GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

01 April 2004.

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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader
Ross Rader - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent
Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.
Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko - absent
Amadeu Abril I Abril

17 Council Members

Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President, Business Operations
Paul Verhoef - Vice President Policy Development Support
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel

Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Christopher Wilkinson - Alternate GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison


The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call.
Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2
Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies
Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair absent


Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

MP 3 recording
Quorum present at 20:08 UTC,

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Marilyn Cade added a request to discuss the importance of staff support for the new gTLD issue.
Agenda approved

Item 2: Summary of the March 3 minutes :

Ken Stubbs, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the March 3 minutes
The motion was carried. Amadeu Abril I Abril and Lucy Nichols abstained.

Decision 1: Minutes of the March 3 meeting adopted.

Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces
Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Brian Darville
- status of constituency statements
- next steps
- possible recommendations

Jordyn Buchanan, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display, reported that the task force appeared to be on the same timeline as the other task forces and requested an additional 10 day extension for receiving the constituency statements. The due day for constituency statements, March 29 was past and only one statement from the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) had been received which delayed the task force in meeting the deadline for the preliminary report on April 19. Limited input had been received during the data collection process, but substantial data from other sources was available. Since the policy development process does not take data gathering into account, the constituency statements would not benefit from the data gathered, however it was hoped that there would be a significant input of data during the public comment period and that the final report might differ from the preliminary report. The task force was running pretty close to the extended schedule despite the delays.

Jeff Neuman, task force 1 chair, being absent Bruce Tonkin read his report, stating that task force 1 had only received 7 or 8 responses to the questionnaire that was sent out in February and constituency statements from only two constituencies, viz. At Large Advisory Committee, Noncommercial Users and Intellectual Property and none from the gTLD Registries, Registrars, Business or Internet Service Providers Constituencies. He said that it would be difficult to have a Preliminary Report by April 9, 2004. In summary, progress was being made, there were some preliminary recommendations but they believed that drafting the report would take more time and requested whether the due date for the Preliminary Report could be moved out a few weeks.

Ross Rader, in Brian Darville's, absence reported on task force 3, data accuracy, saying lack of data was the primary concern, but that 3 or 4 constituency statements had been received and some had been sent back to the constituencies for further refinement. He was optimistic that there could be a preliminary report by April 9, 2004.

Barbara Roseman suggested that an extra two weeks would be helpful in allowing constituencies to submit statements.
Marilyn Cade commented that the policy development process was still a learning process and had not been field tested, so concern was expressed that there would not be adequate time for the public comment period if the constituency statement period were extended.
A time extension would not affect the specified 20 public comment period. The task forces were urged to proceed with writing the preliminary reports whether or not the constituency statements had been received.
Marc Schneiders commented that the Noncommercial Users Constituency, composed of volunteers, usually endeavored to meet deadlines which should not be prolonged each time as it appeared that there was a lack of interest in the issue, but urged all constituencies to make the same effort.
Marilyn Cade, speaking for the Commercial and Business Users Constituency, said they were making an active effort to develop input, they were working on a draft report that was being brought to closure, and the fact that people were extremely busy, all volunteers and doing their best for policy development should not be characterized as being a lack of interest.
Barbara Roseman urged constituencies to submit any draft statements for the task forces to work on and if voting in the constituency would change the statement, the task forces would take that into consideration.
Bruce Tonkin agreed with Marc Schneiders that in future timelines should be improved.

Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marc Schneiders proposed a motion extending the deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces to APRIL 16, 2004, and extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to MAY 6, 2004.

The motion carried unanimously

Decision 2: The deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces extended to APRIL 16, 2004 and the deadline for the Preliminary Reports extended to MAY 6, 2004.

Item 4: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes
Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin)

Bruce Tonkin reported that the Council Policy Development Process committee for the approval process for gtld registry changes met on March 29, 2004.
1. Some minor changes to diagram 1, diagram 2 and diagram 3 were proposed and
2. Scheduling a teleconference with General Counsel, around the selection criteria, developed during the Rome meeting,
-- to have input on which of these were in or out of the scope of ICANN's mission, to have wording that could be used a legal base
-- to clarify whether the Board should approve changes in contracts and if so, the public comment periods should be aligned to prevent duplication
-- to have clarity on the Reconsideration and Review mechanisms in the ICANN bylaws.

Philip Sheppard, absent during the call, enquired how the gTLD registries constituency, viewed the process which appeared to move forward in a spirit of consensus and agreement.
Ken Stubbs commented that there was agreement on the framework, but staff support was needed to ensure that the suggestions and proposed wording were practical from a legal stand point and that a process motivating free and open communication between the registry and ICANN should be encouraged while time lines and confidentiality caused concern.
It was proposed that Barbara Roseman formulate the questions and post them to John Jeffrey with a copy to the reg-com mailing list and a call be set up during the week beginning April 12, 2004.

Item 5: Re-assignment of .net
- recommend establish a subcommittee of the Council
- establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN staff manager)
- review Namescouncil recommendations with respect to .org
- collect constituency statements

Bruce Tonkin reported that Paul Verhoef, in a letter, had formally requested the GNSO Council to consider the .net reassignment.
Kurt Pritz stated that there were weekly meetings at ICANN in Marina del Rey to discuss the .net succession plan. The goal was to publish the process for selecting a registry operator by June 30, 2004 and it would include the GNSO effort which would have to be accomplished rapidly but could be after June 30, 2004. The scope of the GNSO was to develop criteria for independent evaluators to use in deciding who the registry operator should be.
Bruce Tonkin stated that the .org statement made by the DNSO Names Council on 17 January 2002 could be a useful starting point but the focus of .dot org would be slightly different from that of .net.

Council had 3 options how to handle the situation:
1. Council committee as a whole
2. Council sub committee formed by one representative per constituency on the GNSO council
3. Initiate a policy development process and form a task force

Grant Forsyth asked how the GNSO Council contribution would it be considered if it was delivered after June 30, 2004.
Dan Halloran explained that on day X the draft proposal, which would include mention of criteria proposed by the GNSO, would be published but in fact the criteria could be submitted at a later date.
Marc Schneiders commented that as price was important, any process should take criteria for offering services at a lower price into consideration.
Kurt Pritz, responding to the tender date, said that at least 9 months was foreseen which would include the GNSO process, 3 months solicitation, 3 months evaluation, 3 months negotiations and awards and transition period.

Christopher Wilkinson excused himself and dropped off the call

Suzanne Sene, for the Government Advisory Committee, (GAC) commented that the GAC had recently created a new GNSO working group which combined the gTLD and Whois working groups and she would convey the .net reassignment question to the group for their input.

Bruce Tonkin proposed forming a sub committee of the GNSO Council, with 1 representative per constituency of the Council, to review the .org material, draft a set of terms/conditions and criteria for .net consistent with the ICANN mission and core values, seeking constituency input via the mailing lists and having a draft report for consideration by the Council at its May 6 meeting with the final report to meet the June 30, 2004 deadline.
By April 9, 2004, Council members should have notified the GNSO secretariat of the constituency representatives and a meeting would take place in the week beginning April 12, 2004.

There was general support for a sub-committee of the GNSO Council with the possible inclusion of experts on the committee.

Item 6: new gtlds
- establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN staff manager)
- collect constituency statements
- consider establishing a task force

From the MOU with the US Dept of Commerce:
"Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of:
a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability;
b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions ;
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and,
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.
Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004)."
Marilyn Cade reminded the participants that the purpose of the GNSO Council was to develop and advise on policy related to gTLDs and that the ICANN Board had, via a resolution, indicated intent to move forward on examining the process which would guide this. She suggested that Council consult the Board guidelines and the MOU and establish a process which would fulfill its responsibilities and develop the appropriate policy to guide the ICANN Board.
Paul Verhoef suggested that Council members address specific issues to himself or the the ICANN Staff Manager, Barbara Roseman within the next two weeks so that they could be included in an Issues Report.
Bruce Tonkin suggested aiming for a short issues report (following Philip Sheppard's guidelines) on new gTLDs for the July ICANN meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.
The meeting ended: 22:20 UTC

• Next GNSO Council teleconference on May 6, 2004, at 12:00 UTC
  see: Calendar