<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Kuala Lumpur Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Kuala Lumpur Meeting Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="20 July 2004"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Kuala Lumpur Meeting Minutes'"-->
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">20 July 2004. </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-20jul04.htm">agenda
and documents</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.<br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. - remote participation<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>
Philip Colebrook - 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. - remote participation, proxy to Carlos
Afonso <br>
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. - remote participation, proxy to Carlos
Afonso <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">17 Council Members <br>
<br>
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel <br>
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support <br>
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations - absent - apologies<br>
John Jeffrey - General Counsel - absent - apologies<br>
<br>
Vittorio Bertola - ALAC Liaison <br>
Suzanna Sene - GAC Liaison -absent - apologies<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/meetings/kualalumpur/captioning-gnso-council-20jul04.htm">Real
Time Captioning</a><br>
Quorum present at 14:00 local time,<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin </b> chaired the meeting. <br>
<b><br>
</b>Item 1: Approval of agenda<br>
<b><br>
<br>
Item 2: Report from Security and Stability Advisory Committee <br>
- Steve Crocker to present outcomes of review of Sitefinder <br>
</b><b>Bruce Tonkin </b>invited<b> Steve Crocker, </b>chair of the Security
and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to give a summary of the <a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-report-09jul04.pdf">Report
from Security and Stability Advisory Committee</a> and an update on DNSSEC<b>.<br>
<br>
Steve Crocker </b>emphasized that the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
was composed of unpaid volunteers drawn from various technical expertise, operating
independently, who spoke their minds not only to the ICANN Board but to the
community as a whole<b> </b>with the primary focus on security and stability
matters as opposed to political or contractual issues.<b><br>
</b>The <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/crocker-ssac-kl-18jul04.pdf.">two
reports</a>, one from the Security and Stability Advisory committee looked backwards
at things that happened and the other, DNSSEC report looked forward at what
was hoped would happen.<b><br>
</b>In summary, on<b> </b>15 September 2003<b>,</b> Verisign changed the COM
and Net domain registries<b> </b>which<b> </b>blurred the architectural layers
and violated the engineering principles that the network was built on. The community
response was swift and vocal resulting in ICANN speaking from a contractual
point of view and Verisign suspending the change<b>. </b><br>
In essence, the 4 SSAC recommendations were:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- no new wild cards in TLDs,
<br>
- roll back wild cards in existing TLDs, <br>
- clean up the specifications <br>
- enforce proper discipline, including open notice and consensus, for registry
changes.<br>
<b> <br>
</b>The response to a question, concerning the balance of innovation versus
security and stability, whether future registry and registrar software choices
could be limited, was no. However, <b>Steve Crocker</b> elaborated by saying
that the genius of the Internet design was that the core, which should remain
stable, was as thin as possible and that innovation should take place in a dependable
framework at the edges.<b><br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>commented that the concept of supporting international domain
names and the recent Verisign announcement regarding the speed with which name
servers were updated after a change from a registrar, were two changes that
have been made at the core<b>, </b>illustrating<b><br>
</b>that the core was evolving rather than static.<b><br>
Ross Rader </b>asked<b> </b>about the term "spyware" which was clarified
as a means of accumulating information about what the users were doing<b>. </b><br>
<b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b> asked whether there were any concrete lessons, parameters
or questions that needed to be incorporated into the new registry services as
being examined by the GNSO in the policy development process. There was no prescription,
but to proceed carefully and have a wide number of people look at and sort out
the equities.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> stated that new
TLDs and a tender process for dot NET were being looked at and that from the
GNSO Council perspective a question was whether any action should be taken regarding
DNSSEC. <br>
<b>Steve Crocker</b> replied that it was time to adopt the DNSSEC in the plans
going forward. In summary, the DNSSEC consisted of cryptographic signatures
in the DNS which assured the integrity of DNS query results making it possible
to check through a chain of signatures up to the root so assuring the correct
response and that along the way there had been no substitution or tampering.
Deployment would be a gradual process involving a new project, called "virtual
program management" with Government funding, major groups and objectives
such as IANA, Root Server Operators, gTLDs, ccTLDs, DNS Software vendors and
major organizations.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces <br>
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs <br>
- reports to be updated by 12 July 2004 <br>
- plan meetings in Kuala Lumpur<br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>reported that a joint meeting took place between the three
Whois task forces and the GNSO Council members on Tuesday 20 July at 11:00 to
13:00.<br>
In Whois task force 1 and 2 reports the suggested recommendations ranged from
making it more obvious to registrants at the time of registering a domain name
that their information will be available in a public directory to two tiers
of information access. <br>
Implementation issues in the potential recommendations in the task force reports
needed to be analyzed before these recommendations could be submitted to the
GNSO for consideration.<br>
<br>
In Whois task force 3 report the potential recommendations pointed to work which
could be done by ICANN in the areas of enforcement, measuring and monitoring
on some aspects of existing policy. It suggested doing verification of data
which would be a new obligation for registrars.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> proposed a step
by step process aimed at getting out improvements regularly.<br>
Council should decide on the apportionment of the work according to some options
:<br>
- combine the three task forces into one<br>
- combine task force 1 and 2 </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">and
task force 3 work in parallel.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Discussion revealed most opinions
were in favour of merging task forces 1 and 2 and having task force 3 work in
parallel presenting a merged report of all three task forces to the GNSO Council
when the work was completed. <b>Amadeu Abril l Abril</b> was however in favour
of merging all three task forces while <b>Niklas Lagergren</b> was in favour
of keeping all three separate to move forward.<br>
<b><br>
Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by <b>Carlos Afonso</b> proposed that:<br>
- Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular looking
at the tiered access option and developing further </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
up-front advice to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none
of the data becomes public<br>
- Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for
new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for work
done by ICANN and work done by registrars<br>
- the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two
and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public comment.<br>
<b><br>
Carlos Afonso</b> proposed renaming the task force.<br>
<br>
The motion was unanimously adopted (27 votes in favour)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Decision 1:<br>
- Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular looking
at the tiered access option and developing further </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
up-front advice to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none
of the data becomes public<br>
- Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for
new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for work
done by ICANN and work done by registrars<br>
- the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two
and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public comment.
</font></b></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Item 4:Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes <br>
- draft report for comment <br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>reported that a <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.pdf">draft
report</a> which included descriptions of the flow diagrams was available for
comment from the GNSO Council members, after which the committee would approve
putting the document out for public comment.<br>
<b><br>
Item 5: Update on Re-assignment of .net advice <br>
<br>
</b>The GNSO Council, asked to give advice to the ICANN Board on the reassignment
of .net, formed a subcommittee chaired by <b>Philip Sheppard</b> to develop
a consensus statement using the framework of the policy development process.
Two public comment periods were completed, and all submissions were taken into
account in the completed <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/dotnet/dotnet-reportv8.pdf">report
</a>before Council which had the unanimous support of the subcommittee.<br>
ICANN Deputy General Counsel<b>, Dan Halloran </b>clarified that the process
gone through by the GNSO Council subcommittee was in compliance with the <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-net-25may01.htm">Dot
Net Registry Agreement</a><b>, </b>which predated the new <a href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-13oct03.htm">ICANN
bylaws and policy<b> </b>development<b> </b>process,</a><b> </b>and that section
4.3.1 "Consensus Policies"<b> </b> defined a<b> </b>consensus policy as a recommendation
adopted by at least a two- thirds vote of the Council.<b><br>
</b>Council considered the .net GNSO Council subcommittee <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/dotnet/dotnet-reportv8.pdf">Final
report version 8</a>, Designating a successor operator for the . net registry,
comments were received from the floor where members of the public raised certain
issues which the subcommittee would address and clarify. ICANN staff was requested
to summarise the comments received during the public comment periods, annex
all comments in full and then, the revised report would be resubmitted, on a
date to be decided, to the Council for a vote.<br>
<b><br>
<br>
Item 6: Update on meetings with ICANN staff regarding policy development processes
<br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>reported that some councillors had met with senior ICANN staff
on Sunday, 18 July in Kuala Lumpur. The essence of the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00520.html">meeting
minutes</a> was that policy development need to be looked at as a project from
issue development, through to the policy development process, to implementation
and measurement and then measurement information provided back to Council so
that Council could determine whether the policy should be modified.<b> </b>The
skills for the jobs currently advertised by ICANN to support the GNSO policy
development process were discussed.<b><br>
<br>
Item 7: Update on meeting with ccNSO regarding liaisons <br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>reported the ccNSO council would consider whether to exchange
liaisons and respond to the GNSO Council on the issue.<br>
<b><br>
Item 8: Any other business<br>
<br>
Bruce Tonkin </b>stated that ICANN was requesting what should be done with the
money collected by the constituencies for use by the Names Council that was
currently in a separate account but managed by ICANN.<br>
The general discussion was consistent with a previous <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml">Council
motion</a> on the topic that the funds should remain with ICANN as a contingency
fund for the GNSO Council.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending,
those councillors on the phone and the audience for their participation.</b><br>
<b><br>
The meeting ended: 16 :14 ( local time)</b></font> </p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference
Thursday, August 5, 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>