <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00051.html">amended
by Jeff Neuman to Council</a>:<br>
<br>
<b>Proposed language by Marilyn Cade </b><br>
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004, WHICH SHOULD
INCLUDE AMONG OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA, A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY.<br>
<br>
<b>was amended by Jeff Neuman to read:</b><br>
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should
include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy
of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council.
<br>
<br>
<b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b>, stated that he would not vote on the resolution
as he had been a Board member at the time of the Reform and had voted for
2 representatives. <br>
<b>Milton Mueller</b> supported two representatives and said that with possible
new constituencies being added in the future, three representatives would
make the structure unwieldy.<br>
<b>Marilyn Cade </b>supported maintaining 3 representatives and an assessment
from within the Council rather than an outside review process.<br>
<b>Antonio Harris</b> supported 3 representatives to lessen the work load
of representatives and to ensure geographical diversity<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, from an engineering point of view, found advantages in
assessing the impact after one year, of the first change made by the three
representatives from the nominating committee.<br>
<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b> proposed the motion</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">,
as amended by <b>Jeff Neuman</b>:<br>
<br>
Whereas, the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three
representatives per Constituency on the GNSO Council". <br>
<br>
Whereas, ICANN core value 2.4 is: - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed
participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity
of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making".
<br>
<br>
Whereas, ICANN core value 2.7 is: - "Employing open and transparent policy
development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert
advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the
policy development process."<br>
<br>
Whereas, by-law article XX.5.8 states: "In the absence of further action on
the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two
representatives to the GNSO Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003." <br>
<br>
The GNSO council resolves that: <br>
<br>
Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core value
2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency as the majority
of ICANN regions are represented. . Three representatives per Constituency
is consistent with ICANN core value 2.7 on well-informed decision making.
Experience has shown that three representatives improves the constituencies
ability to share the workload of a council member, to be able to participate
in task forces of the council, and to more effectively communicate with multiple
regions. <br>
<br>
And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its
review timetable: <br>
<br>
1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency
on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; <br>
<br>
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should
include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy
of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council.
<br>
<br>
<b>The Council approved the motion by a vote:<br>
- 21 in favour</b>( proxy votes for Tony Holmes, Lynda Roesch, Ellen Shankman)
<br>
<b>-</b> <b>1 Against</b> (Milton Mueller)<br>
<b>- 4 Abstentions </b>(Amadeu Abril lAbril, Alick Wilson, Demi Getschko,
proxy vote carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi)<br>
<br>
<b>During the teleconference the following message was received from Chun
Eung Hwi and only read after the teleconference. <br>
GNSO Secretariat </b><br>
<br>
<br>
I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three representatives
per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to Milton
Mueller. <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 4: <br>
- </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Schedule a joint
teleconference with ICANN Board<br>
- Formally submit the motion as a request for an amendment to the Bylaws:<br>
And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its
review timetable: <br>
1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency
on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; <br>
2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should
include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy
of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council.
<br>
- GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin to liaise with ICANN President, Paul Twomey on
joint ICANN Board teleconference on the topic<br>
</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Philip Sheppard leaves the call, hands proxy to Grant Forsyth</b><br>
<br>
<br>
</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 7:</b> <b>Budget committee
report<br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that the items to be discussed were: <br>
- the current state of the budget <br>
- the transition costs of the GNSO website from AFNIC to ICANN management<br>
<b><br>
Roger Cochetti, GNSO Budget committee chair, joins call.<br>
<br>
Roger Cochetti </b>reminded Council that the GNSO budget for 2003 was for
six months as ICANN planned to cover the costs for the GNSO after July. The
Constituency dues assessments were based on 6<b> </b>months spending.<br>
On June 30, 2003, the Budget committee met, and by the end of June there were
no arrangements in place to cover the costs of FISAT Inc. the Secretariat's
firm, and AFNIC, the website operator. The budget committee agreed to cover
the costs for FISAT Inc. and AFNIC for the month of July if these were not
met by ICANN.<br>
With routine spending the current balance amounts to approximately $26 700.00..<br>
The original plan after July was to close off the books and the balance of
funds would go to the GNSO for administrative expenses.<br>
<br>
Budget Committee recommendations on larger issues:<br>
Closing out old account - constituency debts over years. Constituency debt
was never forgiven so no constituency ever officially subsidized another constituency.
Council was never supportive of debt forgiveness.<br>
The budget committee recommends a compromise between debt forgiveness and
permanent carrying debts on the ICANN Books<br>
Once all the expenses for June and July are fully paid, the DNSO/GNSO books
would be closed and a new account established for administrative miscellaneous
expenses.<br>
The new account would be funded by the balance from the old to the new account.
The new account would be handled by another form of administration.<br>
The debt would not be officially forgiven but would be irrelevant and the
books closed.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Greg Ruth</b>, proposed:<br>
1. When all payments had been made the DNSO/GNSO account should be closed.<br>
2. With the closure of the account, the Council budget committee would be
disbanded<br>
3. Balance of funds transferred to new GNSO administration miscellaneous account.
<br>
4. Procedure be established for management of the new account.<br>
<br>
<b>The Council members unanimously approved the motion </b> <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized the DNSO/GNSO website transition saying that
the expectations were for ICANN to take over the management of the DNSO/GNSO
website by June, 2003. The GNSO secretariat notified the GNSO chair that the
end of June timetable would not be feasible. Bruce Tonkin spoke to Paul Twomey
in Montreal and suggested that the current provider, AFNIC continue services
till the end of the transition in July, 2003.<br>
The GNSO Secretariat was instructed to verbally speak to the director of AFNIC
and verbally received the assurance that the services would continue until
the end of the transition period. Bruce Tonkin has since spoken to the ICANN
President who confirmed that the expense had not been budgeted for by ICANN
and ICANN did not formally engage the French provider during July.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin,</b> seconded by <b>Ken Stubbs</b>, proposed the following
recommendation:<br>
That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred by AFNIC for
the transition of the DNSO/GNSO website to ICANN administration. <br>
<b>The Council members unanimously approved the motion </b> <br>
<br>
<b>Decision 5: That Council authorize the additional $1980 expense incurred
by AFNIC.</b><br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b>, on behalf of
the GNSO Council proposed a motion of thanks to <b>Roger Cochetti </b>for
his efforts as budget committee chair in the first half of the year, and for
chairing the committee for two years on a voluntary basis.<br>
<br>
<b>The Council members unanimously approved the motion<br>
</b><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 8: Any Other Business<br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that <b>Jeff Neuman</b> had raised a problem relating
to <b>new gTLDs </b><b><br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>mentioned that it was a software problem that required upgrading
and education of the public which should be undertaken as soon as possible.
It was suggested that ICANN send out an advisory note and that the Internet
Engineering Task Force, (IETF) should also be asked to send out an advisory
note as well.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed to finalize the document and use all possible
council contacts to propagate the message<b><br>
<br>
Jeff Neuman </b>proposed;<br>
- Forming a group to do outreach as soon as possible.<br>
- That each constituency send one representative to the group.<br>
- To coordinate with the Security committee and the GNSO Council<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody
for attending.<br>
<br>
The meeting ended: 16:10 CET, 14:10 UTC, </b></font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>00:10,
15 August, Melbourne.</b></font>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference:
Thursday September 25, 2003 at 12:00 UTC </b><br>
see:<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/">http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/</a></font>
</li>
</ul>