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, in the February meeting, to conclude the Final Reports on Transfers and WHOIS in February. A public comment period is needed, the reports must be ready 28 days before the Rio de Janeiro meeting which is 23 through 27 March.
  
  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 at least 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