<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="22 January 2004"-->
<!--#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">23 January 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22jan04.shtml">agenda
and related documents</a><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. absent, apologies, proxy to
Grant Forsyth/Philip Sheppard<br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. <br>
Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy Tony Holmes<br>
Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
Tony Holmes - ISCPC <br>
Thomas Keller- Registrars <br>
Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries<br>
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD registries<br>
Cary Karp - gTLD registries<br>
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C<br>
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. <br>
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent<br>
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. <br>
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders<br>
Alick Wilson <br>
Demi Getschko <br>
Amadeu Abril I Abril </font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
<br>
Barbara Roseman - Staff Manager<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Liaison<br>
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison<br>
<br>
The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.<br>
Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair<br>
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
<a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council.20040122.MP3">MP3 recording</a><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Quorum present at 19:08 UTC,</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 </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22jan04.shtml">Agenda</a><br>
Added to the agenda<br>
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00364.html">Call
for TOR change</a> for "Approval Process for gTLD Service Changes" <br>
</font>
<p>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18dec03.shtml">last
meeting</a>, December 18, 2003:<br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Philip Sheppard</b> moved the adoption of
the<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18dec03.shtml"> December
18, 2003 minutes</a>.<br>
The motion was carried. Lucy Nichols, Niklas Lagergren, Kiyoshi Tsuru abstained
(absent at the December 18, 2003 meeting)<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 1: Minutes of the December 18 meeting adopted.<br>
<br>
</b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 3: Approve timelines
for WHOIS task forces</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<br>
<b>Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs: <br>
Jeff Neuman - Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing
purposes<br>
Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed <br>
Brian Darville - Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair
- Brian Darville Brian Darville, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan <br>
<br>
Approve timelines for: Submission of constituency statements <br>
Distribute Preliminary Task Force Report <br>
Publish Task Force Report (Initial Report) <br>
Publish Final Report <br>
</b><br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> reported that the three task force chairs, the GNSO
Chair and the Staff Manager had met on Thursday, January 15 to develop a timeline
to coordinate the task forces' work. The goal was to attempt finishing the
work by the end of May, in sufficient time for the ICANN Board to consider
the final report at the ICANN Board meeting in June, and if additional work
or modifications were necessary, these could be undertaken before the ICANN
July meeting in Kuala Lumpur where the ICANN Board would have the opportunity
to adopt the final report or not. <br>
<br>
In presenting the timeline to the task forces, concern was expressed on the
constituency statement timing. It was felt that the constituencies should
have the new data available to review before submitting their statements.
It was suggested that the constituency statement timing be delayed till late
March to allow for sufficient review of the additional data without disrupting
the general timelines. <br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> proposed another round of task force meetings before
signing off on the dates for the GNSO Council to approve on the February 5
meeting before being sent to the ICANN Board for approval.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized that the aim was to complete the work of the
3 Whois task forces in time for the Board to approve the policy recommendations
in its Kuala Lumpur meeting in July. The GNSO Council will need to approve
the recommendations one month before that date.<br>
Planning for the coming months and the main dates the task forces have to
sign off on:<br>
Plan the work for the ICANN meeting in Rome<br>
Schedule time for when the constituency statements are due<br>
Schedule time for completion of the preliminary task force report which would
contain the outcome of the constituency statements<br>
Date for publishing the report<br>
20 Day public comment period<br>
Final report<br>
GNSO Council meets to discuss final report<br>
<br>
<b>Jeff Neuman</b>, task force 1 chair, on restricting access, reported that
a questionnaire had been developed to send out to a list of non-marketing
users of Whois information, asking questions such as: where they obtained
their Whois data, whether is was from web based or port 43 access, whether
there were alternate sources for the data they were seeking and what would
be the effect on their organization if port 43 was shut down? A call, soliciting
constituency statements, would go out week beginning 26 January, 2004. The
task force was also compiling a needs and justifications chart which would
contain information gathered from the survey, past ICANN workshops and testimony
gathered from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Organization for Economic
co-operation and development (OECD). There was an interim report anticipated
for the ICAO Rome meetings which would be an extension of the needs and justifications
chart, as well as good information to discuss at the workshop, basically to
start gathering feedback information for policy recommendations. The task
force was progressing well.<br>
<br>
<b>Brian Darville</b>, task force 3 chair, on data accuracy, reported that
with regard to milestone 1, Registrars had been formally contacted, surveyed
and the results summarized on their current techniques for collecting and
verifying if the data was accurate. Questions were drawn up for inclusion
in a ccTLD survey by CENTR and were also submitted to ICANN staff for distribution
to other ccTLDs. Questions were prepared to send to companies and other industries
(the list is in preparation) which undertake business transactions online
for their methodology for verification of their customer data. These questions
should go out at the beginning of the week, 26 January and the responses should
be returned by February 16 to be included in an interim report that should
be completed a week before the ICANN meetings in Rome, on February 25. Significant
progress has been made. Call for constituency statements would be made during
the week, 26 January, however the task force, as whole, believed that meaningful
information from the constituencies was not likely unless they had had the
opportunity to comment on the data gathered from the survey, thus the return
date was scheduled for March 12.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that the constituencies could put it on their
agenda for Rome so that they could start developing their main statements.<br>
<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display,
reported that a number of questions had been put together that would be sent
out, coordinated through the ICANN Staff to:<br>
all the constituencies, in terms of how the constituency members make use
of data elements, whether or not specific data elements are required used
widely to determine whether they remain in the public domain and public in
the Whois<br>
the Registrars constituency in particular who are responsible for doing more
with Whois than any other group,<br>
ccTLDs, who are conducting a survey of their own and the ccNSO launching group
and <br>
the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to get an understanding of the privacy
legislation and policy in the different countries that may be relevant to
the display and collection of Whois data.<br>
The basic work for the questionnaires is complete. The available data from
the Organization for Economic co-operation and development (OECD) and Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is being studied to find out how data is
being used.<br>
The task force circulated a schedule that was longer than the current proposed
timeframe for the other two task forces, but it was thought necessary in the
light of the milestones to be covered and there should be sufficient time
to develop good policy positions.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that different advisory bodies would comment
formally during the public comment period, but task forces could notify the
various advisory committees and allow them to pass surveys onto their members
if appropriate. The individual members would then respond directly to the
task force.<br>
<br>
<b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> commented that it would be useful to see the
questionnaires to understand the questions and sound the GAC working group.
He mentioned that it was not sure what the GAC response would be and that
some members were reluctant to respond country by country, while the GAC would
want to advise the ICANN Board on the outcome of the process.<br>
<br>
<b>Elisabeth Porteneuve</b> commented that she would undertake to distribute
the questionnaire to all the ccTLDs.<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> requested that all responses be sent in simple text
form to facilitate data coordination.<br>
<br>
<b>Item 4: Discuss constituency statements on the Procedure for use by ICANN
in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to
allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry <br>
- the intent of this discussion is to provide input to the Staff Manager to
allow production of a Preliminary Report. </b><br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> referred to the Business Constituency's request to alter
the terms of reference.<br>
<b>Grant Forsyth</b> addressed the subject referring to the Commercial and
Business Users Constituency's <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00364.html">e-mail</a>
to the GNSO Council which stated that it was not until responding that the
constraints found, built into the terms of reference by those matters considered
to be out-of scope, were inappropriate. There was the question as to the dual
relationship of ICANN with the Registries. ICANN is a contracting party and
party to "the" contract with the registries, but ICANN also performs
a much wider role and it is in the fulfillment of its wider role that it is
suggested it should not be constrained by whatever is in the contract. <br>
Grant Forsyth, on behalf Commercial and Business Users Constituency suggested
that the two constraints in the "Out-of-Scope" be removed, viz.<br>
A) Changes to the nature of the agreements between ICANN and the registry
operators <br>
B) Additional obligations on registry operators or gTLD sponsors beyond what
is already specified in their existing agreements.<br>
<b><br>
Bruce Tonkin</b> summarized saying that not changing the Registry contracts
was seen as the constraint. <br>
<b>Ken Stubbs</b> and <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> spoke out strongly against changing
the terms of reference, referring to a vote against further deliberation of
the terms of reference during the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-02dec03.shtml">December
2, 2003,</a> GNSO Council teleconference and the fact that it would pervert
the timeline for the process.<br>
"Cary Karp, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan proposed a procedural motion:
To defer the vote to initiate the policy development process for a period
of 14 days for further refinement of the terms of reference.<br>
The motion failed with 21 votes against and 6 registry constituency votes
in favour. "<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> commented that changing the terms of reference was
not advisable at this stage as constituency statements had already been submitted
and that it was possible to draft a process that would be independent of specific
contracts.<br>
<b>Tony Holmes</b> added that if a substantial issue came to light, it should
not be ignored, but focussed on and result in an open ended call for review<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> observed from a process point of view that the terms of
reference were to assure convergence on a policy outcome rather than imply
covering everything in the policy. It would be appropriate for a constituency
statement to indicate the current views of the constituency taking into account
the terms of reference. If wider issues were raised, nothing in the policy
development process constrained these and the statements could be included.
The options open to accommodate such suggestions were:<br>
to incorporate the suggestion in the constituency statements, if there was
a consensus opinion it could form a consensus policy <br>
or suggest scheduling a separate follow up policy development process.<br>
This process was generally supported by all the Council members and the liaisons.<br>
Grant Forsyth, chose not to put a motion forward to change the terms of reference,
thanked fellow councillors for their willingness to discuss the matter and
would include additional comments in the Commercial and Business Users constituency
statement.<br>
<b><br>
Christopher Wilkinson</b>, commented that it was useful to have a stable terms
of reference and it was necessary to have discussion material for the ICANN
meetings in Rome.<br>
Before leaving the call, a meeting between the Government Advisory Committee
(GAC) and the GNSO Council, to discuss current work projects, was suggested
on Tuesday, 2 March, at 17:30 to 18:30 (5:30 pm to 6:30 pm). It would be a
closed session but consistent with previous meetings, the GNSO Chair invited
all GNSO council members to be present. <br>
<br>
<b>Item 4: Discuss constituency statements on the Procedure for use by ICANN
in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to
allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry <br>
- the intent of this discussion is to provide input to the Staff Manager to
allow production of a Preliminary Report. <br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> requested a summary from each constituency on their draft
statement submitted on the Approval Process for gTLD Service Changes.<br>
<b>Marc Schneiders,</b> reported for the Non Commercial Users constituency
(NCUC) stating that there had been very little time to draft a statement.
The NCUC believed that there was a distinction between different aspects of
the issues: <br>
1. technical coordination such as in the case of Sitefinder and <br>
2. consumer protection where ICANN did not contribute very much. There should
be clear guidelines as to what issues could be dealt with by ICANN staff and
what issues need to go through the constituency process.<br>
<br>
<b>Niklas Lagergren</b> reported for the Intellectual Property Interests constituency
supporting the conclusions of the Staff Manager that the current informal
process had led to inconsistent decisions and insufficient justification for
those decisions. The NCUC comments tried to out line what a formal process
would look like. Key factors were considered to be efficiency, openness and
transparency through a three-tiered approach to assure the certainty needed
by the registry community. <br>
Requests by a registry operator would go through an initial review, to determine
whether the proposed change:<br>
1) is consistent with the current registry contract; <br>
2) requires a contract modification; or<br>
3) requires ICANN approval. <br>
If the answer to 2 and 3 were yes, it would go to the second tier, "quick-look"
analysis that would determine:<br>
1. Will implementation of the registry operator's requested change harm the
legitimate interests of third parties?<br>
2. Will implementation of the registry operator's requested change threaten
stability or security of the Internet? <br>
3. Will implementation of the registry operator's requested change violate
an existing ICANN policy? <br>
If the answers were affirmative it would proceed to the third tier :<br>
Evaluation and consultation, where the Final Evaluation Notification report
would contain a call for all affected stakeholders to appoint designated representatives,
and outside experts to participate in a task force to further evaluate and
consider the issues therein. This task force would produce a report which
would be sent to the ICANN ¨President setting out the recommendations.<br>
A suggested timeline for the process has been included.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b>commented that there were no external experts called on
in the second tier.<br>
<br>
<b>Tony Holmes</b> reporting for the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity
Providers Constituency (ISPCP) stated that the constituency welcomed the call
for considering a deterministic, well-defined process for changes in the names
space. Recent events had clearly shown that solely relying on negotiation
and implementation of contracts with key operators of names related services
in the Internet to achieve this goal, were insufficient and could not guarantee
success. All stakeholders were affected.<br>
Under no circumstances should a registry be allowed to determine – on their
own – whether a new “service” was compliant with existing contracts or policies,
or determine if a new “service” would have any impact on the stability and
reliability of the Internet. <br>
Transparent Consideration - Those suggesting fundamental changes to the architecture
or behaviour of the Internet must give prior, effective, disclosure and allow
examination by the responsible technical bodies. <br>
Recommendation:<br>
Quick Look <br>
The ISPCP believed that the “Quick Look” provision of the Staff Manager’s
report currently raised a number of concerns. <br>
In particular, the ISPCP would like to make the following suggestions: <br>
• The “Quick Look” process needs to be explicitly spelled-out so that all
parties have a common understanding of exactly what ‘Quick Look’ means. <br>
• Any “Quick Look” process should give a full explanation of what role the
gNSO plays in the “Quick Look” activity. <br>
• The “Quick Look” process should have agreed and effective reporting mechanisms
in the interest of transparency. <br>
• In the event that the “Quick Look” process fails to accurately assess the
impacts of a new service on the Internet, there must be an effective form
of recourse for ICANN and the community. <br>
• Some metric needs to be established that effectively and deterministically
decides if a service proposal is eligible for the “Quick Look” procedure.
This metric should be based on full community consultation. <br>
Finally, any process must have a process for appeals.<br>
<br>
<b>Grant Forsyth </b>reported that the Commercial and Business Users constituency
(BC) report was not completed due to internal consultation that was ongoing.
In addition, the specific responses to the 4 main tasks identified in the
terms of reference were not yet complete and would be posted when consultation
closed. The BC statement however seemed to be along the lines of the other
statements that were submitted.<br>
<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan </b>stated that the gTLD Registries constituency had not
yet submitted a formal response as it was an important issue with high priority
and needed thorough deliberation. <br>
<b>Ken Stubbs</b> added that due to the executory proposals in the terms of
reference there had been a desire to step back and look more closely at what
could be commented on.<br>
<br>
<b>Thomas Roessler</b>, reporting on the At Large Advisory Committee's (ALAC)
proposals stated that it was a preliminary statement, comments were being
solicited and it was primarily analytical in nature. Three main points could
be identified: <br>
On the procedural side, an accountable, transparent and objective processes
that ensured that policy was applied in a neutral manner was important. In
particular, the process should provide opportunities for all relevant parties
(including GNSO constituencies and Advisory Committees) to get involved, and
should, in particular, incorporate opportunities for meaningful and early
public comment. <br>
It was considered helpful to ask in the quick look analysis whether the success
of a new registry service was observable. Would it be possible to use market
feedback to assess success. Where the community's interest is measurable in
market terms, "regulatory" decisions can and should be avoided. <br>
Conversely, where market feedback could not accurately define the community's
interest because of the absence of a competitive market, or because of the
imposition of spillover costs, the community's interest must be defined in
another way. For example, imagine that a registry imposed a change in behavior
affecting all incumbent registrants. Those registrants would have to incur
high switching costs in order to change to another TLD; that fact would distort
the market's response to the registry change.<br>
Where a proposed change failed this test, it should be the registry's burden
to prove that no harm is caused by the proposed change. <br>
The focus was on three areas of significant harm that could be caused by changes
to registry architecture or operations: <br>
Changes that affected the network's openness for innovation; <br>
changes that caused cost at the edges but benefits for the registry; and <br>
changes that enabled registries to leverage their monopoly position into different
markets where they could then compete unfairly. <br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that the Registrar constituency were in the process
of voting on a draft constituency statement. The current draft basically listed
some of the areas in the contract that required consent. One of the key points
that the registrars made was that the definition of Registry services should
be clear and consistent across all registries so that in terms of the definition
there would be no distinction between sponsored and unsponsored registry services.
In terms of the issues that ICANN would need to consider, the constituency
constrained itself to what was in the ICANN mission and core values, namely:<br>
- Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security,
and global interoperability of the Internet. <br>
- Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote
and sustain a competitive environment. <br>
- Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names
where practicable and beneficial in the public interest <br>
Changes to reports to ICANN, changes to specification data were seen as potentially
possible for a fast track process whereas changes that changed the nature
of the registrar/registry agreement or changes that related to registry services
would require a more extensive review. <br>
Use of external experts were recommended to decide whether there were issues
in operational stability or reliability. It was suggested that those terms
be more clearly defined so that there would be better understanding of what
operational stability and reliability meant.<br>
In terms of the appeal process, it was noted that there was an existing appeal
procedure within the ICANN bylaws that could be used, but there was not yet
agreement in the Registrars constituency whether that process should be shorter.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested that the Staff Manager summarize and highlight
the commonalties in the constituency statements for Wednesday 28 January so
that the report may be studied before the next GNSO Council meeting on February
5, 2004.<br>
<br>
<b>Item 5: Planning for ICANN meeting in Rome<br>
- proposed four PDP workshops<br>
- Council breakfast and invitation to Board <br>
- Council meeting and invitation to Board <br>
</b><br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> reported that Wednesday, March 3 had been set aside
for Whois task forces 1, 2 and 3 policy development process <br>
<b>The GNSO Secretariat </b>would formally request that the ICANN Board be
informed of the workshops and the GNSO Council meeting which would follow
the workshops on Wednesday March 3, 2004.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that it was the custom for the GNSO Council, ICANN
President, ICANN Board members and certain staff to meet informally before
the constituency meetings to discuss policy related matters.<br>
<b>The GNSO Secretariat</b> reported that the informal breakfast meeting had
been arranged for Tuesday 2 March, in the "La Sughereta Restaurant" close
to the main lobby of the meeting venue, Hotel Melià Roma Aurelia Antica, at
7:30 to 9:00. <br>
Invitations would go out in due course to the GNSO Council and a formal reminder
sent to the ICANN President and Board members.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Thomas Roessler</b> suggested
informing the GAC of the planned schedule for the policy development process
workshops on Wednesday March 3.<br>
<br>
<b>Item 6: WSIS <br>
- Marilyn Cade to report on outcomes of WSIS and any recommendations for action
by ICANN </b><br>
Deferred in the absence of Marilyn Cade<br>
<br>
<b>Item 7: Any other business</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested deferring <b>Philip Sheppard's</b> proposed
"Guidelines for producing an Issues report" the GNSO Council meeting
agenda on February 5, 2004.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for
attending.<br>
The meeting ended: 20:55 UTC</b></font> </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference:
February 5, 2004</b><br>
see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/">Calendar</a></font><br>
</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<p> </p>
<!--#include virtual="../footer.shtml"--> </font>