<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="22 September 2005"-->
<!--#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">22 September 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22sep05.htm">agenda and related documents</a> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>List of attendees:</b><br>
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marilyn Cade <br>
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. <br>
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C - absent - apologies - proxy to Marilyn Cade<br>
Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies - proxy to Tony Holmes/Greg Guth <br>
Tony Holmes - ISCPC<br>
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin <br>
Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - proxy if needed to Philip Colebrook/Cary Karp <br>
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries <br>
Cary Karp - gTLD registries <br>
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Niklas Lagergren/Kiyoshi Tsuru <br>
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C<br>
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.<br>
Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Norbert Klein/Ross Rader <br>
Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.<br>
Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies - proxy to Bruce Tonkin <br>
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee<br>
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
</font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 12 Council Members<br>
<br>
<b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
Kurt Pritz -
Vice President, Business Operations<br>
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies <br>
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor<br>
Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison<BR>
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><br>
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison <br>
Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison<br>
<br>
Michael Palage - ICANN Board member <br>
<br>
<a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050922.mp3">MP3 Recording</a> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 14: 15 CET.<br>
<br>
<b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-22sep05.htm">Approval of Agenda</a><br>
<br>
The <strong>Secretariat </strong>reported on the Vancouver program meeting:<br>
GNSO Councillors should plan to arrive in time to start work on Monday morning.<br>
The current essential information is: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Tuesday November 29 morning - the GAC /GNSO WHOIS workshop</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Wednesday November 30 - (tentative) DNSSEC deployment workshop,<br>
GAC, ALAC, ccNSO meetings. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Thursday December 1 - GNSO Constituency day, Opening ceremony <br>
<br>
- Friday December 2 morning - (TENTATIVE) IDN workshop which is a joint<br>
effort with the GAC<br>
- Friday December 2 afternoon - Public Forum</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Saturday December 3 morning - Public Forum</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Sunday December 4 morning - Board meeting<br>
<strong><br>
Bruce Tonkin</strong> recognized that there would not be a full compliment of councillors on Monday morning and Tuesday afternoon was suggested for the GNSO /ICANN board meeting. <br>
<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>noted a word of caution about other workshops that were put forward and not identified by the community and that there was a commitment about the WSIS and the strategic/operational plan. <br>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed working with Tina Dam about the outcomes for the IDN workshop to identify policy and technical issues.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> drew attention to constituency elections that were required for councillors whose terms expired at the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting on December 4, 2005 in Vancouver. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ACTION:</strong> The Secretariat will poll the constituencies on their election processes.</font></p>
<p><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item 1: Approval of minutes<BR>
- <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml">GNSO Council teleconference - 18 August 2005 <br>
</a><br>
<B>Ken Stubbs </B>moved the adoption of the <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml">minutes of 18 August 2005.</a> <BR>
Motion approved. Two abstentions from Niklas Lagergren and Maureen Cubberley. <BR>
<BR>
<B>Decision 1: The <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml">GNSO Council minutes of 18 August 2005 </a>were adopted.<br>
<br>
</B><strong>Item 3: Evaluation of new gtlds (.biz, .info etc as well as .travel, .jobs. .mobi etc)</strong><BR>
- determine next steps, for example: <BR>
- clearly define remaining questions<BR>
- a 30 day comment period - require constituency statements, registry operator statements<BR>
- staff to produce evaluation report<BR>
- identify time required from staff<br>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong>, wanting to estimate the length of the process, proposed the following timelines:<BR>
<BR>
30-day process for staff preparation to produce clear questions - end of October<br>
30 days for comments, which could include constituency statements, individual's input, registries involved in the recent TLD rounds, identified organizations, the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and input from the GNSO public forum in Vancouver <br>
30 days for staff to produce final report
and Public Comment on Final Report</FONT></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Total of 90 days lapsed time.<br>
<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> supported the timeframe and the input during the Vancouver meetings. <br>
<strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> commented that the timeframe should rather overestimate than underestimate the required time. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested reflecting, in a draft paper, questions on: <BR>
- whether to introduce further gTLDs, <BR>
- the criteria for approving applications for new TLDs <BR>
- the allocation method, assuming that there was a limit to how many gTLDs could be introduced at once. <BR>
- the key contractual conditions for those TLDs <BR>
in a way that related to the policy development process so that the evaluation would be mapped to the questions.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>stated that Miriam Sapiro's report on the <a href="http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf">Evaluation of new gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues </a> should be taken into consideration so as not to repeat accomplished work. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>suggested taking up the topic with <strong>Maria Farrell </strong>off line.<br>
<br>
<strong>Item 4: Policy Development Process for new gtlds<BR>
- initiate vote for an issues report (<A
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA">as per annex A, Section 1 (b) of the bylaws</A>)</strong></font></p>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- issues report to contain background material on:<BR>
* whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs <BR>
- collect previous submissions from constituencies on new gTLDs<BR>
* the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs <BR>
- collect previous material used for .org and .net tenders<BR>
* the allocation method, assuming that there was a limit to how many gTLDs could be introduced at once<BR>
- collect previous input (e.g OECD etc)<BR>
* the key contractual conditions for those gTLDs which might include conditions such as : escrow policies, obligation to use an ICANN accredited registrar etc.<BR>
- collect current significant conditions from new gTLD agreements</FONT></P>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> stated that the first step was to formally vote on creating a new issues report that identified the 4 areas:<br>
whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs<br>
the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs<br>
the allocation method, assuming that there was a limit to how many gTLDs could be introduced at once<br>
the key contractual conditions for those gTLDs<br>
The proposed timeline would be producing the Issues Report by end of October 2005 for the GNSO council meeting on the 16 November 2005.<br>
<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> supported the 30 day timeline for the Issues Report.<br>
Marilyn
noted that potentially "Item 5: Policy development for
IDNs and <BR>
Item 7: Discussion whether to initiate an "issues report" on single letter domain names" might have implications for the policy development process for new gtlds.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that single letter domain names (SLDN) were a current condition on registry operators, and recommended that the topic be treated under the issues report in agenda item 4. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> agreed with the recommendation and commented that other questions for new gTLDs should be considered in the issues report, such as, to examine the topic that policies were being written into contracts and decide whether to ratify the process or whether it needed more work. An example was the criteria staff used for place names in the .info contract which had not been approved as policy.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maureen Cubberley</strong> supported working from the broad to the specific in a whole process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>did not support folding single letter second level issues into the gTLD policy development process as the topics shared no common issues and recommended that it should be undertaken as a separate policy development process. There are infinite numbers of tlds and finite numbers of second level names, there are technical issues associated with the second level at one time for the single letters that do not apply to the TLDs, and the allocation methods would probably be different</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> clarified that the issue was not about single letter names in the root but rather that currently there was a condition on the operators of TLDs that restricted them from offering single letter names, and that "restriction" was the contracts and these were being examined. Bruce added that when introducing a new TLD like .travel, one of the current conditions in the TLD was that they were not allowed to introduce single letters.<br>
<br>
<strong>Kurt Pritz</strong> commented that the gTLD policy development process was complex and urgent. All the issues associated with the single letter names were different and would be considered serially, taking up management time serially. Single letter name consideration was not a prerequisite to determining whether and how TLDs would be initiated so should be separate. The gTLD process was possibly complex and long while the single letter process could be straightforward and with no common issues one could slow up the other if conducted at the same time. Dr Vint Cerf recommended that single letter domain names should go through a bottom up policy development process which led to a <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01411.html">status paper </a>related to second level domain names.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> concurred with points in the <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01411.html">Status Paper</a> that the technical issues were resolved but there may be questions about symbols and ampersands that have not been explored. A persuasive point in making single letter domain names part of the overall policy development process was that policy governing the unreserving of names would affect new gtlds as well as old tlds. The term "new gtlds" is used but in fact a policy is being devised for the gTLD space. The process is evaluating lessons learned and figuring out what policy is going forward. Thus questions like unreserving names and deciding how to treat place names would be questions in a forward going policy while looking back might apply to policies such as escrow</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bret Fausett</strong> supported a more general approach to prioritise work where new gTLDs could be launched with the current restrictions which could be lifted later rather than holding up the whole process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tina Dam</strong> requested that it be clearly stated if the single letter domain name issue were merged into the implementation of new TLDs and the policy development process on new TLDs that the single letter domain names belonged under the policy issues whereas the symbols in domain names belong under the International Domain Names (IDN).<br>
<br>
There was general support in the Council to look at the issues as a whole rather than in separate policy development processes.<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed
first examining high level issues on new TLDs.<br>
<br>
<strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>stated that requests came from several multinational companies for the allocation of identified single letter names and these companies should not be turned away. The ICANN Staff recommended and would support a separate policy development process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader </strong>commented that it would appear that those involved within the ICANN community’s prioritization should take a backseat to the priorities of those outside. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> proposed moving forward with the issues report with the understanding that it may be appropriate to split into two policy development processes or establish separate priorities on the broader issues of a Policy Development Process for new gTLDs including a discussion whether to initiate an "issues report" on single letter domain names.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maureen Cubberley </strong>agreed to move ahead and to take on single letter domain names as a separate entity externally driven did not seem consistent with the policy development process.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>responded that the single letter domain name was strictly within the purview of the policy development process. The policy issues were, should a scarce resource be allocated as in single letter domains, as opposed to the gTLDs where the question was whether an infinite resource should be allocated. The technical allocation methods involved in taking up an infinite resource could be different from those involved in a scarce resource. Being responsive to a new set of community members who looked to ICANN for a solution to a problem was important.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commenting on the "problem" stated that from a Registrars viewpoint it was considered a prioritization issue according to the numbers, as those companies making the request would realize. The issues currently being examined impacted millions of Internet users, such as improving the WHOIS system and introducing new tlds opposed to a few companies that wanted unique domain names and which currently already had domain names and websites. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> summarised saying that a decision should be made that Council was requesting an Issues Report on new tlds.<br>
The <a href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA">ICANN bylaws</a> state:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA">2. Creation of the Issue Report</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an<br>
instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a<br>
Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory<br>
Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an "Issue Report").<br>
Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. The proposed issue raised for consideration;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. The identity of the party submitting the issue;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">c. How that party is affected by the issue;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">d. Support for the issue to initiate the PDP;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council<br>
should initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Staff Recommendation").<br>
Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN General<br>
Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the PDP is<br>
properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the<br>
scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is properly within<br>
the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine<br>
whether such issue:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the<br>
need for occasional updates;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">f. On or before the fifteen (15) day deadline, the Staff Manager shall<br>
distribute the Issue Report to the full Council for a vote on whether to<br>
initiate the PDP, as discussed below.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>proposed a motion to::<br>
Request an Issues Report from the ICANN staff providing Item 4:<br>
Policy Development Process for new gtlds - initiate vote for an issues report <br>
and including Item 7: an "issues report" on second level single letter domain names <br>
and establish a reasonable timeframe with the ICANN staff input on what would be a reasonable time frame to request the return of the Issues Report .<br>
<br>
Motion withdrawn.
</font></p>
<p><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ross Rader</font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> did not support singling out any modification or restriction to policy, such as single letter domain names, for special treatment as prioritisation was the issue being addressed. However, Ross supported examining the issue, but not the combination as in the above proposed motion. <br>
<strong>Bret Fausett</strong> commented that the Issues Report should be focused on whether there should be new TLDs and against what standards. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Cary Karp, </strong> proposed a motion to: <br>
Request the staff to produce an Issues Report on the topic of new TLD s that covers the four areas:<br>
- whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs <BR>
- the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs <BR>
- the allocation method<BR>
- the current restrictions<br>
that will document the status quo in the four areas and in documenting that, it will identify any of the requests that ICANN has received to date.<br>
<br>
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Decision 2: <br>
Request the staff to produce an Issues Report on the topic of new TLD s that covers the four areas:<br>
- whether to continue to introduce new gTLDs <BR>
- the criteria for approving applications for new gTLDs <BR>
- the allocation method<BR>
- the current restrictions<br>
that will document the status quo in the four areas and in documenting that, it will identify any of the requests that ICANN has received to date.<br>
<br>
Item 5: Policy development for IDNs</strong><BR>
- recommend request staff to provide a background document listing all past Board decisions regarding the implementation of IDNs, and the status of the IDN guidelines <BR>
- this can be a precursor to motion to request an official issues report<BR>
- establish clearly roles of:<BR>
-- President's Advisory Committee on IDN<BR>
-- IDN registry review group (gtld and cctld reps) to development Guidelines for the Implementation of the IETF IDN standards<BR>
-- GAC work on IDNs<BR>
-- GNSO/ccNSO policy development initiative<strong></strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>proposed requesting the ICANN staff to produce a background document with the aim to assist in developing a workshop agenda for the Vancouver meeting.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>requested feedback to the program committee to avoid parallel events of importance to the Council and constituencies.<br>
<strong>Cary Karp</strong> reminded Council that a <a href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20sep05.htm">draft revised version of the IDN guidelines</a> was published for public comment and suggested that the Council revisit the issues at the end of the public comment period.<br>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> suggested:<br>
-
<strong>Cary Karp</strong> forward to the Council list the independent source, technical in orientation, listing all the initiatives currently in progress on the various components of IDNs and its development. <A href="http://nameprep.org">http://nameprep.org</A>.<br>
- <strong>Tina Dam</strong> to collect all the ICANN documents, scheduling and coordinating the IDN workshop in Vancouver with the aim of producing an issues report after the workshop.<br>
<br>
<strong>Item 6: Draft terms of reference for GNSO Review</strong><BR>
-<A
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01413.html"> review current version</A><BR>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> commented on <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html">section 3 .4 </a> Review scope that the collaborative effort of the GNSO Council with the ICANN Board was not captured. Liz Williams responded that the difference lay in the way the Luxembourg resolution was written which was different from the way in which the bylaws were written and considered the collaborative approach was addressed by the Council's work on the initial draft then the Board's individual input and working in conjunction with the Council.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> referred to </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01394.html">section 5.4.1, 5.5, 5.6
</a>comparing with other organisations and requested a list of the organisations and further commented that internal relationships would be difficult for an external evaluator to decide.<br>
<strong>Maureen Cubberley</strong> enquired about the expected outcome.<br>
<strong>Liz Williams</strong> commented that in the policy development process and internal relations with the GNSO and the ICANN Board and staff, an analysis of the interaction was important to look at transparency, effectiveness and consultation. <br>
<strong>Update on next steps:</strong><br>
Submit information paper to ICANN Board <br>
A resolution for the ICANN Board to trigger the work<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Request for tender<br>
Developing timelines - work will begin<br>
Aim to complete work in early part of 2006 <br>
<br>
<strong>Item 7: Discussion whether to initiate an "issues report" on single letter domain names</strong> (<A
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA">as per annex A, Section 1 (b) of the bylaws</A>)<br>
Deferred to next GNSO Council meeting 20 October 2005 </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><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: 16: 10 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council </b><strong>Teleconference Thursday 6 October 2005 at 12:00 UTC. </strong><br>
<strong>Topic: </strong><br>
see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/">Calendar</a><br>
</font></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"-->
</font>