[council] GNSO Council Draft Minutes 17 January 2008

Mon Jan 28 08:31:50 UTC 2008

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

Dear Council Members,

Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council 
teleconference held on 17 January 2008

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

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,
Glen
---------------------------------------------------------------
17 January 2008
Proposed agenda and documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C
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
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC - absent, excused
Carlos Souza - NCUC
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
19 Council Members
(25 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff

Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies
MP3 Recording
Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes chaired the meeting.

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No updates to record.
Item 2: Review/amend the agenda
Avri Doria suggested:
2.1 - changing the order of the agenda
Item 7: Status on Reserved Names – Single and two-character names at the 
2nd level
to before Item 11: Action Item Review (5)
2.2 - Item 4 would include any Board reaction to the GNSO message with 
regard to IDNs
2.3 - Proposed items under AOB
- Saturday/Sunday schedule for the GNSO working sessions in New Delhi
- Liaison with ccNSO Council
- Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting in New Delhi
- Collaborative Council tools

Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of 20 December 2007.

Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 
December 2007.

The Motion passed unanimously.

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 20 December 
2007.
Item 3: Ratify the result of the election for the GNSO Council chair
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04408.html
Avri Doria asked the vice chair, Chuck Gomes, to preside for the GNSO 
Chair election.
The Secretariat noted that the chair must receive affirmative votes 
comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO 
Council – i.e., at least 14 votes.

Weighted voting results:
25 FOR Avri Doria
2 ABSTAIN
27 Total

Without assigning ballot weights, there were 19 votes FOR, 2 votes 
ABSTAIN, 0 votes AGAINST.
21 Council members voted.
There were 27 votes in total accounting for 21 Council members.
http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml

Kristina Rosette, seconded by Robin Gross, proposed a procedural motion 
to ratify the results of the GNSO Council Chair election and 
congratulate Avri Doria as the GNSO Council chair.
The motion passed by a voice vote.
One abstention: Avri Doria

Chuck Gomes passed the chair back to Avri Doria.

Decision 2: Avri Doria was elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period, 
1 February 2008 to 31 January 2009.

Item 5: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities

Denise Michel reported that the next Board meeting is scheduled for 23 
January 2008.
A number of issues are relevant to the GNSO including the result of 
PDP-Feb06 on contractual conditions, the GNSO's message to the Board on 
a new joint working group on IDN issues, Domain Name Tasting, and the 
GNSO recommendations on new gTLDs.
Rita Rodin added, that with regard to new gTLDs, there would be an 
update on the implementation issues as there was not yet an official 
management position and the issue would only be substantively discussed 
at the next Board meeting. Staff has divided new gTLD issues into 
individual papers, 5 of which have been delivered to the Board and 
discussions are expected at the New Delhi meeting.
Denise noted that as per email sent to the Council, the ccNSO Council 
met on 15 January 2008 and voted to send a letter to the Board regarding 
the GNSO's request for a joint working group to address additional IDN
issues. The ccNSO does not support the formation of a joint working 
group as suggested by the GNSO in its letter to the Board, but would 
like to discuss the issue at a joint ccNSO and GNSO meeting in New Delhi.

The Board Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group on the GNSO Review is 
in the process of finalising the GNSO Improvements Report and the staff 
is preparing implementation notes. The plan is to have the report 
submitted to the Board by New Delhi, however, considering the complexity 
of the issue, the Board would likely need more time for consideration.

The New Delhi Workshop topics will include the operating plan and budget 
and ICANN travel expense support funding.
Item 6: IDNC update - Edmon Chung
Edmon Chung reported that there had been little discussion on the IDNC 
mailing list. A topic list was sent out for comments; about five 
comments were received including one from the EU and these were used to 
craft the draft Initial Report, which is very similar to the topic list, 
and is open for comment on the ccNSO mailing list.

The topics are divided in two, the selection of the IDN TLD stream and 
the delegation of the registry operator.
In addition, discussion is underway on objection process criteria, 
technical requirements and policy enforcement requirements to ensure IDN 
TLD operators comply with standards and guidelines. Edmon raised the 
issue on the committee whether there should be an understanding between 
the registry operator and ICANN but the issue was punted.

Council members expressed concern regarding the contractual issue with 
registrar and registry operators and, a fair competitive playing field. 
The IDN Rework Group is in the process of preparing the GNSO Response to 
ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs.
Mike Rodenbaugh added that it was desirable to add a specific topic on 
the security and anti-phishing implications of IDNs, and whether IDN 
ccTLDs ought to adopt different practices, over and above the existing 
IANA protocol.

The goal is to have the first draft of the Issues report, with public 
comments, ready for New Delhi.
Edmon noted that the Issues Report referred to "a limited number of 
non-contentious IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO-3166 two letter 
code", but that there had been no discussion around this point.
Item 8: Proxy vote proposal update
A small drafting group, led by Philip Sheppard, with Chuck Gomes, Robin 
Gross, and Liz Gasster as staff support, examined the issue of proxy 
voting and provided an alternative, the enfranchisement of the GNSO 
Council members voting rights through electronic voting.

In summary, the purpose is, to enfranchise absent Councillors who are 
unable to vote at a meeting. Given the electronic nature of the 
Council's communications, a system of electronic voting is proposed.

Philip Sheppard referred to the document sent to Council shortly before 
the meeting, "Enfranchisement of the GNSO's Council's Voting 
Responsibilities"
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04461.html
and proposed that any formal decision be deferred.
The drafting group thought that both proxy and electronic voting 
together may be duplicative and potentially confusing.
A balance could possibly be obtained by giving an absent councillor the 
possibility of voting within 48 hours of a meeting in the case of roll 
call votes where a vote might change from 'yes' to 'no' or vice versa 
and with regard to consensus policy, where a majority could change to 
supermajority.

Forty eight hours was considered reasonable to accommodate the different 
time zones for sending out a standardised electronic vote form 
immediately after the meeting.
Issues that called for further discussion were:
Conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contained a 
sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommended that 
Council separately address the issue of conflicts as there were a number 
of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary 
in-person voting and conflicts. Such a discussion need not delay a 
Council decision on electronic voting.

The option for a Council member present at a meeting to cast a vote 
electronically after the meeting, was not included in the proposal and 
should be considered separately if Council so desires.
An additional inclusion in the proposal is to have the electronic vote 
form affirm the voter's knowledge of the issue and awareness of the 
discussion at the meeting.
'Only Council Members may cast an E-Vote' raises the issue of 
authentication with an electronic vote, which does not exist on a voice 
call vote.
Jon Bing asked in connection with triggering off the E-Vote, under 
bullet points 4 and 5, whether other alternatives had been considered 
when explicit decisions were made at the meeting to move towards an 
E-Vote, such as requests from those members not on the call.
"4. Process
An e-vote must take place, and may only take place, after an in-person 
role-call vote when the circumstances described in article 5 occur.
5. Circumstances.
An e- vote must be used when the voting outcome of an in-person 
role-call vote might be affected by the use of absent votes either 
related to:
- the success of a motion; or,
- when the level of support might change from majority to supermajority 
and the attainment of supermajority is material to the subsequent impact 
of the vote under ICANN by-laws."

Philip Sheppard responded that it was assumed absent voters would wish 
to participate in the vote as they had stood for to election to the 
Council.
Avri Doria proposed:
1. Requesting Liz Gasster to discuss the report with the Deputy General 
Counsel and solicit feed back on the eventual bylaws changes that might 
be required.
2. Make a decision on the issue at the next Council meeting on 31 
January 2008.
Item 9: First discussion - Domain Tasting Initial Report

The Initial report on Domain Tasting is posted for public comment until 
28 January 2008.
Staff noted that a previous request to pursue the possibility of trying 
to curb domain tasting through the application of a fee to names deleted 
during the add-grace period either through the budgeting process or 
other means was included in the next fiscal year budget and would be 
discussed in New Delhi.
Kristina Rosette noted that feedback from the Trademark community 
indicated that many members had participated in the Request for 
Information (RFI) on Domain Tasting, thus there may not be the same 
volume of comments and this should not be viewed as a lack of interest 
in the topic.

Avri Doria proposed forming a small drafting team as a starting point 
for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP, which will commence in 
New Delhi at the GNSO working sessions on Saturday 9 February 2008.
Volunteers to the group are:
Kristina Rosette (IPC), Alan Greenberg (ALAC), Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC), 
Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency) and Liz Gasster as staff support.
Item 10: Inter-Registrar Transfers Working Group Recommendations

Chuck Gomes noted that the Inter-Registrar Transfers Working Group, 
separate from the currently initiated Inter-Registrar Transfers policy 
development process (PDP), listed all the issues where improvements to 
the inter-registrar transfer policy could be made and prioritised a list 
of 19 items. The next step is to decide how to approach these remaining 
items, and whether or not more PDPs should be created.
The GNSO Council proposed forming a small group to prioritise / group 
for action, the long list of issues under the Inter-Registrar Transfers 
Working Group Recommendations.
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf)
Volunteers to the group are:
Tom Keller, Tim Ruiz, (Registrar constituency) Chuck Gomes, (gTLD 
Registry constituency) Mike O'Connor, supported by Mike Rodenbaugh 
(CBUC) Olof Nordling as staff support.
Item 7: Status on Reserved Names – Single and two-character names at the 
2nd level
Summary of Comments submitted during the comment period

Patrick Jones reported that the public comment period on potential 
allocation methods for single-letter and single-digit domain names at 
the second level ran from 16 October to 15 December 2007.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/allocation methods/.
36 comments were received representing a diverse range of views from 
individuals, companies, trade associations, organizations, registrars 
and the gTLD Registry Constituency. Comments were received from Canada, 
France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Sweden, Tunisia, and the United 
States.

Comments covered technical issues, the process resulting in the RN-WG 
recommendation, auction models, allocation methods, use of proceeds from 
the allocation of single-letter names, resolution of legitimate rights, 
DNS and security issues. The majority of the comments supported the 
allocation of single-letter names, and suggested different allocation 
methods, from auctions to random lottery to first come, first served, to 
registry allocation through the existing Registry Services Evaluation 
Process.

Of those that supported auction for single-letter domain names, the 
comments stressed that ICANN work with qualified and trusted third 
parties to manage the auction process to avoid gaming and manipulation. 
Auction types suggested included English style auction, sealed bids, 
Dutch auction, qualified auction, auction for slots to select names, and 
monthly auction of names.

Comments also covered a range of uses of allocation proceeds, from 
funding for ICANN, standards development organizations, Internet 
community needs, reducing registration fees, improving Internet 
infrastructure, supporting ccTLDs, supporting capacity building and 
participation in ICANN and security and stability funding.
Patrick mentioned that, as the next steps, ICANN staff was developing a 
position paper on single-letter and single-digit domain names at the 
second level in existing gTLDs that would be provided to the GNSO 
Council for consideration in advance of the New Delhi meeting.
Patrick noted that there was no current update on IANA names which were 
lower in priority compared to some other items, but further information 
would be provided in New Delhi.
Item 11: Action Item Review
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf
11.1 The Inter-registrar Transfer PDP
The Initial report will be delayed, 4 constituency statements are still 
outstanding; expected by 31 January 2008.
11.2 Domain Name Tasting PDP
The missing Registrar constituency statement is expected by the end of 
January, 2008. The Final report is expected by 7 or 8 February for 
discussion at the GNSO Council face to face meeting in New Delhi.

11.3 Whois
The deadline for submission of proposals has been moved to 15 February 
with the collation of the proposed studies done by 25 February and a 
discussion starting at the first Council meeting after New Delhi.
Item 12: AOB
12.1 New Delhi schedule, face to face meetings:
The Saturday 9 February 2008 meeting will focus on the Domain Name 
Tasting PDP, Inter-Registrar Transfers and the GNSO Improvements report.
The Sunday 10 February 2008 meeting will focus on IDN discussions and 
preparation for the joint ccNSO and GNSO Council meeting and IDN 
workshop on Monday.
Alan Greenberg requested that domain tasting be discussed on Saturday if 
possible.
Remote participation will be available
12.2 GNSO liaison to ccNSO Council
The Council was in general agreement that a ccNSO liaison to the GNSO 
Council was desirable and the issue should be further discussed with the 
ccNSO council in New Delhi.
12.3 Robin Gross raised the issue of hotel accommodation and asked if 
there were any remaining funds from the budget for intercessional 
meetings that could be used to accommodate some of the New Delhi hotel 
expenses for councillors.
Denise Michel responded that support for hotel accommodation in New 
Delhi would not be provided to constituency council members. The issue 
was not the available funds, but the precedence and policy that was 
affected by the actions. The public workshop on ICANN Travel Expense 
Support Funding in New Delhi would provide the opportunity for community 
discussion.
12.4 Tom Keller commented on the need for collaborative meeting tools 
such as a Wiki and Jabber room which were non-controversial 
recommendations in the GNSO Improvements Review. Staff would enquire 
about these and report back to the Council.
Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for 
their participation.
The meeting ended at 17:05 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 31 January 2008 at 21:00 UTC.
see: Calendar

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: 17 January 2008.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 49664 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080128/07308c48/17January2008.doc>