<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] [council] GNSO Council teleconfrence minutes, 22 May, 2003 (fwd)
FYI,
tom
----- Forwarded message from DNSO SECRETARIAT <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org> -----
Reply-To: <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
To: "council" <council@dnso.org>
Subject: [council] GNSO Council teleconfrence minutes, 22 May, 2003
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:28:47 +0200
[To: Council@dnso.org]
Dear Council members,
Please find the GNSO Council teleconference minutes, May 22, 2003 below.
If you would like any changes made please inform me.
Thank you,
Glen
GNSO Secretariat
ICANN/GNSO
GNSO Council Teleconference on 22 May 2003 - minutes
22 May 2003.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.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 - absent
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC -
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies,
proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. -
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to
Antonio Harris
16 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison (ALAC)
Wendy Seltzer - ALAC Liaison for gTLD committee
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting Alix Guillard - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030522.GNSO-council.mp3
Quorum present at 14:05 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
* Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
Agenda approved
* Item : Summary of last meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.htm
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Laurence
Djolakian .
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
* Item 3: Ratify e-mail vote on ICANN Board seat number 13 resolution
The Secretary summarized the votes:
22 votes in favour of Alejandro Pisanty, 1 vote against Alejandro
Pisanty, I abstention from the vote.
Council members voted on the ratification of the vote.
19 votes in favour, Laurence Djolakian carried a proxy for Ellen
Shankman,
Philip Sheppard, Antonio Harris, Chun Eung Hwi, Greg Ruth and Gabriel
Pineiro, each holding one vote, were not on the call to ratify the
results.
Bruce Tonkin declared the ratification adopted.
Decision 2. Declare the vote ratified, Alejandro Pisanty elected to
ICANN Board seat 13 from mid 2003 to the second quarter of 2004.
* Item 4. Process to elect GNSO Council Chair
Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Ken Stubbs, past DNSO Names Council
chair.
Ken Stubbs, confirmed by Louis Touton, stated that Bruce Tonkin had
expressed the desire that the upcoming GNSO Council chair term should
be consistent with the terms of all the Council members which, except
for the Nominating Committee members, expire at the ICANN General
Meeting in October 2003.
A period for nominations to be opened was proposed.
Marilyn Cade asked for clarification on the term being voted for, and
whether the elected person would be eligible for reelection for another
term of office.
Louis Touton quoted article 10, section 3.7 of the bylaws and
explained:
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X
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 the affirmative votes
of a majority of all the members of the GNSO Council.
There is no limitation in the bylaws. There are Rules of Procedure for
the Council that were inherited from the Names Council and in a
December document it was stated that they would apply except
inconsistent with the bylaws, in which case the new bylaws would
overrule them. There is a provision in the old Names Council bylaws
that there will be two terms of six months and that there can only be
one succession.
On the agenda is a decision about voting on which rules should apply,
and under the new bylaws there is no restriction on succession. A
further consideration is that the new bylaws, in general, provide for
council seats to run until the end of the annual meeting.
Ken Stubbs cautioned about making timely preparation for a smooth
transition period after the annual meeting in 2003.
Bruce Tonkin mentioned 3 options before Council in selecting the term
of office:
(1) Elect a chair for a 6 month period consistent with the old names
council rules of procedure:
From: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021230.GNSOprocedures.html "The
NC Chair will be elected by the members of the NC by simple majority
vote and will hold office for a period of six months. One renewal,
subject to a fresh vote, of six months will be allowed. A retiring
Chair will not be eligible for reelection for a period of one year. "
(2) Elect a chair for a 12 month period consistent with the new ICANN
by-laws.
From: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X Article X: 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."
(3) Elect a chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in
2003. This would align the chair with the terms of the current GNSO
Council members.
From: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XX Article XX: Section
5(6) "The terms of the GNSO Council members described in paragraph 5 of
this Section 5 shall last for the remainder of their terms under the
Old Bylaws, except that the terms of all of those GNSO Council members
shall end at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003"
Ken Stubbs proposed that Philip Sheppard take over chairing the meeting
in his place.
Philip Sheppard, seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed a motion to:
Elect a chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003.
This would align the chair with the terms of the current GNSO Council
members.
From: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#XX Article XX: Section
5(6) "The terms of the GNSO Council members described in paragraph 5 of
this Section 5 shall last for the remainder of their terms under the
Old Bylaws, except that the terms of all of those GNSO Council members
shall end at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003"
with a nomination period of 2 weeks starting immediately.
Louis Touton clarified that in the term proposed, there was no council
desire to impose a restriction on succession of the person currently
elected, for the next term, if that person was the new Council's
choice.
The motion was carried with all in favour except for Bruce Tonkin
abstaining.
Decision 3: Elect a GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the
ICANN annual meeting in 2003 with a 2 week nomination period starting
immediately.
Philip Sheppard handed back the chair to Bruce Tonkin.
5. Final report on structure new gtld space
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030509.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v4.html
- council to approve report for forwarding to the ICANN Board
Philip Sheppard, as Chair of the gTLD Committee, reported that the
committee had its last meeting two weeks ago after which a proposed
draft final report was drawn up and circulated for comments for one
week. Substantial comments raised concerned the distinction in terms of
the committee's function and how that related to the formal policy
development process (pdp) in the council.
Following the comments a new compromise text was circulated which made
it clear that the intent was not to circumvent the pdp and clearly
split the conclusions in two. The structural change made clear that the
objective criteria referred to demonstrated the committee's thinking
and following an issue report could be followed by a policy development
process.
In the discussion that followed, change in language was suggested,
separation of the objectives of opening the namespace from actual
criteria that an individual would need for an application, criteria
should be treated as a separate issue, the report should fit into the
larger report on gTLDs, competition could be a means of
differentiation, minimum response should be given to question asked.
Louis Touton commented on the questions and answers and said that there
seemed to be a divergence of opinion among Council about the actual
question asked by the Board centering around the meaning of structure.
It was felt that structure could vary from a preordained structure to
be filled in, to whether consideration should be given to what else
there should be in the DNS in making a decision to extend it. Even
clear paragraphs were questioned as to whether they meant what they
purported to. Furthermore the question was asked whether the principles
stated in 2000 by the Names Council were considered
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds-statement.html
Milton Mueller commented that the initial round of TLDs was seen as an
experiment and should not be considered in the present context.
Bruce Tonkin summarized saying:
- That there seemed to be consensus on the resolution which was a
direct response to the question: that a demand driven system was
preferable to a taxonomy of names.
- The actual criteria used to select applicants in the demand driven
system should be objective and subject to a policy development process.
- That the report encompassing the committee's conclusions and detailed
statements should incorporate further comments before approving the
summary which would be sent to the Board.
Philip Sheppard, after consultation with Louis Touton, who said that
there was no immediate necessity to vote on the report, suggested that
the resolution be delayed until June when the whole report could be
voted on. The agreement statement should not be taken out of context of
the report as a whole.
Bruce Tonkin suggested:
1. A resolution based on the conclusions
2. The Chair of the gTLD committee should be requested to incorporate
the additional comments and give Council the time to study the revised
report.
Bruce Tonkin proposed a procedural motion, seconded by Marilyn Cade.
* To delay voting on the conclusions of the gTLD committee as well as the
summary report on the possible criteria until June.
Vote: 11 in support, 13 against
The motion failed.
Philip Sheppard proposed, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan.
* In response to the question asked of it by the Board, the GNSO council
concludes:
Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with
names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be
demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria
to be met in any future expansion. The development of this set of
objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development
Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together with the
responses of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be
forwarded to the Board in June.
Vote: Unanimous support for the motion.
Decision 4: In response to the question asked of it by the Board, the
GNSO council concludes:
Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with
names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be
demand-driven. Furthermore, there should be a set of objective criteria
to be met in any future expansion. The development of this set of
objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development
Process (PDP). These ideas are expanded in a report together with the
responses of the GNSO Constituencies and the ALAC which will be
forwarded to the Board in June.
Bruce Tonkin proposed, seconded by Philip Sheppard who proposed an
amendment:
* A procedural motion to request the gTLD committee to complete the
summary of the discussions and of the issues relating to the objective
criteria for finalization at the time of the June meeting,
Amendment::
A comment period of 7 days starting immediately after which, the
circulated draft gTLD report would be the base of the report put
forward at the June meeting.
Vote: Unanimous support for the motion.
Decision 5: Request the gTLD committee to complete the summary of the
discussions and of the issues relating to the objective criteria for
finalization at the time of the June meeting, with a comment period of
7 days starting immediately after which the circulated draft gTLD
report would be the base of the report put forward at the June meeting.
Item 6. Discussion of staff manager's report on privacy
http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/whois-privacy-report-13may03.htm
- council to decide whether to initiate the next step in the policy
development process
- council to decide whether to appoint a task force
Louis Touton summarized the 5 recommendations in the Staff Manager's
report on privacy:
1. The GNSO Council should form a Whois/Privacy Steering Group, with
representation by all constituencies. (The GNSO Council may wish to
consider having this Steering Group chaired by a person independent of
any constituency.) The charter of the Whois/Privacy Steering Group
should be clearly defined to include the following tasks, with the
purpose of guiding the GNSO in the process of establishing a work plan
for development of policy recommendations on Whois/privacy issues:
(a) acquiring relevant, reliable information concerning the
circumstances related to uses and misuses of Whois;
(b) better defining the privacy-related issues arising from Whois and
better understanding their inter-relationships;
(c) identifying with groups outside the GNSO (including groups that are
now working on, or that plan to work on, Whois/privacy issues) that can
assist the GNSO in its policy-development work on Whois/privacy issues
and consulting with them concerning specific ways (such as factual
analyses on specific questions) in which they might assist;
(d) presenting to the GNSO Council a recommended work plan for its
activities in the developing policy recommendations on Whois/privacy
issues (see recommendation 3 below for more details).
2. A major initial focus of the fact-finding and issue-definition
process should be the dissemination of information and community-wide
sharing of views about the nature and costs of providing Whois
services, actual uses and misuses of Whois, relevant current ICANN
policies, and privacy requirements in various jurisdictions. In that
regard, the GNSO Council should join with the Government Advisory
Committee (GAC) working group in requesting the President to organize a
Whois workshop at the ICANN Montreal meeting with that focus.
3. The Whois/Privacy Steering Group of the GNSO should provide its work
plan by a specified date (such as 1 August 2003) well in advance of the
Carthage meeting. The work plan should define the five (approximately)
issues that the Whois/Privacy Steering Group recommends be accorded
high priority in the policy-development process. The work plan should
also identify groups with which the Whois/Privacy Steering Group
recommends that the GNSO collaborate in policy development, and
describe the nature and benefits of the proposed collaboration.
Bruce Tonkin stated the main issues:
1. A Steering group should be formed to effectively develop the terms
of reference for 1 or more task forces to deal with the major issues
2. Creating a forum for discussing the facts associated with WHOIS.
Request the President to organize the forum or workshop at the ICANN
Montreal meetings.
Bruce Tonkin proposed, seconded by Marilyn Cade:
* Requesting the ICANN President to organize a workshop for the Montreal
meeting which should incorporate the GNSO constituencies as well as the
Government Advisory Committee and other groups.
Vote: Unanimous support for the motion.
Decision 6: Request the ICANN President to organize a workshop for the
Montreal meeting which should incorporate the GNSO constituencies as
well as the Government Advisory Committee and other groups.
Bruce Tonkin proposed, seconded by Jordyn Buchanan
* That the GNSO Council agree forming a Steering Group
- to take the Issues Report which recommends:
(a) acquiring relevant, reliable information concerning the
circumstances related to uses and misuses of Whois;
(b) better defining the privacy-related issues arising from Whois and
better understanding their inter-relationships;
(c) identifying with groups outside the GNSO (including groups that are
now working on, or that plan to work on, Whois/privacy issues) that can
assist the GNSO in its policy-development work on Whois/privacy issues
and consulting with them concerning specific ways (such as factual
analyses on specific questions) in which they might assist;
(d) presenting to the GNSO Council a recommended work plan for its
activities in the developing policy recommendations on Whois/privacy
issues
- to take the outcome of the Montreal ICANN workshop
- to develop a set up terms of reference for one or more task forces on
the critical issues
- to make recommendations to the GNSO Council
Suggested timeline: at the meeting following the June meeting, the
Steering Group would be expected to provide a draft report to the GNSO
Council as a set of potential issues for consideration by task forces
and possibly finalize that by the following meeting which would be 30
days later. Thus 60 days following the Montreal ICANN Meeting there
should be a clear set of one or more task forces and a clear set of
terms of reference to take these issues and the issue report forward.
Philip Sheppard took the chair in the absence of Bruce Tonkin who was
abruptly cut off from the call.
Vote: Unanimous support for the motion.
Decision 7: Forming a Steering Group
- to take the Issues Report
- to take the outcome of the Montreal ICANN workshop
- to develop a set up terms of reference for one or more task forces on
the critical issues
- to make recommendations to the GNSO Council
Suggested timeline: 60 days following the Montreal ICANN Meeting there
should be a clear set of one or more task forces and a clear set of
terms of reference to take these issues and this issue report forward.
Items 7 to 12 deferred to next GNSO Council meeting
Philip Sheppard declared GNSO meeting closed
Call ended: 16:20 CET, 15:20 UTC, Thursday 22, May, 00:20 Melbourne
time, Friday 23 May 2003.
Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday June 5, 2003 at 12:00 UTC
see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © GNSO Council
----- End forwarded message -----
Gruss,
tom
(__)
(OO)_____
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|