<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="01 April 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">01 April 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-01apr04.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.<br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. <br>
Greg Ruth - ISCPC<br>
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth<br>
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth<br>
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader<br>
Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries<br>
Philip Colebrook - 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 - absent<br>
Amadeu Abril I Abril</font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17 Council Members <br>
<br>
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President, Business Operations <br>
Paul Verhoef - Vice President Policy Development Support<br>
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison<br>
Christopher Wilkinson - Alternate GAC Liaison <br>
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison <br>
<br>
<br>
The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.<br>
Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2<br>
Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies<br>
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair absent<br>
<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-20040401.mp3">MP 3 recording</a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Quorum present at 20:08 UTC,<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b>chaired this teleconference. <br>
<br>
<b>Item 1: Approval of Agenda </b><br>
<b>Marilyn Cade</b> added a request to discuss the importance of staff support
for the new gTLD issue.<br>
Agenda approved <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Summary of the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03mar04.shtml">March
3 minutes</a> :<br>
<br>
Ken Stubbs</b>, seconded by <b>Philip Sheppard</b> moved the adoption of the
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03mar04.shtml">March 3
minutes</a><br>
The motion was carried. Amadeu Abril I Abril and Lucy Nichols abstained.<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 1: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-03mar04.shtml">Minutes</a>
of the March 3 meeting adopted.<br>
<br>
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item
3: Update on WHOIS task forces <br>
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan,
Brian Darville <br>
- status of constituency statements <br>
- next steps <br>
- possible recommendations<br>
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display,
reported that the task force appeared to be on the same timeline as the other
task forces and requested an additional 10 day extension for receiving the constituency
statements. The due day for constituency statements, March 29 was past and only
one statement from the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) had been received
which delayed the task force in meeting the deadline for the preliminary report
on April 19. Limited input had been received during the data collection process,
but substantial data from other sources was available. Since the policy development
process does not take data gathering into account, the constituency statements
would not benefit from the data gathered, however it was hoped that there would
be a significant input of data during the public comment period and that the
final report might differ from the preliminary report. The task force was running
pretty close to the extended schedule despite the delays. <br>
<br>
<b>Jeff Neuman, </b>task force 1 chair, being absent <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> read
his <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1tf/msg00104.html">report</a><b>,</b>
stating that task force 1 had only received 7 or 8 responses to the questionnaire
that was sent out in February and constituency statements from only two constituencies,
viz. At Large Advisory Committee, Noncommercial Users and Intellectual Property
and none from the gTLD Registries, Registrars, Business or Internet Service
Providers Constituencies. He said that it would be difficult to have a Preliminary
Report by April 9, 2004. In summary, progress was being made, there were some
preliminary recommendations but they believed that drafting the report would
take more time and requested whether the due date for the Preliminary Report
could be moved out a few weeks. <br>
<br>
<b>Ross Rader, </b>in<b> Brian Darville's</b>, absence reported on task force
3, data accuracy, saying lack of data was the primary concern, but that 3 or
4 constituency statements had been received and some had been sent back to the
constituencies for further refinement. He was optimistic that there could be
a preliminary report by April 9, 2004.<br>
<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman </b>suggested that an extra two weeks would be helpful in
allowing constituencies to submit statements. <br>
<b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented that the policy development process was still
a learning process and had not been field tested, so concern was expressed that
there would not be adequate time for the public comment period if the constituency
statement period were extended. <br>
A time extension would not affect the specified 20 public comment period. The
task forces were urged to proceed with writing the preliminary reports whether
or not the constituency statements had been received. <br>
<b>Marc Schneiders</b> commented that the Noncommercial Users Constituency,
composed of volunteers, usually endeavored to meet deadlines which should not
be prolonged each time as it appeared that there was a lack of interest in the
issue, but urged all constituencies to make the same effort. <br>
<b>Marilyn Cade</b>, speaking for the Commercial and Business Users Constituency,
said they were making an active effort to develop input, they were working on
a draft report that was being brought to closure, and the fact that people were
extremely busy, all volunteers and doing their best for policy development should
not be characterized as being a lack of interest.<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> urged constituencies to submit any draft statements for
the task forces to work on and if voting in the constituency would change the
statement, the task forces would take that into consideration.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> agreed with Marc Schneiders that in future timelines should
be improved.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Marc Schneiders</b> proposed a motion extending
the deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois
task forces to APRIL 16, 2004, and extending the deadline for the preliminary
reports to MAY 6, 2004. <br>
<br>
The motion carried unanimously</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Decision 2: The deadline for the
submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces extended
to APRIL 16, 2004 and the deadline for the Preliminary Reports extended to MAY
6, 2004. <br>
</b><br>
<b>Item 4: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes <br>
Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin) <br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that the<b> </b>Council Policy Development Process
committee for the approval process for gtld registry changes met on March 29,
2004. <br>
1. Some minor changes to <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/approval-process-24mar04.pdf">diagram
1</a>, <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/quick-look-24mar04.pdf">diagram
2</a> and <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/detailed-review-24mar04.pdf">diagram
3 </a>were proposed and <b><br>
</b>2. Scheduling a teleconference with General Counsel, around the selection
criteria, developed during the Rome meeting, <br>
-- to have input on which of these were in or out of the scope of ICANN's mission,
to have wording that could be used a legal base<b><br>
</b>-- to clarify whether the Board should approve changes in contracts and
if so, the public comment periods should be aligned to prevent duplication<br>
-- to have clarity on the<b> </b>Reconsideration and Review mechanisms in the
ICANN bylaws<b>.<br>
<br>
Philip Sheppard, </b>absent during the call,<b> </b>enquired how the gTLD registries
constituency, viewed the process which appeared to move forward in a spirit
of consensus<b> </b>and agreement.<br>
<b>Ken Stubbs</b> commented that there was agreement on the framework, but staff
support was needed to ensure that the suggestions and proposed wording were
practical from a legal stand point and that a process motivating free and open
communication between the registry and ICANN should be encouraged while time
lines and confidentiality caused concern.<br>
It was proposed that<b> Barbara Roseman </b>formulate the questions and post
them to John Jeffrey with a copy to the reg-com mailing list and a call be set
up during the week beginning April 12, 2004.<br>
<br>
<b>Item 5: Re-assignment of .net <br>
- recommend establish a subcommittee of the Council <br>
- establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN staff
manager) <br>
- review Namescouncil recommendations with respect to .org <br>
- collect constituency statements <br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin</b> reported that <b>Paul Verhoef</b>, in a <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00441.html">letter</a>,
had formally requested the GNSO Council to consider the .net reassignment.<br>
<b>Kurt Pritz</b> stated that there were weekly meetings at ICANN in Marina
del Rey to discuss the .net succession plan. The goal was to publish the process
for selecting a registry operator by June 30, 2004 and it would include the
GNSO effort which would have to be accomplished rapidly but could be after June
30, 2004. The scope of the GNSO was to develop criteria for independent evaluators
to use in deciding who the registry operator should be.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that the <a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCdotorg-report.html">.org
statement</a> made by the DNSO Names Council on 17 January 2002 could be a useful
starting point but the focus of .dot org would be slightly different from that
of .net.<br>
<br>
Council had 3 options how to handle the situation:<br>
1. Council committee as a whole<br>
2. Council sub committee formed by one representative per constituency on the
GNSO council <br>
3. Initiate a policy development process and form a task force<br>
<br>
<b>Grant Forsyth</b> asked how the GNSO Council contribution would it be considered
if it was delivered after June 30, 2004.<br>
<b>Dan Halloran</b> explained that on day X the draft proposal, which would
include mention of criteria proposed by the GNSO, would be published but in
fact the criteria could be submitted at a later date.<br>
<b>Marc Schneiders</b> commented that as price was important, any process should
take criteria for offering services at a lower price into consideration.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Kurt Pritz</b>, responding
to the tender date, said that at least 9 months was foreseen which would include
the GNSO process, 3 months solicitation, 3 months evaluation, 3 months negotiations
and awards and transition period. <br>
<br>
<b>Christopher Wilkinson</b> excused himself and dropped off the call<br>
<br>
<b>Suzanne Sene</b>, for the Government Advisory Committee, (GAC) commented
that the GAC had recently created a new GNSO working group which combined the
gTLD and Whois working groups and she would convey the .net reassignment question
to the group for their input.<br>
<b><br>
</b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
proposed forming a sub committee of the GNSO Council, with 1 representative
per constituency of the Council, to review the .org material, draft a set of
terms/conditions and criteria for .net consistent with the ICANN mission and
core values, seeking constituency input via the mailing lists and having a draft
report for consideration by the Council at its May 6 meeting with the final
report to meet the June 30, 2004 deadline.<br>
By April 9, 2004, Council members should have notified the GNSO secretariat
of the constituency representatives and a meeting would take place in the week
beginning April 12, 2004. <br>
<br>
There was general support for a sub-committee of the GNSO Council with the possible
inclusion of experts on the committee.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Item 6: new gtlds <br>
- establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN staff
manager) <br>
- collect constituency statements <br>
- consider establishing a task force <br>
<br>
From the MOU with the US Dept of Commerce: <br>
"Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process
shall include consideration and evaluation of: <br>
a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet
stability; <br>
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 ; <br>
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive
environment for TLD registries; and, <br>
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations
regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.
<br>
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)." </b><br>
<b>Marilyn Cade</b> reminded the participants that the purpose of the GNSO Council
was to develop and advise on policy related to gTLDs and that the ICANN Board
had, via a <a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-annual-meeting-15dec02.htm">resolution,</a>
indicated intent to move forward on examining the process which would guide
this. She suggested that Council consult the Board guidelines and the MOU and
establish a process which would fulfill its responsibilities and develop the
appropriate policy to guide the ICANN Board.<br>
<b>Paul Verhoef</b> suggested that Council members address specific issues to
himself or the the ICANN Staff Manager, Barbara Roseman within the next two
weeks so that they could be included in an Issues Report.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> suggested aiming for a short issues report (following Philip
Sheppard's guidelines)</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> on new
gTLDs for the July ICANN meeting in Kuala Lumpur. <br>
<b> </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.<br>
The meeting ended: 22:20 UTC</b></font> </p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference
on May 6, 2004, at 12:00 UTC</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>