<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Rome Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Rome Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="3 March 2004"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Rome Meeting Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3 March 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-03mar04.shtml">agenda
and 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.<br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. <br>
Greg Ruth - ISCPC <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 - remote participation - proxy to Cary Karp<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, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders<br>
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. <br>
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. <br>
Alick Wilson <br>
Demi Getschko <br>
Amadeu Abril I Abril </font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">19 Council Members <br>
<br>
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
<br>
The WHOIS Task Force Chairs: <br>
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair - remote participation<br>
<br>
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/meetings/rome/captioning-gnso-council-03mar04.htm">Real
time captioning</a><br>
Quorum present at 16:00 CET,<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b> chaired the meeting. <br>
<b><br>
</b>Item 1: Approval of minutes of last meeting <br>
- <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml">19 February
2004</a> <br>
- Actions arising </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
<br>
Ken Stubbs</b>, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml">19
February minutes</a>. <br>
The date mentioned in the minutes 21 February to be clarified: Meeting date
19 February<br>
<br>
The motion was carried. Amadeu Abril I Abril abstained.<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 1: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml">Minutes</a>
of the teleconference held on February 19 adopted.<br>
<br>
Item 2: Update on WHOIS task forces <br>
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs <br>
- key outcomes from workshops <br>
- assess current level of consensus <br>
- possible recommendations <br>
</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman,</b> Whois task force
1 chair, on restricting access, reported that there had been fruitful dialogue
on the needs and justifications for Whois information, the differentiation between
access via port 43 versus web-based access, registrars' mechanisms to put speed
bumps into the process and tiered access and authentication.<br>
The following procedural steps were the constituency positions due on March
19, the preliminary report with policy recommendations due on April 9 followed
by a 20 day public comment period ending April 29 with the aim of completing
the final report mid to late May.<br>
<b>Tom Keller</b>, who chaired the Whois task force 2 on data collection and
display in the absence of <b>Jordyn Buchanan,</b> reported that discussions
had been useful, were transcribed and would be incorporated into the data gathering
material.<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, through remote participation, commented on the process
to date saying that the task force was tracking on a similar schedule to the
Whois task forces 1 and 3 and also experienced a lack of responses to the questionnaire.
A separate questionnaire had been sent to the Government Advisory Committee
(GAC) and the deadline for responses extended which would result in the preliminary
report being 10 days behind schedule but that the overall work product would
be complete for the GNSO Council to act upon in June and for the ICANN Board
to act upon in July.<br>
<b>Ross Rader</b>, who chaired the Whois task force 3 on data accuracy in the
absence of Brian Darville, characterized the session as informative and productive
from the task force point of view and useful for the community in attendance.
The task force viewed it as a start in data collection as responses to the surveys
been disappointing. He <b> </b>referred to the presentation by <b>Bernard Turcotte</b>,
from the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, that documented the practices
and experiences with data verification in a ccTLD context. <br>
<b>Brian Darville</b>, through remote participation, stated that the task force
would work from the interim report, the workshop material and constituency statements
so as to submit a preliminary report by April 9 aiming at the final report to
be completed by May 20.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> urged the GNSO constituencies to respond using their expertise
to develop position statements that addressed the task force terms of reference
and from which consensus recommendations could be developed.<br>
He further observed that it was important to be able to measure the success
in policy development, and called on the constituencies to consider how they
would measure improvement as this could establish benchmarks at the time of
implementation, and after implementation, to gauge the success of the policy.<br>
He emphasized that it was important not to try and solve all the problems, but
rather to make changes which could be measured and so move forward making steady
improvements.<br>
<b><br>
Item 4: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes<br>
Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair <br>
- key outcomes from workshops<br>
- assess current level of consensus <br>
- possible recommendations </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that
input had been received from: <br>
the public, a registry operator, a registrar, all the GNSO constituencies and
the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). The following issues were addressed
in some of the statements:<br>
- the decision points required in the approval process<br>
- criteria that should be applied at the decision points<br>
- the time lines<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- keeping within the general
principles consistent with the ICANN mission.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The committee's ongoing work
would be to develop and aim for consensus on a flowchart of the approval process
which would be the basis for the initial report that would go out for public
comment.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 5: GNSO 2004 planning <br>
- what are the measurable outcomes we are seeking from ICANN for 2004 given
its current level of resourcing <br>
- ie how do we measure success from policy work? (examples may include establishing
a baseline for current number of transfer complaints to ICANN, and seeking to
reduce that by some percentage, or establishing a baseline for WHOIS data accuracy,
and seeking to improve that etc)<br>
- what are the priority areas for further work <br>
Note the following ranked list of priorities was discussed in the meeting of
29 October 2003: (1) registry services (2) WHOIS (3) new gtlds (4) enforcement
(5) UDRP </b><br>
<b>Marc Schneiders has also suggested considering policy aspects associated
with possible reassignment of the .net gtld. <br>
</b><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> stated that the GNSO Council had to plan for the following
six months and reminded the members that in October 2003 the priorities were:<br>
Registry approval process, Whois, new gTLDs, enforcement aspects of contracts
and the UDRP. In the mean time the reassignment of .net had to be considered.<br>
The GNSO Council relied on the ICANN staff support to assist with policy development
and implement the policies that were developed thus the accomplishment of the
tasks before Council had to be consistent with the available ICANN staff resources.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> called upon <b>Paul Verhoef</b> to give a summary of the
overall ICANN priorities to place in context issues that the GNSO wished to
present.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Paul Verhoef</b>, newly appointed Vice President of Policy Development Support,
responsible for assisting the supporting organizations and committees in policy
development stated that the resourcing issue was currently receiving attention.
High on the priority list was the stability of the DNS and the associated IANA
functions and security. Other priorities included the ccNSO about to start up
and the ASO, both of which could benefit from the GNSO experiences, better and
long term perspective communication with the community, litigation issues, the
ongoing effort of management to internationalize, Brussels office being an example
and the general process in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) of
which the DNS was also a part.<br>
Questions included:<br>
- what low-level details could be shared around some of the specific initiatives
in stability and security. <br>
- whether the required staff support for the GINS council and other policy councils
could be engaged in the light of the litigation costs facing ICAO </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>Paul Verhoef</b> felt he was
not qualified to speak on security but responded that the IANA function was
basic to the functional mechanism and output of the organization and created
concern which should be addressed by structured communication. <br>
The two positions for the GNSO Council were occupied and the Vice President
of Business operations, and himself were concerned that ICANN's basic mandates
were properly covered by staff while maintaining a fine balance in dealing with
new demands.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that there were a number of elements involved
in policy implementation:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- What contracts need to change
to make a new policy enforceable<br>
- Enforcement as such<br>
- Cost/revenue model to resource implementation, compliance and monitoring.<br>
He emphasized the importance of continuation and change in the organization
and that the threat of external organizations asserting the right to take over
domain name policy should not be dealt with by ICANN staff alone but also by
members of ICANN community and volunteers. The causes of litigation should be
looked at in the light of improving processes and strengthening the organization.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">New gTLDs<br>
Important issues to consider over 12 month period, 2003 - 2004 were the two
aspects of new top level domain names:<br>
-moving forward with ASCII-based TLDs<br>
-issues associated with introducing internationalized top level domain names.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Internationalized domain names were currently being introduced at a second level
of some of the gTLDs, .com, .net and .info and in some of the ccTLDs. The present
issue was the introduction of the international domain names at the top level,
that is introducing them into the root zone file. The technical and policy issues,
including the criteria that are being set forth for the introduction of new
top level domains, are quite separate. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Enforcement<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Enforcement mechanisms other
than complete termination of the contract such as, nuanced mechanisms of enforcement
at a high level would allow other policy development processes to be enforced
without resorting to litigation. It was argued that enforcement was not a policy
issue but an implementation issue, however a counter argument was made looking
at two aspects:</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- implementation of the termination
of the contract may be enough to make tangible changes in some market participants
behaviour<br>
- in the contract there might be mechanisms on the policy side which should
be implemented.<br>
The registry contracts that have slas in them were given as an example. If the
registries did not perform the slas, there was a financial penalty to pay to
the registrars. This is very rarely brought into force because the registries
do an excellent job and adhere to their obligations, possibly because there
is a specific and concrete openly attached which motivates compliance and acts
as an enforcement mechanism.<br>
<br>
ICANN/GNSO Meeting format<br>
It was suggested that the format of the GNSO meetings at the ICANN meetings
be revised to keep apart constituency matters and allow for more intercommunity
discussion. The cross constituency meeting and the workshops on Whois and Registry
approval services were considered a positive step in that direction.<br>
<br>
Test bed<br>
The term "Test bed" appeared to create confusion, and two concepts
were distinguished:<br>
- market test that is performed on an extensive population<br>
- technical test that is performed on a constrained population during a constrained
test period.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The use of test beds in the
case of International domain names had tended to merge the two separate concepts.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>6. Any Other Business:<br>
<br>
</b>It was proposed that the GNSO Council reiterate its recommendations of July
24, 2002, to the ICANN Board on the Wait List Service (WLS):</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">-That ICANN Board move with all haste
to implement and actively enforce the proposed redemption grace period for delete
policies and practice<br>
- That ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request <br>
- That the ICANN Board rejects Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.<br>
It was considered that the appropriate place for such a reiteration would be
the public forum.<br>
<br>
<b>Marilyn Cade</b>, seconded by <b>Amadeu Abril I Abril </b>proposed a resolution
recognizing Elisabeth Porteneuve's contributions to the DNSO/GNSO council as
the first secretariat and ccTLD represenative/liaison on the occasion of her
job assignment change and the discontinuation of her role as cc liaison.<br>
<br>
Resolution unanimously carried.<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 2: Elisabeth Porteneuve was thanked and recognized by the GNSO Council
for her contributions to the DNSO/GNSO</b>.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending
as well as Jordyn Buchanan and Brian Darville for their remote participation.</b><br>
<b><br>
The meeting ended: 17:30 CET( local time)</b></font> </p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference
April 1, 2004. Time: tbd</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>