[council] GNSO Council teleconference minutes January 16, 2003

["DNSO SECRETARIAT" <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>]

[To: council@dnso.org]

Dear Council Members,

Please find the GNSO Council teleconference minutes of January 16, 2003.
Please let me know if you would like any changes to be made.

Thank you,
GNSO Secretariat

ICANN/GNSO

          GNSO Council Teleconference on 16 January 2003 - minutes

19 January 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html

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 - absent - apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris
Philipp Grabensee - Registrars - absent
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Roger Cochetti - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - IPIC
Laurence Djolakian - IPIC
J. Scott Evans - IPIC absent - apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
Harold Feld - Non Commercial users C. - absent apologies, proxy to Chun Eung
Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Erick Iriate -Non Commercial users C. - absent apologies, proxy to Chun Eung
Hwi

13 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Glen de Saint Géry Secretary/MP3 Recording

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030116.GNSOteleconf.mp3



Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 1 during
winter time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

   * Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030116.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
     Ken Stubbs suggested moving item 5 to the end of the agenda as J. Scott
     Evans may have joined the call by then.

     Agenda approved

   * Item 2. Summary of last meetings
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCamsterdam-minutes.htm
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219.DNSOteleconf-minutes.html
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021219GNSOteleconf-minutes.htm

     Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philip
     Sheppard.
     The motion was carried unanimously.

     Decision 1: Motion adopted.

   * Item 3. Update on progress Transfers and WHOIS implementation
     committees - Bruce Tonkin

     Bruce Tonkin reported that both committees were working actively.
     There had been two teleconferences on the transfer implementation
     committee. The general feeling is that the recommendations are
     implementable, with a few small improvements suggested by the
     Registrars and Registries, which will be incorporated into the final
     report of the Transfers Implementation Committee. The WHOIS
     implementation committee had one teleconference the second being
     scheduled for later in the day. The registrars and registries were
     being asked to comment on the implementability of the recommendations.
     The main problem was that most people had not read the detailed task
     Force reports.
     When this has been done there will be clarification on the
     recommendations and improved wording suggested.
     The implementation committees would submit their reports at the end of
     January.

     Chun Eung Hwi commented that the Non Commercial Users constituency was
     not represented on the WHOIS implementation committee.
     Bruce Tonkin explained that the structure of the implementation
     committee was made up of Registrars, Registries and liaison from the
     WHOIS task force and that he had no objection to Ruchika Agrawal being
     added to the WHOIS implementation committee.

     Louis Touton referred to the DNSO Names Council meeting in Amsterdam on
     December 14, 2002
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
     where the Names Council delayed acceptance of the WHOIS policy
     recommendation for additional consideration by the constituencies until
     the present meeting. The consideration of the additional comments would
     be outside the scope of the implementation assessment group. He asked
     how the additional comments would be addressed so that the
     recommendations in the November 30 report could be accepted by the
     Council.
     Marilyn Cade reported that the resolution to leave the report open for
     further comments was a request from the Registry constituency and the
     report was open for comments to January 9, 2003.
     Bruce Tonkin commented that approving the recommendations, as was
     minuted, was based on receiving feedback between the December 14, 2002
     and January 16, 2003 meeting. Based on the work of the WHOIS
     implementation committee so far, changes were foreseen in the wording
     to make it implementable. The implementation committee will thus
     suggest changes to be considered by the WHOIS task force which,
     together with the public input received, will be completed by the end
     of January. At the next GNSO Council meeting, February 20, the
     recommendations themselves would be voted on and if appropriate the
     Final Report will be forwarded to the ICANN Board.
     The WHOIS Task Force recommendations mostly focussed on what ICANN
     staff needs to do.
     Louis Touton envisaged the staff views on the recommendations for
     policy enforcement soon.
     Marilyn Cade clarified that the resolution to leave the report open for
     constituency comments was in response to the Registry constituency.
     There were two separate issues:
     - public comments on the Final WHOIS Task Force report which was the
     purpose of the comments remaining open until January 9, 2003
     - the process of incorporating the WHOIS implementation report into the
     final WHOIS report with a relatively narrow set of recommendations for
     the ICANN Board.

     Four issue reports would be created independent of the Final Report
     1. Documentation of a set of questions
     2. Searchability
     3. Consistency and Uniformity of data elements
     4. Work identified that should be undertaken, for example the 15 day
     period that the registrant is given when inaccurate data is given

     Bruce Tonkin said that the issue reports for further work could be
     delayed until the March meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

     Louis Touton confirmed that the goal is to conclude the Final Reports
     on Transfers and WHOIS in February. A public comment period is needed,
     the reports must be ready 20 days before the Rio de Janeiro meeting.

     Roger Cochetti excused himself for half an hour 16:10 CET. Proxy given
     to Jordyn Buchanan

   * Item 4: Update on Deletes task force - Jordyn Buchanan

     Bruce Tonkin asked Jordyn Buchanan to comment on the task force
     progress and referred to the Deletes Task Force draft recommendations
     that were available in the archives:
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/

     Jordyn Buchanan reported that the Deletes Task Force was chartered
     under the new GNSO progress development process.
     He enumerated some of the difficulties experienced:
     - no staff support, thus
     - impossibility to work within the time constraint
     - problem beyond the task force was to get representative's names from
     each constituency.
     A problem to be anticipated in the future as members have to be
     prepared to volunteer to devote time and effort to the process.
     The goal is to wrap the recommendations into a report, bringing in the
     rationale from the issues report as to what the task force is trying to
     solve.
     There are two outstanding issues:
     1. Whether registrars should be required not to delete names for some
     portion of the renewal grace period.
     The present recommendation indicates that a registrar must delete by
     the end of the grace period.
     Whether there should be a minimum time period through the grace period
     that names should be carried.
     2. Standardization process in reallocation, is desirable, but there is
     little direction on this so it will not be included in the report.
     The task force will create an issues report to examine reallocation.
     Bruce Tonkin endorsed the process saying that there was very little
     interdependency between reallocation and deletes.
     The timeframe suggested:
     - Draft report published in 10 days from this meeting
     - Period open for public comment
     - Include public comments in the Final report presented to the GNSO
     Council at the March meeting.

   * Item 7: New gtlds - process for developing a position statement
     - options - task force, committee of the Council, full Council

     At the Board meeting in Amsterdam, the Board approved the Action Plan
     (see

http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm
     ) regarding moving forward on new gTLDs.
     See http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-15dec02.htm.

     As part of that resolution the Board requested the GNSO " to provide a
     recommendation by such time as shall be mutually agreed by the
     President and the Chair of the GNSO Names Council on whether to
     structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if so,
     how to do so." This was in response to part of the Action Plan
     (see

http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm#III
)
     that addressed this subject.

     Bruce Tonkin distinguished two issues:
     - Should there be a structure?
     - How should the generic top level domain space be structured?

     Suggested process:
     - Deal with the subject at the GNSO Council level
     - Schedule GNSO Council gTLD committee meetings
     - Each constituency provide a formal statement on the topic
     - Report back to ICANN the constituency statements.

     Bruce Tonkin suggested some one else be nominated as GNSO Council gTLD
     committee chair.
     Marilyn Cade, seconded by Antonio Harris, nominated Philip Sheppard,
     who accepted, as gTLD Committee Chair.

     Resolved that the committee of the whole GNSO Council will address the
     issue and that the committee will be chaired by Philip Sheppard.

     Time frame:
     Grant Forsyth suggested that there be a decision during the meeting as
     to when the constituency would lodge views on the matter for the whole
     Council meeting.
     Louis Touton mentioned that the structure of the name space is not in
     the critical path of the Board moving forward on the limited number of
     gTLDs. It is in the critical path of the long term for possible new
     gTLDs and considered by many of the Board members as one of the most
     important questions for ICANN. The Board would like to receive careful
     and thoughtful advice from the GNSO Council.

     · Philip Sheppard recommended that a period of 6 weeks be available for
     constituencies to lodge their position statements for consideration by
     the council committee.
     Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ellen Shankman, proposed the following
     motion:
     A committee of the GNSO Council will be formed to address the question
     that Stuart Lynn has asked on the generic top level name space. This
     committee will be chaired by Philip Sheppard who will prepare a
     timeline to respond to the question, put forward by Stuart Lynn, to the
     Board.

     Motion carried unanimously

     Decision 2. Motion adopted

     Louis Touton addressing the question of representation, stated that
     there will be an Interim At Large Advisory Committee in place by
     February 1, and one of their first actions will be to appoint a GNSO
     liaison under the bylaws. As an interim measure, Denise Michel should
     be on the mailing list. The liaison point is to the GNSO Council. Since
     a committee is formed of the whole Council, the liaison will be to the
     Council.

   * Item 8. Appointment of two seats on the new ICANN Board

     The DNSO previously appointed 3 representatives to the old ICANN Board:

     Alejandro Pisanty (re-elected in September 2002)
     Amadeu Abril I Abril
     Jonathan Cohen

     As part of the new Transition article of the new by-laws
     (http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appb-15dec02.htm)
     Section 5(7) states:
     "Promptly after the adoption of this Transition Article, the Generic
     Names Supporting Organization shall, through the GNSO Council, make
     selections of Directors to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the New Board, with
     terms to conclude upon the commencement of the first regular terms
     specified for each of those Seats in Article VI, Section 8(1)(d) and
     (e) of the New Bylaws, and shall give the ICANN Secretary written
     notice of its selections."

     The new Board is likely to be in place for the March 2003 ICANN Board
     meeting, and we should select the two representatives well in advance
     of this date.

     Bruce Tonkin introduced the appointment of two seats, designated 13 and
     14 on the new ICANN Board, saying that in consultation with Louis
     Touton it was the desire to have the new ICANN Board in place by the
     Rio de Janeiro meeting so the time line for the GNSO Council should be
     March.

     Louis Touton clarified the current situation:
     The bylaws provide that the new Board will take its seats at the first
     regular meeting, meaning a quarterly meeting that occurs more than 7
     days after more than 10 directors have been selected under the new
     process.
     That will require 8 directors nominated by the Nominating Committee,
     plus 2 of the directors selected by either the ASO or GNSO.
     Currently the Nominating Committee share is a topic for discussion at
     the Board meeting next Monday. The Nominating Committee will be
     populated, but not ready to operate before early February. The chances
     that it would complete its work by March 20, are infinitesimal.
     A realistic timeline would be the Montreal meeting in late June when
     the directors should be seated 7 days before the meeting. The GNSO
     should think about a timely date before.
     Philip Sheppard asked whether the terms of office for the first two
     appointments from the GNSO would have a fixed time?
     Louis Touton replied that there is a definite termination date.
     The GNSO has seats 13 and 14. Seats 13 and 14 are the initial
     transitional appointments that last until the process begins regularly.
     Seat 13, in its first regular term, begins in the second quarter of
     2004
     Seat 14, in its first regular term, begins in the second quarter of
     2005.
     Louis Touton will prepare an explanatory chart and post to the Council.

     Bruce Tonkin proposed two options in the process:
     1. An open process where anyone can be nominated
     - select the person with the most votes for seat 14,
     - with the second highest amount of votes for seat 13
     2. Separate the roles of seats 13 and 14
     One of those seats, 13, could be biased towards a selection amongst the
     existing DNSO Board members.
     (two of the three existing board members have been contacted and
     expressed their willingness to be reelected)
     Open process for seat 14

     Marilyn Cade asked whether past Board members, who may have been on the
     previous Board, could be nominated by the Nominating Committee.
     Louis Touton confirmed that this was possible.

     Discussion on voting timelines in relation to the Nominating committee
     drew support for a timeline independent of the Nominating Committee or
     other processes.
     Geographic diversity is stipulated in article 6 paragraph 3
     http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#VI-2.1
     At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting
     Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries
     located in the same Geographic Region.

     Bruce Tonkin suggested drafting a voting procedure, for the Council to
     vote on in the February meeting.
     Suggested procedure:
     - Nominate candidates (nomination by GNSO Council members)
     - Proceed to vote on seat 14
     - after conclusion of the vote for seat 14, vote on seat 13 taking into
     account the need for geographic diversity.

     Roger Cochetti rejoined the GNSO Council teleconference

   * Item 6. Update on GNSO Budget for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004
     - Roger Cochetti
     - response to request for input from Stuart Lynn on 24 Dec 02
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00222.html

     Bruce Tonkin stated that Stuart Lynn asked for an estimate of what the
     GNSO would need in support after June 2003, when the GNSO funding
     became ICANN's responsibility.

     Roger Cochetti addressed 3 items:
     Item 1.
     The Budget Committee intends to meet to discuss requirements from July
     1 when ICANN assumes responsibility for what the GNSO Council and (old
     DNSO Council) has been responsible for through June 30.
     Issues to provide comments on:
     The extent of service and support that ICANN should supply for the GNSO
     - staff support - full time professional as envisaged in ICANN
     documents and other staff
     - expenses - teleconferences, meeting rooms etc.
     The objective is to provide a scoping document as to what Council
     should propose to ICANN Budget Committee by the February 20 GNSO
     Council meeting.
     Item 2
     The Budget committee recommends that Council modify a decision made by
     the DNSO Names Council. Whereby the DNSO Names Council in 2001 agreed
     to make a payment of $60 000 to AFNIC covering AFNIC's services to the
     DNSO, without any contractual agreement. AFNIC's services included
     operating the DNSO website and managing the DNSO Names Council voting
     activities.
     AFNIC accepted $60 000 as settlement of all claims.
     The DNSO Names Council attached several conditions to the payment:
     - AFNIC should estimate allocation costs to General Assembly and the
     Names Council
     - The Names Council required that AFNIC assign intellectual property
     rights to any software developed by AFNIC under its implied contract to
     the DNSO for services.
     The Budget committee recommends that the GNSO Council remove and repeal
     any requirements that the DNSO Names Council made for the transfer of
     intellectual property rights that occurred in 2000.
     With this decision, payment of $60 000 for the services provided could
     be made and the subject closed.

     Bruce Tonkin proposed that a motion be drafted, posted to the Council
     list and voting be deferred to the February 20 GNSO Council meeting.
     Item 3
     Status report for first six months 2003
     Highlights in the report to be reviewed at the Budget Committee
     meeting.
     In the December 2002 Names Council meeting:
     - dues structure to 6 consistencies $4950 for each constituency
     - cash carry over $37 000

     Cash carry over, $37 000
     combined with constituency dues $29 700,
     TOTAL BUDGET $66 700
     This allows for a modest level of flexibility.
     The budget committee will submit a full report to the GNSO Council.
     This does not take into account receivables that have not been paid
     over the years, $100 000 outstanding in Constituency fees.

   * Item 5. Update on UDRP task force deferred to next meeting in the
     absence of J. Scott Evans on the call

   * AOB
     Philip Sheppard raised the point that it would be appropriate to renew
     endorsement for support of the ccSupporting Organization and for ICANN
     matters to be discussed at in the ITU meeting in March.

     Marilyn Cade undertook drafting a document for the Council to vote on
     by email, which vote would be formally ratified in a Council meeting,
     to present at the ITU March 3/4 meeting.

     Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked particularly Louis
     Touton, and all the participants too, for being on the call.

     Call ended: 17:00 CET, 16:00 UTC, Thursday 16, 3:00 Melbourne time,
     Friday 17

     Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday February 20, 14:00 UTC
     see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Information from: © GNSO Council