<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="9 September 2004"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes'"-->
<p> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">9 September 2004 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-05aug04.htm">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<br>
Tony Holmes - ISCPC<br>
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent<br>
Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies<br>
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Colebrook/Cary
Karp <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/Jisuk Woo<br>
Alick Wilson <br>
Demi Getschko <br>
Amadeu Abril I Abril</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">16 Council Members<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support <br>
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations<br>
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager<br>
<br>
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat
- absent - apologies<br>
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison <br>
<br>
Jeff Neuman - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair - absent, apologies<br>
Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair - absent<br>
Brian Darville - Task Force 3 Chair - absent<br>
<br>
Michael Palage - ICANN Board (GNSO seat 14) - observer <br>
<br>
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20040909.mp3">MP3
Recording</a> <br>
Quorum present at 12:09 UTC,<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
<br>
<b>Item 1: Approval of <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-09Sep04.htm">Agenda</a>
</b><br>
<br>
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-09Sep04.htm">Agenda</a>
approved <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Approval of the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19aug04.htm">Minutes
of 19 August 2004</a><br>
<br>
Tony Holmes </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">moved the adoption
of the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19aug04.htm">Minutes
of 19 August 2004</a>.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The motion carried.<br>
Abstentions noted: Niklas Lagergren, Alick Wilson, Amadeu Abril l Abril</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">,
Marc Schneiders.<br>
<br>
<b>Decision 1: The <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19aug04.htm">Minutes
of 19 August 2004</a> were adopted<br>
<br>
Item 3:</b> <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.htm">Draft
Initial Report</a> on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for
consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture
operation of a gTLD registry. <br>
As an action arising from the GNSO teleconference on August 19 2004, a meeting
took place with the registry constituency, Kurt Pritz, and Bruce Tonkin to identify
and improve timelines.<br>
<b>Philip Colebrook </b>reported that the registry constituency needed more
timeline specificity from a business point of view.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> referring to the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00027.html">approval
timelines</a> sent to the reg-com mailing list, summarized the timelines for
the Quick Look Process:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">the first step in the quick
look process, would be ICANN's General Counsel determining whether approval
would be required: estimated time 7 days.<br>
If approval were required, ICANN would commence the Quick Look Process, part
of which would be ICANN staff assessing the impact of the change with regard
to security, stability and competition and obtaining expert outside advice:
estimated time 14 days. <br>
Then ICANN would draft a report to which the Registry operator would have 7
days to correct inaccuracies and respond followed by 7 days for ICANN to produce
the final assessment.<br>
Thus ICANN's total assessment period would be 30 days. <br>
If Board approval were required because of a material change to the contract,
it would follow the normal Board processes: publication on the ICANN website
in advance of the Board meeting, public comment on the proposal and Board decision:
estimated time that 45 days.<br>
Total period of 80 days. <br>
If a Board decision were required, part of the information could be provided
to the public and overlap with the public comment period. <br>
<br>
<b>Kurt Pritz</b> pointed out that the 30 and 45 day periods ran in parallel.
In addition he emphasized that the aim was to create a partnership between ICANN
and the registries to facilitate the development or implementation of such services
and foster competition rather than the mechanics of creating a worst case timeline
which could be met with regularity. He suggested that appropriate language should
explain that the process could start early on in the development of new services
and ICANN could keep proprietary information proprietary while working towards
getting approval of the process. <br>
<br>
It was suggested that the registrar notice periods could </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
start from the beginning of the public comment periods when the registry operator
announced the intent to offer a new service.<br>
In response to the question, under what circumstances would the Board decide
to place hold action following a reconsideration request it was suggested that
case histories be built up to assess the issue as there was no previous evidence
of similar situations. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The registry would be in control
of when the public comment period would commence because ICANN approval could
be an incentive for the registry to publicize the service as early as possible.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that
the focus had been on the Quick Look Process under the expectations that if
the registry operator were working closely with ICANN in the early stages of
discussing a potential change, the change would be constructed in such a way
that it was likely to get approved rather than require a detailed review. The
detailed review process was longer due to more extensive public comment periods.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
The Registry constituency raised the issue that the criteria were fairly loose
for making a decision.<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> commented that it would be difficult for the Council as
a committee to reach consensus on detail at this stage. Discussion in Rome suggested
criteria that have been incorporated and more detail could overly constrain
both ICANN and the registry operator in moving the service forward.<br>
<b>Barbara Roseman</b> gave feedback from multiple ICANN staff discussions:<br>
1. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Stressing ICANN's cooperation
and partnership to get new services established rather than trying to stop new
services and initiatives.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Consider language in the
report to clearly differentiate between obligations and best practices with
regard to ICANN and the registry .<br>
3. Steps 1 & 2 in the Quick Look Process should be clearly stated in the
Detailed Review Section where they are presently omitted.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b>, seconded by
<b>Lucy Nichols</b> proposed that:<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The ICANN staff will prepare
a revised draft of the <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.htm">report</a>
that addresses the issues discussed during the teleconference on September 9,
2004 and the revised draft would be produced by the 24 September 2004. The revised
draft will be posted for review by the Council members and if there are no substantial
objections to that draft, the aim would be to publish the revised draft of the
initial report on Monday, 4 October 2004.<br>
<br>
The motion was unanimously approved by the GNSO Council. <br>
<br>
<b>Decision 2: The ICANN staff will prepare a revised draft of the <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/gtld-initialreport-registryapproval.htm">report</a>
that addresses the issues discussed during the teleconference on September 9,
2004 and the revised draft would be produced by the 24 September 2004. The revised
draft will be posted for review by the Council members and if there are no substantial
objections to that draft, the aim would be to publish the revised draft of the
initial report on Monday, 4 October 2004.</b><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b><br>
</b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 4: Update on process
for new gtlds <br>
</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Paul Verhoef</b> reported
that the issue was advancing, there were deadlines to meet and it was becoming
clear from internal discussions that it was a heavy item on the joint agendas
as it involved a large part of the community including the GNSO, ccNSO, Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) and others. Everybody should agree on what should be
done.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Currently a document, calling for
proposals for a process to be taken as the strategy for determining the selection
procedures for the new gTLDs, was being finalized to meet the September 31,
2004 deadline.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The parameters/dimensions included:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. What were the issues?<br>
New TLDs but what type of gTLD s, <br>
How to select an allocation mechanism, <br>
What criteria for evaluating proposals,</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 Analysis of reports<br>
<br>
3. Precise steps for community involvement: what stage, policy development process
or public consultations, possible policy development process run in parallel
with the ccNSO.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Timelines as set forth in the
in the Memorandum of Understanding, a realistic process with sufficient time
for discussion, including Board approvals.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Paul Verhoef</b> suggested that
a useful start would be a public comment period, as soon as possible, on the
two available reports:<br>
<a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/34/32996948.pdf">Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development </a>(OECD),<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf">Summit Strategies
International</a> (Miriam Shapiro) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The deadline for releasing the document
on the strategy implementation plan will be September 31 2004.<br>
The new strategy would not impact the 10 current proposals for new gTLDS. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further reports could be expected
from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in its expert role
of Intellectual Property authority and from the Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (SSAC).</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented that
it was important to have further consultation on timelines based on Council's
experience with the unrealistic timelines built into the initial policy development
process. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Kurt Pritz</b>, responding to
a request from <b>Marilyn Cade</b>, said that it was intended to post all reports
and relevant material on the gTLD process in a single area on the ICANN website.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 5: Update on joint Whois
<br>
Barbara Roseman, </b>in the absence of the Whois task force chairs<b>, </b>reported
that there had been no further task force meetings<b> </b>but that a <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00003.html">graphic
representation</a> assignment of the work outlined in the joint Task Force discussion
on August 3, 2004 had been posted to the joint Whois task force 1 and 2 list.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Whois joint task force 1 and
2 have a meeting, with an agenda posted on the website, scheduled for 14 September
2004 and Whois task force 3, no agenda, scheduled for 15 September 2004</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 6: Any Other Business</b><br>
<b><br>
</b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
enquired from Kurt Pritz about progress with recruitment in general. <br>
ICANN would be posting positions regarding contractual compliance where a more
proactive program was being implemented given the resources of the new budget
and as well as other positions in lines with the initiatives that were set up
in the budget documents. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barbara Roseman</b> responded
in place of Paul Verhoef who unexpectedly dropped off the call, on progress
in recruiting for the GNSO policy position saying that Paul Verhoef was reviewing
the applications for the different support positions, a couple of candidates
had been identified and the search had been broadened internationally as it
was hoped to fill some positions in Brussels and some in Marina del Rey. <br>
Bruce Tonkin repeated the request that some GNSO Council members would like
to be involved in the selection process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> reported that
the resolution to modify the policy development process timelines would be discussed
with Paul Verhoef and ICANN staff for a resolution at the next Council meeting
to be considered at the ICANN Board meeting in Cape Town.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> asked ICANN staff
what the position was with the report on the performance of the GNSO Council
that Dr. Paul Twomey had retained a consultant, Dr. Liz Williams, to prepare.
Marilyn requested that the report be shared with Council for purposes of its
self-review and on the issue of 2 or 3 representatives per constituency, for
Board consideration at ICANN's annual meeting in 2004, as required in the <a href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-13oct03.htm#IV">bylaws,
section 4 paragraph 2</a>.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> <b>declared the
GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.<br>
The meeting ended: 13:00 UTC.</b></font></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council teleconference
will be held on Thursday 21 October 2004 </b><b>at 12:00 </b><b> 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>