<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="20 November 2003"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">21 November 2003. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-20nov03.shtml">agenda
and related documents<br>
</a><a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html"><br>
</a> </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. absent, apologies<br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C.<br>
Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent<br>
Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris<br>
Thomas Keller- Registrars <br>
Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
Ken Stubbs - gTLD <br>
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD <br>
Cary Karp - gTLD - absent, apologies, proxy to Jordyn Buchanan<br>
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. absent, apologies, proxy
to Niklas Lagergren<br>
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C.<br>
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent<br>
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C<br>
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders<br>
Carlos Afonso- Non Commercial users C. - absent<br>
Alick Wilson - absent, apologies<br>
Demi Getschko <br>
Amadeu Abril I Abril </font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">12 Council Members <br>
<br>
John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel and Secretary<br>
Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President of Business Operations <br>
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Consultant, <a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/registry-svcs-report-19nov03.htm">Issues
Report</a> author<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christopher Wilkinson - Acting GAC
Liaison<br>
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD liaison<br>
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
<a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-20030020.mp3">MP3 recording</a><br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/carthage/captioning-gnso-29oct03.htm"><br>
</a>Quorum present at 19 :10 UTC</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin </b>chaired this
teleconference.<br>
<br>
<b>Item 1: Confirmation of <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml">current
members</a> <br>
- report from GNSO Secretariat </b><br>
<br>
The GNSO Secretariat confirmed that all 6 constituencies had held elections
and appointed 3 representatives each to the GNSO Council. Two constituencies,
Non Commercial and Commercial and Business Users constituencies had not yet
specified the terms of office for the appointed representatives.<br>
<br>
<b>Item 2: Election of GNSO Chair <br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> handed the chair to <b>Philip Sheppard </b>as he was a candidate
for the GNSO Chair elections.<br>
<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b> called upon the <b>GNSO Secretary</b> for the list of
nominations who reported that Bruce Tonkin was the only person nominated.<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard,</b> seconded by <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> and <b>Ken Stubbs</b>,
proposed the motion:<br>
to elect <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> as Chair of the GNSO Council for the next one year.<br>
<br>
The motion carried. All members present with proxies in favour , one abstention,
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year, November
20, 2003 to November 20, 2004.</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Philip Sheppard</b> on behalf
of the GNSO Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin on his splendid work and handed
the chair back to him.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Item 3: Approval of <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml">minutes</a>
of last meeting </b><br>
<br>
<b>Ken Stubbs</b> proposed deferring the minutes to the next meeting as they
had only been published recently.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Decision 2: Defer approval of
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml">minutes</a>
to next meeting.<br>
</b><br>
<b>Item 4: Update on appointment of <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/taskforce-reps.shtml">representatives
to the 3 WHOIS task forces <br>
</a>- discuss next steps<br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> drew the attention to a request by <b>Niklas Lagergren</b>,
the Intellectual Property Interests constituency representative, <br>
"The IP constituency is currently looking at appropriate ways to contribute
to the work of the 3 Whois task forces in an efficient manner. In this context,
it is our view that nominating only one representative to each task force (TF)
would result in excessive work-load for each chosen person. Therefore, I would
like to invoke the last sentence in the policy development process (PDP) sec.
5(1) (i.e. "The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency
that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems
necessary or appropriate.")"<br>
Bruce stated that there were two options open</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">:<br>
- Council could formally request that there be more than one representative
per constituency on each task force, or<br>
- Council could decide on one representative at any one time as spokesman for
the constituency</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> on the task
force, but the constituency could appoint other people as members of the mailing
list and who could listen in to teleconferences.<br>
<br>
Addressing the issue, <b>Niklas Lagergren</b> said that the Intellectual Property
Interests constituency had selected more than one representative, the key issue
being flexibility.<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> was supportive of no formal change to the task force
structure, but supported appointing additional members without changing the
voting structure. <br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b> proposed that the WHOIS task forces serve as a testbed
for multiple representatives and that each task force chair report back on problems
experienced.<br>
<b>Marc Schneiders</b> reported that the Non Commercial Users constituency was
opposed to the proposal as extra people on the task force would have an influence
on the outcome. The NCUC, who could only send one representative, felt they
were most affected and would be marginalized if other constituencies could have
multiple representation.<br>
<b>Thomas Roessler</b> argued that the workload would be more evenly spread
with more than one person.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Philip Sheppard,</b> proposed:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That for the purpose of the
WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person
to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but
in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from
the constituency to represent the constituency's views.<br>
<br>
All Council members present with proxies voted in favour (22 votes)<br>
The motion was carried.<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 3: That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies
be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and
to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical
meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's
views.<br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> continued with the next issues:<br>
- Holding of the first meeting and for each task force to select a chair<br>
- At the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml%20">GNSO
Council meeting in Tunisia <br>
</a>it was decided that each task force should identify a timeline for the work
and if more than the prescribed 90 days was required, the task force should
come back to Council for an extension.<br>
- The ICANN bylaws state that a staff manager will assist the policy development
in each area.<br>
<br>
<b>Kurt Pritz</b> informed Council that <b>Barbara Roseman</b> would fill the
role of ICANN staff manager.<br>
<br>
<b>Action: The GNSO Secretariat would set up mailing lists, archives, call for
nominations for task force chairs and set up first meeting.<br>
</b>It was clarified that a task force chair did not necessarily have to be
a member of a constituency.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Thomas Keller</b>, proposed that:<br>
<b>Amadeu Abril I Abril</b>, as an independent Council member, be appointed
to task force 2, on WHOIS Review of Data Collected and Displayed</font>.<br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
The motion was carried unanimously<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 4: Amadeu Abril I Abril, as an independent Council member, be appointed
to task force 2, on WHOIS Review of Data Collected and Displayed</b></font><b>.<br>
</b><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Philip Sheppard</b>'s concern about
scheduling time conflicts that may arise with ICANN staff support was addressed
by Kurt Pritz who stated that the Staff Manager would bring in other forms of
ICANN support as skill and expertise were needed.<br>
As a point of clarification addressing a concern expressed by Niklas Lagergren,
Bruce Tonkin stated that task force voting was not the formal voting required
by the GNSO Council procedure and that with multiple representation on the task
force, if the primary representative of a constituency was absent, the constituency
could identify a person to fill that role.<br>
</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 5:<a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/registry-svcs-report-19nov03.htm">
Issues report on Registry services </a><br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed the following procedural process: <br>
That Council accept the Staff Manager summarizing the report, and a teleconference
be scheduled in 7 days to vote on the initiation of a policy development process.<br>
<br>
Procedural proposal accepted unanimously by Council.<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 5:</b> <b>That Council accept the Staff Manager summarizing the
report, and a teleconference be scheduled in 7 days to vote on the initiation
of a policy development process.<br>
</b><br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> summarized saying that the Issues report provided an
overview of the issue raised by Council, how approving changes worked in the
past and inconsistencies in the current process that could be addressed by elaborating
a process, creating documentation, allowing for transparency, examining technical
and competition harm and building in timelines to make a predictable process.<br>
<br>
<b>Christopher Wilkinson</b>, standing in for the GAC liaison, asked how the
intellectual property sensitivity of commercial services would be handled?<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> stated that confidentiality had been raised and there
were ways to assure it up to a certain point. In addition, the party appling
for a change would have the option of not going further with the evaluation
which would also cover competition issues.<br>
<b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> noted that these were not new problems; there were
standardization fora that existed and proposed reviewing how organizations like
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) dealt with the problem of intellectual property issues<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b> asked why the report recommended the second mechanism
for the policy development process, proceeding without a task force, in which
case each constituency appointed a representative to gather constituency views
and provided them to the Staff Manager for inclusion, along with other information,
in a report, which would be submitted to the Council. <br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> stated that there was no strong thinking on the point,
however it was felt it would facilitate meeting the time line and be easier
to coordinate outside input.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> drew attention to the fact that under the second model it
was incumbent on Council to set terms of reference and be in charge of the process.<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> expressed some of the gTLD Registry constituency concerns.
<br>
Instead of raising issues, the Issues report appeared to be prescriptive, setting
down a blueprint how Council ought to be proceeding rather than opening the
door to look at what the process should be. <br>
A number of issues considered important in the <a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/draft-registry-svcs-report-31oct03.htm">first
report</a> have been left out in the <a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/registry-svcs-report-19nov03.htm">second
report</a>, such as the concept of whether it was better, to consider registry
services on their merits or to alter the registry service contracts and assure
that certain services were not offered that did not meet the community interests.<br>
The assumption that ICANN was a regulatory body rather than an equal participant
in the gTLD contractual relationship was disturbing. <br>
It was felt that the report did not make a distinction between unsponsored registries
which need price approval from ICANN for services they wished to offer and sponsored
registries that have a community they serve. The report implied that ICANN should
be the arbiter regardless of the impact on the community.<br>
It was considered that the definition of a registry service and how it was determined
was missing. In addition it appeared that non registry services a registry operator
might offer, might be subject to this process.<br>
The registry constituency expressed that they would not support moving forward
on the report.<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> asked specifically what had happened to the question
raised by the GNSO Council regarding an appropriate process to look at modifying
registry contracts so as to exclude undesirable registry behaviour, as opposed
to having what now appeared to be a convoluted approval process before introducing
a service. <br>
J<b>ohn Jeffrey</b> commented that in the approach taken, it was considered
that a Registry could take actions that could have a contractual, security and
stability impact that may not constitute Registry service changes. Thus the
specific issue up front was whether the scope of the proposed policy development
process only concerned Registry services under contract or whether it addressed,
in a broader sense, significant changes. <br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b>clarified <b>Jordyn Buchanan's </b>concern that a Registry
could take two courses of action as an organization with an approval process
for change. If the change was seen as minor there was a fast track process,
but if the change was seen as having an impact on other parties, further work
would be required.<br>
<b>John Jeffrey </b>replied that the intent was to create a decision stream
that allowed different issues to be treated and separated in different ways
depending on how the impact might be seen.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> said that the alternative was to have a code of conduct
model, so that an issue could be dealt with as a breach of rule.<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman </b>added that feedback on the report indicated it was preferable
to evaluate the harm before introducing the service than take actions after
the fact which could lead to instability in the system. <br>
The intent was to facilitate new service introduction and create a predictable
process for the Registry to reach quick conclusions. <br>
<b>Thomas Roessler</b> drew attention to recommendations to the GNSO Council:
<br>
"A Policy development process should be initiated to develop a policy to
guide the establishment of a predictable procedure for ICANN's consideration
of proposals by registry operators and sponsors for changes in the architecture
and operation of a gTLD registry."<br>
The latter statement and the letter from <a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tonkin-20oct03.pdf">Paul
Twomey </a>would imply a process to review any changes. The report further mentions
new proposals from registries to change contracts.<br>
He specifically asked:<br>
- what was meant by policy?<br>
- was the proposal to focus on a process for whenever ICANN was in the position
to make an agreement on a change?<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman </b>replied that the intent was aimed at certain types of
registry operation changes to the Domain Name System (DNS) functions, not changes
in any internal registry management functions. The emerging process was focussed
on what concerns the process had to address, while the detailed process itself
should be left to the ICANN President to establish. Thus the GNSO should develop
policy describing the essential characteristics of the process, rather than
the detailed administrative process.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> clarified the core issue quoting from the <a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/registry-svcs-report-19nov03.htm">Issues
report</a>:<br>
"a. The issue raised for consideration is the development of a policy to
guide the establishment of a predictable procedure for ICANN's consideration
of proposals by registry operators and sponsors for contractual approvals or
amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a TLD registry.
Sub-issues to be considered are discussed under "Issues to be addressed by the
PDP" above."<br>
Given that ICANN does require approval for changes in the registry contracts,
a predictable procedure was needed and the policy would be more binding on ICANN
than the registry operators.<br>
<b>Marc Schneiders</b> expressed concern about the over bureaucratic structure
of the report.<br>
<b>Ken Stubbs</b> proposed further consultation with constituencies and a FAQ
format on the ICANN/GNSO website to assure interaction with the ICANN staff.<br>
<b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> encouraged the GNSO to avoid ideological terminology.
A substantial number of governments needed to know where the regulatory authority
in the Internet lay. Currently it lay in the ICANN /Government Advisory Committee
(GAC) public private partnership and it was not productive to deny that ICANN
held any regulatory role.<br>
<b>Ross Rader</b> asked where the constituency comments and submissions could
be found.<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman </b>would check with constituencies whether these could be
published and make them available.<br>
<b>Amadeu Abril I Abril </b>noted that registries were managing resources on
behalf of the community and the core issue was if and whether registry services
that arose were needed and how the services demanded by the community through
ICANN would be accommodated in the registry contracts.<br>
<br>
<b>Christopher Wilkinson leaves the teleconference.</b><br>
<br>
<b>Philip Sheppard</b> proposed that the GNSO Council as a whole should proceed
with the policy development process.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Philip Sheppard</b>, seconded
by <b>Antonio Harris </b>proposed:<br>
that the GNSO Council as a whole go ahead with the policy development process.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed that the motion be voted on at the next GNSO Council
meeting</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed using a similar procedure to the WHOIS task forces:<br>
- identifying terms of reference from the Issues report<br>
- determining how to conduct the policy development (task force or otherwise).
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> noted that both a task force or the GNSO Council as a whole
group proceeding on the issue were within the ICANN bylaws.<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> asked for questions to be sent as early as possible.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed scheduling the next GNSO Council meeting within
7 days<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody
for attending.<br>
The meeting ended: 20 :45 </b>UTC </font> </p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference:
Tuesday December 2, 2003 at 19:00 UTC </b><br>
see:<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/"> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/</a></font>
</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<p> </p>
<!--#include virtual="../footer.shtml"--> </font>