[council] Draft GNSO Council minutes 20 November 2007

Wed Dec 5 18:46:11 UTC 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

Attached, and in plain text below, please find the draft minutes of the 
GNSO Council teleconference held on 20 November 2007.

Please let me know if you would like any changes made.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,
Glen
.........................................................................
20 November 2007
Proposed agenda and documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. - absent - apologies
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C - absent - apologies
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - aplogies
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC
Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
18 Council Members
(24 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff

Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Sue Jongklaas - Regional Business Advisor - Asia-Pacific, Office of the 
General Counsel
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Absent - excused
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel - absent -excused
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent -excused
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services - absent -excused
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison - absent -excused
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - (Board teleconference)
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - Board teleconference)
MP3 Recording
Avri Doria chaired the meeting.

Approval of the agenda

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Statements of Interest received from new councillors:
Jordi Iparraguirre
http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/iparraguirre-soi-13nov07.shtml
Olga Cavelli
http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/cavalli-soi-20nov07.shtml
Tim Ruiz
http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/ruiz-soi-20nov07.shtml

Item 2:
Approval of the draft GNSO Council minutes 11 October 2007

Chuck Gomes, seconded by Kristina Rosette moved the adoption of the GNSO 
Council minutes of
of 11 October 2007
Motion unanimously approved

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 11 October 
2007

Item 3: Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP)

Avri Doria explained by way of background, that Council had received an 
Issues Report which recommended a particular Dispute Resolution Policy 
(DRP). The vote to create a working group to revise the DRP in the 
Council meeting on 31 October, 2007, did not succeed, then a vote 
authorising an ad hoc process failed. The ICANN Bylaws required a vote 
on approving a Policy Development Process (PDP). Council was being asked 
to vote on delaying the vote on the PDP until the Intellectual Property 
Constituency (IPC) could provide a revised DRP, a process Council has 
used in the past to allow more time for the issue to be clearly defined.

Kristina Rosette explained that since the Council meeting in LA on 
October 31, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) had further 
discussed the IGO-DRP which had culminated in certain developments.
First, the IPC was in the process of drafting a revised proposed DRP 
that might satisfactorily address many of the objections articulated 
thus far.
Second, having a revised proposed DRP that addressed these objections 
could provide a better basis for deciding whether to proceed with a PDP. 
In the event of a vote for a PDP there would be less work for the 
Council or working group as the issues would be better defined. The 
expected date for circulation of the revised proposed DRP, within the 
IPC, was not later than COB (Pacific) on Wednesday, 28 November 2007.
Third, as a consequence of this decision, the IPC no longer intended to 
pursue - either formally or informally - the working group concept set 
out in the motion I proposed in LA.
In light of the expected revised proposed DRP, and to ensure that all 
constituencies had sufficient time for review and consultation, Kristina 
proposed a motion to postpone voting on the PDP until the Council 
meeting on December 20, 2007.

Avri Doria read the motion proposed by Kristina Rosette and seconded by 
Chuck Gomes
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 
June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and 
Abbreviations"
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf
and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute 
Resolution Procedure;"
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain 
Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on 
whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue;
and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is drafting and expects 
to distribute not later than 28 November a revised proposed draft 
dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 
December meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development 
process.
Philip Sheppard supported the motion, commenting that the issue was 
being addressed because it was politically right, and that it did not 
serve any particular constituency interest, but looking at a text that 
would be acceptable to constituencies was important.
Robin Gross commented that a couple of months difference would not 
convince the NCUC that starting a PDP on the subject was a good use of 
the constituencies or Council's time and energy and thus, was currently 
prepared to vote 'no' on the matter.
Jon Bing commented that there were several unresolved issues, it was a 
cumbersome process which appeared to be over regulated, and would 
benefit from more detailed reflections.
Chuck Gomes stated that one of the concerns was the rights of existing 
domain holders with regard to IGO names and the proposed process omitted 
that issue.
Kristina Rosette further elaborated that there was no requirement that 
the complaining IGO show that the domain name registrant had a bad faith 
intent in terms of registering a domain name and using it. Similarly 
omitted, was language that would effectively allow a domain name 
registrant, facing such a complaint, the opportunity to descend their 
registration and use of the domain name, because they had either an 
independent right in the second level or a legitimate use in using the name.

Avri Doria called for a voice vote.

One 'nay' was heard and 2 abstentions were noted from Tom Keller (2 
votes) and Norbert Klein (1 vote)

The motion passed.

Decision 2:
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 
June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and 
Abbreviations"
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf
and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute 
Resolution Procedure;"
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf
and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain 
Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on 
whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue;
and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is drafting and expects 
to distribute not later than 28 November a revised proposed draft 
dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 
December meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development 
process.

Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP
4a - Vote to initiate PDP pending from 31 October 2007
Background:
There was a 3 part recommendation from the Registrar working group
1. Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf
2. Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf
3. Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [PDF, 88K]
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf
An Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/issues-report-transfer-denial-clarifications-19oct07.pdf
was produced on 19 October 2007 which considered a limited set of issues 
relating to when registrars can deny a transfer. Staff recommended that 
greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar 
Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, 
particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries 
and registrars) who were obligated to comply with the policy provisions.
Avri Doria called for a roll call vote.
Whereas the Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/issues-report-transfer-denial-clarifications-19oct07.pdf
has been released and discussed
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set 
forth in the Issues Report by the Staff.
The motion carried
22 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony 
Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing, 
Avri Doria (one vote each)
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Tom Keller, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi 
Iparraguirre

1 Abstention: Carlos Souza
Absent did not vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Olga 
Cavalli (not yet joined the call)
4b - Contingent vote of forming a TF for the PDP pending from 31 October 
2007.
Whereas the Council has decided to initiate a PDP on Inter-registrar 
Transfers, a Task Force will be created according to the By-laws, 
section 5 of Annex A of the GNSO Policy Development Process.

The ICANN bylaws allow for 2 options, forming task force, or collecting 
constituency statements.
Discussion indicated that the non task force route was preferred and 
that working groups could be formed if more information was necessary 
following the second option. In addition, the specific issues were not 
controversial and the quicker route would be more efficient.
Concern was expressed about the parameters which should be clearly 
defined from the outset.

Avri Doria called for roll call vote.

The motion did not carry.

23 Votes against: Philip Sheppard, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony 
Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing, 
Avri Doria, Carlos Souza (one vote each)
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Tom Keller, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi 
Iparraguirre.

Absent did not vote: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Olga 
Cavalli (not yet joined the call)

Decision 3
Whereas the Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers has been released 
and discussed
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set 
forth in the Issues Report by the Staff.

Liz Gasster was designated as the responsible staff person and charged 
with collecting the constituency statements as defined in the ICANN bylaws
8. Procedure if No Task Force is Formed
a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will 
request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each 
constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's 
views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a 
Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) 
calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
Each constituency to appoint a representative, within 10 days, by 
November 30, 2007, to solicit the constituency's views on the issue.
Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency 
Statement to the Staff Manager, Liz Gasster, within thirty-five (35) 
calendar days after initiation of the PDP, that is by 25 December 2007.

Item 5: IDN ccTLD WG Discussion
5a. Discussion of Board Motion of Interim solution WG

Avri Doria quoted the Board Resolution adopted in Los Angeles which 
accepted a resolution of the ccNSO to form a working group on an interim 
approach for IDN ccTLDs.
"Resolved (07.89), the Board respectfully invites the Chairs of the 
ccNSO, GNSO, GAC, ALAC, and SSAC to set-up the IDNC Working Group and 
appoint members to this group as soon as possible and, when established, 
requests the IDNC Working Group to commence its work, in accordance with 
the Charter adopted by the ccNSO Council . The ICANN Board directs staff 
to provide the necessary support to the IDNC Working Group, and requests 
that the IDN Working Group provide a status report on its progress by 
the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in New Delhi in February 2008.
The Charter for the IDNC Working Group stated that the IDN Committee 
will have the following members:
Members of the GAC including its chair;
Members of the ccNSO including its chair;
Two (2) members of the GNSO;
Two (2) members ALAC;
One (1) representative of technical community;
One (1) member of the SSAC: and
Two (2) ICANN staff members.
The IDNC WG shall select its own chair from the members of the Working 
Group.
The Council was in agreement and emphasised the necessity for increased 
GNSO participation in the working group.
Avri Doria proposed raising the issue formally at the formative meeting.
In addition, Council agreed that there should be clarity on whether it 
was a ccNSO working group to which other advisory groups and Supporting 
organisations are being invited to participate, or was the intent for it 
to be joint working group.
Denise Michel clarified that no limit had been placed on the number of 
participants from the GAC and the ccNSO. The ICANN Board specifically 
requested the formation of such a group and that it should consist of 
representatives from all of the supporting organisations and the 
advisory committees.
Edmon Chung supported participation in the group as there was an 
inter-relationship with the new IDN gTLD process and agreed that the 
issue of working group numbers from the GAC and ccNSO should be addressed.
Avri Doria clarified that the ccNSO was envisaging 2 processes, an 
interim fast track process and a full process. In the initial or interim 
fast track process, within the next year, all those who were ready for 
an IDN cctld, could apply according to methods to be determined by the 
IDNC WG. There would not be a reserved list. Whether there would be one, 
could be discussed in the committee. It would not be the same as the 
full solution which is envisioned as a long term ccNSO PDP process.
Avri explained further that the GNSO process depended on an objection 
process, and either in the short track or the long track, there could be 
an objection to any name that was raised, but neither one was creating a 
reserved list. Neither was creating a critical path to the new gTLD process.
Chuck Gomes mentioned a IDN working group recommendation, that if new 
gTLDs happened before the ccNSO process for IDN ccTLDs, then it would be 
appropriate to deal with possible conflicts that may exist in the case 
of where IDN names might be ultimately selected by the ccTLD members. 
This area might result in more work and the GNSO could work with the 
ccNSO to avoid possible conflicts beyond the dispute process in the new 
gTLD recommendations.
Chuck Gomes suggested an alternative approach, that in fact if it was 
meant to be a joint working group, that there be opportunity for a 
balanced membership between the two supporting organizations involved, 
the GNSO and the ccNSO.
Avri Doria invited Council members to submit further comments regarding 
the formation of the group to the mailing list.

5b. Discussion on how to bring the draft GNSO comments as revised in Los 
Angeles on the ccNSO-GAC IDN Issues Report to closure
Chuck Gomes suggested and Council accepted, that a sub-group be formed 
to make improvements to the draft that would better accommodate the 
further comments to the council mail server list made after the revised 
document in Los Angeles.
Chuck Gomes volunteered to the lead with the following participation:
Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Edmon Chung, and NCUC and CBUC participation 
to be named.
Chuck Gomes suggested and Council accepted, that any changes to the 
revised document would be submitted to the GNSO Ad Hoc Group to draft a 
response to ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Policy as had been done with 
the revisions made in Los Angeles.
Philip Sheppard suggested that the group should assist with Council's 
responses and expressed concern that some of the big questions were left 
to the decision of the ccNSO and GAC, while it would be beneficial for 
the new working group to give input to such issues.

Item 6: GNSO response to the Board Governance Committee Working Group 
draft report on GNSO Improvements

Avri Doria stated that the report had been discussed in Los Angles and 
noted, that while many of the issues would be commented on individually 
by constituencies or by individual Council or constituency members, a 
consensus position from the Council could be obtained on some issues.
In discussion concern was raised by the aggressive timeline. Phasing was 
mentioned as way to handle it but while phasing the implementation stage 
was broadly agreed on, phasing decision making was not considered 
acceptable and could be seen as a means of delay.
The Council agreed that a document be drafted, consisting of the 
sections in the Board Governance Committee (BGC) report where there was 
broad general approval, posted to the Council mailing list for 
councillors to comment, and then be edited by noon, UTC on 28 November. 
In the last 48 hours the Council would be asked to accept or reject the 
document and if there were no objections, it would be submitted to the 
BGC by 30 November 2007 at the close of comment period 
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/.
Philip Sheppard, CBUC, volunteered and was accepted as editor of the 
proposed document.
Item 7: Establishment of a general GNSO discussion list, similar to the 
ones for NANOG and IETF.
Greg Ruth explained that conversations with members of the community in 
Los Angeles indicated that it would be an advantage to have a focused 
list for IDN discussions, similar to specific topic lists in other 
organisations. A place to meet and discuss with like-minded individuals 
but not necessarily a list attached to the GNSO.
Avri Doria posed the following questions
- did Council want to start some list(s) for discussion of GNSO issues?
- did Council need separate lists for separate topics or was one list 
enough?
- if so was an IDN list needed ?
- were any other lists needed ?
- would they be open lists or restricted somehow?
- what sort of regime would Council use to control/moderate/monitor the 
lists?
Adrian Kinderis said consideration should be given to whether people 
would feel comfortable posting to an open list on topics that had not 
yet been properly formulated.
A general list would not be so different from the General Assembly list 
already in use, while a specific IDN list could have the same criteria 
in terms of membership, but prohibit discussions off topic.
The ICANN bylaws section 3.4 state:
In addition, the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, 
in the form of mailing lists or otherwise, for the participation of all 
who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO; such forums shall 
be appropriately moderated to ensure maximum focus on the business of 
the GNSO and to minimize non-substantive and abusive postings.
An additional list under the sponsorship of the GNSO would place 
expectations on the Council and constituency members to monitor it and 
provide responses.

Several suggestions were made, such as:
- a list where different specific topics could be discussed,
- an open forum with a monthly discussion with councilors.
- a mail server list might not be the only way to achieve better input 
and interaction.
- there should be a facility for the public to post questions before an 
ICANN meeting which could be addressed in the GNSO public forum.
- focus should be placed on gathering public input at ICANN meetings.
Avri Doria proposed further discussion on the Council mail server list 
and proposed the topic, meeting interaction with the community and 
response issues.as an agenda item for a future Council meeting.
Item 8: Letter on behalf of Hagen Hultzsch re job description for open 
GNSO Council position in 2008

Suggested responses had been sent to the mailing list from Avri Doria
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04100.html
with an updated job description from Chuck Gomes and Philip Sheppard
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04125.html
and input from Alan Greenberg
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04137.html
Avri Doria proposed that further comments be sent to the Council mailing 
list and by 30 November 2007 there should be a job description for the 
open GNSO council position in 2008 for the Council to review and vote on 
at the Council meeting on December 6, 2007.
Patrick Jones stated that if the response were extended beyond December 
6, the input would be less valuable for the Nominating Committee.
Item 9: Pending Work Item Review
Avri Doria commented on the action items:
- The Reserved Names recommendations for existing TLDs status report was 
pending and Patrick Jones held the token.
- The Response to Board resolution on IDNccTLDs had been moved to 6 
December 2007 but depended on the sub-group led by Chuck Gomes to 
provide a schedule
- Registrar Transfer policy Review, the working group was ongoing and 
there would be a status report for the Council meeting on 6 December 
2007. In addition, the PDP voted on in item 4, would be added.
- Motion on proxy voting required a motion to the Council suggesting a 
bylaw change.
- Motion on term limits (2006Nov-06) pending and required Board bylaw 
action.
- Inter-registrar Policy review to be updated with Council votes and 
deadlines for constituency statements.
- Domain Tasting PDP status required the constituency representatives to 
be appointed by 10 November, the constituency statements to be provided 
by 5 December 2007 and the initial report is due on 25 December 2007, 
but dates need to be adjusted to accommodate the holiday period.
- The Nominating Committee job description final draft will be provided 
on 30 November and voted on at the Council meeting on 6 December 2007.
- WHOIS studies would be placed on the agenda for 6 December 2007. 
Create a team, provide a studies suggestion form by 14 December, Council 
to approve the studies suggestion form by 20 December 2007. Interested 
parties should submit proposed studies suggestions by 7 January 2008.
- IGO Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) has been postponed awaiting a 
revised DRP from the IPC.
- GNSO Chair and Vice elections scheduled for completion on 31 January 2008.
Avri Doria mentioned that a high-level agenda for the Council meetings 
up until the ICANN Meetings in Delhi had been worked out and invited 
Councillors to collaborate in filling out topics that required discussion.

Item 10: AOB
10 a. Adrian Kinderis requested that items added to the agenda should be 
done timely so that all councillors had the opportunity to review them 
before the call.
10 b. Discussion of chair and vice-chair election process
The GNSO secretariat proposed the following procedure and schedule for 
the GNSO Chair and vice chair elections.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04123.html
The terms for the GNSO Council Chair and Vice-chair run concurrently and 
expire on 31 January 2008.
Pursuant to the ICANN bylaws
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.7
Section 3.7 The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair, for a term the 
GNSO Council specifies but not longer than one year, by written ballot 
or by action at a meeting. Any such selection must have affirmative 
votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO 
Council.
There will be a total of 27 votes cast. The winning candidate must 
receive at least 14 affirmative votes. In case of a tie, there will be a 
second round of voting.
The process followed in the past for the election of the GNSO Council 
Chair and Vice-chair, has been a call for nominations open for a period 
of two weeks for each position separately, Chair followed by Vice-chair.
All nominations should be seconded by the end of this period, and only 
GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second them.
The voting period, is usually open for 14 days for the position of GNSO 
Council chair.
Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. Ballots will be sent out 
individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address. The same 
procedure that has taken place for the ICANN Board seat #13 elections.
All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 
representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, 
Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), 
Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and 
Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee 
appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote.
When the e-mail vote is closed, the results will be announced for each 
council member to check that her/his vote was correctly registered and 
the results of the e-mail vote will be confirmed at a GNSO Council meeting.
Given the approaching holiday season a proposed election schedule could 
look like this:
GNSO Council chair:
Call for nominations: Thursday 22 November to 6 December 2007.
Voting period: Thursday 13 December 2007 to Monday 7 January 2008.
(extended voting period due to holiday season)
Announce the results Wednesday 9 January 2008
Confirm the vote at the scheduled GNSO Council meeting on 17 January
2008.
Vice-chair : Call for nominations 9 January to 23 January 2008
Vote: by roll call vote at GNSO Council meeting 31 January 2008.

Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for 
their participation.
The meeting ended at 23:00 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 6 December 2007 at 15:00 UTC.
see: Calendar

Action Items arising from the minutes
Item 3:
Avri Doria stated that the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute 
Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) would be placed on the Council agenda for a 
vote at the meeting on 20 December, with the expectation of receiving on 
28 November a revised proposed draft Dispute Resolution Process.

Item 4:
Each constituency to appoint a representative, within 10 days, by 
November 30, 2007, to solicit the constituency's views on the issue.
Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency 
Statement to the Staff Manager, Liz Gasster, within thirty-five (35) 
calendar days after initiation of the PDP, that is by 25 December 2007.

item 6: Prepare a broad consensus document on the GNSO Improvements for 
comment on the Council list.

Item 7: Meeting interaction with the community and response issues 
during the ICANN meetings as an agenda item for a future Council meeting.

Item 8: Job description for the open GNSO council position in 2008 for 
the Council to review.

Item 10 b. Call for nominations to be launched on Thursday 22 November 
2007.

-- 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20 November 2001.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 69120 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071205/fd4ebb25/20November2001.doc>