[council] GNSO Council draft minutes 13 October 2005
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
Wed Nov 9 15:28:02 UTC 2005
Dear Council Members,
Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council
teleconference held on 13 October 2005.
Something happened to this document on the website:
that is why I am resending it in plain text.
Please let me know what changes you would like made.
13 October 2005
Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries - absent - apologies
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent -
apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols/Kiyoshi Tsuru
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C. - absent
Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C.
Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee appointee - absent
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
16 Council Members
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent -
Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Michael Palage - ICANN Board member
Quorum present at 14: 08 CET.
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
Item 1:- identify any common points of view for presentation to ICANN
staff and other supporting organisations on 18/19 October 2005
Bruce Tonkin reviewed the ICANN Strategic Planning Issues paper posted
on 4 October 2005, with Patrick Sharry and summarised as follows:
7 strategic issues are identified:
- The continued rise of the Internet as a truly global means of
communication and the need for ICANN to met the needs of a truly global
- Ensuring stability and security in an environment of increased threats
- Maintaining stability given expected increases in scale driven by the
number of devices using the Internet and the number of users
- Multiple complicated changes to the Internet operations or protocols
that need to be managed in parallel, including possible paradigm changes
not yet anticipated.
- Possible fracturing of the current system perhaps brought about by
some users becoming dissatisfied with perceived restrictions imposed by
technical protocols or by actions of a government or governments.
- ICANN taking an appropriate role in the further evolution of the broad
group of international entities involved in Internet co-ordination
- Designing appropriate structures and processes for a post-MOU ICANN.
The ICANN Strategic Planning Issues paper , pages 1 - 3, deal with the
external environment that affect ICANN's role while pages 4 – 8
summarise public comments received during the planned sessions in
Luxembourg and comments on the previous documents ICANN produced.
The next step is to envisage the Internet environment in 3 – 4 years
time and then Patrick Sharry will create a new document the " ICANN
Marilyn Cade asked for clarification on how incomplete areas, identified
initially in the Amsterdam 2005 consultation process, such as restricted
funds, subject areas for restricted funds, how they would be managed,
and regional offices, would be addressed as they were not included in
the current document?
Bruce Tonkin responded that restricted funds and regional offices were a
means to meet an objective, and not objectives in their own right. The
plan would first identify measurable strategic objectives for 2009, then
identify the initiatives needed to meet those objectives, and then
consider how to fund those initiatives.
Avri Doria commented on 3 issues that should be included as separate
items in the strategic plan:
b. Stakeholder representation
c. Corporate/organizational governance
Internationalisation was proposed as a separate item in the strategic
plan beyond the mention of regional offices, linguistic requirements and
the USG relationship with ICANN and IANA in the MoU, in an attempt to
obviate the need for international oversight.
The current corporate existence as an US chartered corporation should be
examined as the latter is subject to all US laws regarding business
transactions with foreign governments and foreign companies. ICANN needs
to insure that nothing in its US based incorporation could interfere
with its global obligations and for this reason may need to consider
changing from a US corporation to an International organization. There
are several models that could be explored on how this could be achieved.
Discussions would need to take into account and seek solutions in light
of ICANN's current obligations under US law to its employees, to the
constituencies, and current contractual obligations.
b. Stakeholder representation:
This topic should merit a separate item as it was important not only in
the post MoU era but in the run up to the termination of the MOU. ICANN
should consider increasing its stakeholder participation and the role
they play in decision making, registrants, users of the DNS system and
governments from "advisory" to full participation. The role of the
non-registrant user, who does not own a domain name, should be explored.
c. Corporate/organizational governance
ICANN needs to review, and perhaps strengthen its notions of
that is, a formal, external audit process that regularly reviews, not
only the financial aspects of ICANN, but reviews ICANN's adherence to
its own principles. In addition appeal mechanisms available to those who
believe their rights or concerns vis a vis ICANN, and its process, have
been damaged should be reviewed. Is the internal ombudsman process
adequate or should there be a mechanism or a process created for
external binding appeal ?
Norbert Klein supported Avri's comments and said that at the WSIS
conference in Geneva other governments expressed concern about the legal
implications that ICANN was a US corporation.
In general it was agreed that a review, summarising the main outcomes
and strategic issues of the Tunis WSIS meeting, 16-18 November 2005,
should be included in the GNSO Vancouver meeting schedule as well as the
role of government in ICANN.
Council members who volunteered to provide input to the document of
outcomes from the Tunis WSIS meeting were, Marilyn Cade, Tony Holmes,
Tony Harris, Avri Doria and Norbert Klein.
Philip Sheppard commented that the Issues paper should be more explicit
on" fostering competition", part of ICANN's mission, and the way ICANN
is perceived in fostering competition.
Grant Forsyth commented that it was important for the strategic planning
process to look at the world of ICANN in a wider context as not
necessarily the only player in broad Internet governance, and identify
issues that were not dealt with through ICANN but recognize that there
are other bodies or entities to deal with these issues. For example, the
Internet in developing countries was a factor to be acknowledged and
recognized, even if it was not appropriate for ICANN to address the issue.
Tony Harris referring to " ICANN should be doing more to assist the
development of internet communities in developing countries" mentioned
that it was the role of the WSIS in the declaration of principles, and
the suggestion would be to concentrate on focusing ICANN on creating
awareness of the ICANN function and resources and not developing broader
Internet communities as a general purpose.
Regional outreach should be anchored in the objectives of ICANN such as
IP addresses and domain names rather than confusing people about the
role of ICANN.
Tony Holmes referred to the "need to prepare for a post-MOU ICANN" and
commented that the reason why it had not come to the fore was because of
the uncertainty in this area and it was not clear what it meant for
ICANN. Dialogue at the Council level would be advantageous to clarify
Ken Stubbs, supported by Philip Colebrook added that future financing
and enhancing relationships between the supporting organisations should
Maureen Cubberley suggested linking of some of the ideas, as separate
discussions tended to diffuse and complicate the issues, and analysing
to see where there was overlap and significant impact of the overlap.
Item 2: GNSO Strategic plan document for presentation to the Board in
- begin to identify GNSO strategic view for input into ICANN strategic plan.
Bruce Tonkin pointed out that the strategic objectives in terms of 3
years, should be identified as a base for the operational plan which
would take into account 4 month and one year goals. There should be a
balance in strategic objectives and operational planning.
The planning process is a yearly cycle, which is updated.
The GNSO objectives could be formulated under the 7 headings:
The GNSO should examine " representation", how broad was the current
representation, what was expected in 3 years , and what was needed to
transition to the future.
Marilyn Cade proposed short, medium and long term goals.
An example of an operational plan based on the objective of broader
To ensure participation in the constituencies from all regions (e.g.
Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America) and major sub regions (e.g. Middle
East, Pacific Islands, Caribbean Islands) of the world.
To ensure representation on the council from all regions.
The constituencies require participation from each of those regions and
sub regions to carry out their work. Where are the gaps in participation
and what are the steps that the council should take itself, or what
would the council need from an external group to close that gap. In the
area of representation for example there is an outside resource to the
Council, the Nominating Committee, to whom a list of criteria could be
presented as a mechanism to solicit representation from unrepresented
regions of the world
A measurable should be defined against the objective:
Part of the GNSO Review is to measure the current representation in the
GNSO constituencies and council on a region and sub region basis and the
objective is where to go in the future and the next stage would be what
should be done to achieve that.
Ross Rader suggested that the diversity within the constituencies be
recognized and there should be continued encouragement for not only
geographic diversity but liberty of interest. Some thought should be
given to groups that may need to be broken out of existing
constituencies and examining their place in new constituencies. In the
registrars constituency, registrars service different subgroups of
registrants such as large corporates protecting brands and registering
many names, small businesses, 'pay for click' registrants that have a
million names each. Some registrars focused on direct sales to retail
customers, e.g. Godaddy, other registrars focused on providing
registration software services to other organizations e.g. Tucows or
Melbourne IT, and some registrars focused on the secondary market.
Philip Sheppard suggested that a subset could concretely be judged by
defining the cost benefit to users of the users being more deeply
involved in ICANN. The costs of users to be involved and what they would
get out of that involvement should be considered. It concerned the
functions of ICANN and the ability to make a difference by involvement.
What would a GNSO objective be on security?
Philip Sheppard, using the ICANN example, stated that defining what
ICANN did not do was as important as defining what ICANN did, thus
defining what the GNSO did not do on security would be key.
Bruce Tonkin noted that two main approaches to security could be one, to
inform registrants about what security they should be seeking and then
rely on competition to ensure that registrants could choose the
appropriate level of security for their needs, or two, ICANN decide that
the market has failed to protect registrants and non-registrant users,
and require all registrars or registries to implement a minimum level of
security. The recent work done by the ICANN Security and Stability
committee on domain name hijacking is an example where there is an
attempt to inform the public, and then it is left to the GNSO to decide
whether to impose some security requirements through a policy.
Tony Holmes commented that a missing element was the need to cooperate
on security with other groups across other areas.
An proposed objective would be not to develop security solutions but
collaborate with those who did develop security solutions and provide
information to the GNSO community, except perhaps in the area of
ensuring the adoption of security standards in areas where ICANN had
direct oversight or technical coordination.
Another approach was suggested, mandating at the top level, and create
an awareness in the user population of the importance of advancing the
adoption of DNSSEC
Security is singled out by the MoU as a subset of stability and should
continue to be seen in that perspective rather than a separate item.
Ross Rader suggested leaving a placeholder on security. The scope of the
GNSO as opposed to the ICANN world should be considered. There were a
number of clear security issues in both the registration and the
resolution processes, such as transfers, which are well documented.
At the GNSO level security should be more specific, stating the current
status, what is or would be desirable and how would those objectives be
reached, e.g. increasing awareness, and if after a year awareness has
not been increased, then mandate.
In summary the strategic objectives could be stated as:
The GNSO will aim to cooperate with security experts (such as SSAC) and
technical standards bodies (such as IETF) to raise awareness of security
issues and possible solutions to those issues.
The GNSO will identify known security issues within the domain name
registration and the maintenance of domain name records, and identify
2.3 Scale Issues
Stability in relation to scale is important from an IP address point of
From a TLD point of view one of the issues relating to scale are domain
names. For example, if the number of users increased from 40 million to
a 100 million what would that do to the DNS system, would it be putting
more load at the root server level, should there be new TLDs?
New gTLD allocation policy needs to be discussed, for example does each
device type get their own TLD (e.g. .mobile, .ipod etc)?
International Domain Names (IDN's) could become a scaling issue, for
example if there were an increase in English speaking Internet what
affect would that have as a scale and if there were more languages being
used scaling would be an issue in the sense of languages as well.
The fundamental question is whether there would be a large increase in
domain names, how it would work and then what policy decisions should
In summary a strategic objective could be stated as follows:
The GNSO seeks to ensure that the gtld domain name system can handle at
least three times the number of top level and second level domain names,
and at least 100 languages by 2009.
2. 4 Multiple complicated changes to Internet operations
Looking at environmental changes, domain names existed before the world
wide web and before search engines but will there be a continued need
for them and what will be the interaction of the growth of research on
domain names and technology.
The GNSO would not change the technology, but in considering
environmental changes may be in a position to request new requirements
in technical standards by being informed at a standardisation and
- to increase liaisons with technical groups such as the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IET and WC3
- to arrange workshops or conferences with these groups to facilitate
two way discussions to understand the impact of technological change on
the DNS, and changes in the use of domain names by Internet users.
2 5 Possible fracturing of the address space
At a domain name level alternative roots over the DNS become an issue.
ORSN, an alternative registry, of alternate root servers operating with
a 'stale' root zone file.
http://european.de.orsn.net/faq.php#opmode was mentioned.
To preserve the integrity of the single root for both ASCI and IDN
related domain names.
Objectives need to be framed around what is good for the DNS and the
single root argument leans toward what is good for ICANN and the GNSO
and not necessarily what is good for the DNS.
ICANN is founded on the support of a single authoritative root and it
would take a significant amount of rethinking, redebating for the
community that supports ICANN to move away from that base.
However current technology is limited to a single root system and
without a technological solution it is difficult to move beyond that.
The reality is that with a fragmented root there will be no sure way of
knowing the outcome when there is a DNS query or parts of the DNS will
There is not necessarily a commitment to a single root but committed to
the restraints that exists.
A proposed objective should encompass predictability and reliability.
[Related references from the IETF include, RFC2956 (Overview of 1999 IAB
Network Layer Workshop, dated October 2000), RFC2775 (Internet
Transparency, dated February 2000), RFC 2826 (IAB Technical Comment on
the Unique DNS Root, dated May 2000)]
In summary an objective could be stated as:
The GNSO will continue to support a domain name system that consists of
globally unique identifiers that ensures two users in different parts of
the Internet using the same application would experience the same
application behaviour when using the same identifier (predictability),
and that this behaviour is repeatable at different times of the day
2. 6 ICANN taking an appropriate role in the further evolution of the
broad group of international entities involved in Internet co-ordination.
This item has been broadly encompassed by issues such as security,
changes in protocols, fracturing of the root.
The need for ICANN to develop an appropriate role, which could be
co-operation, collaboration, co-existence and/or participation within a
broader group of entities, such as the IETF, W3C, ITU, ISO, the Unicode
consortium and regional bodies such as CENTR and APTLDs.
Separating strategy from operations, the strategy could be:
to establish outreach with international entities involved in Internet
2. 7 Designing appropriate structures and processes for a post-MOU ICANN.
Strategic objectives for 3 years ahead could be defined in the above
mentioned objectives and any post MoU structure would need to support
Ensuring the ability to maintain the bottom up consensus policy
development process maintaining the broader private sector leadership,
which would include civil society, broad set of Internet users, the
technical community and business users, .
- Formulate objectives.
- State the initiatives to achieve the objectives
- Input for the operational planning of the GNSO
- Next 12 months Continued work focus on current issues such as
Transfers and Whois as well as work on strategic goals.
Planning for Vancouver meeting:
1. Operational document stating goals for the next 4 months and 12
months, such as transfers, WHOIS, GNSO Council review output
2. Strategic objectives document based on 7 items above
- establishing the initiatives in each category
Marilyn Cade asked whether there would be any budget items related to
the strategic or operational plan that should be noted for the Vancouver
meeting as there were certain outstanding issues that had to be
addressed by the community and resolved.
Michael Palage commented that there has been a proposal submitted by the
staff to the finance committee regarding moving forward with some of the
set aside budget items. Procedurally the recommendations of the Board
Finance committee will have to be submitted to the full Board before
deciding how to move forward.
Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
The meeting ended: 16: 15 CET.
Next GNSO Council Teleconference Thursday 20 October 2005 at 12:00 UTC.
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
More information about the council