GNSO
Council Teleconference on
|
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.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
Thomas Keller - Registrars absent, apologies
proxy to Bruce Tonkin
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. absent
Gabriel Pineiro
- Non Commercial users C.
Charles Shaban - Commercial and Business Users Constituency representative replacing Philip Sheppard during the voting for ICANN Board seat 14
15 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
Lisa Jacobson - Assistant to GAC Liaison (observer)
Thomas Roessler-
Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC)
Nominating Committee:
Linda Wilson - Nominating Committee Chair
Pindar Wong - Nominating Committee member
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting Alix Guillard - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030220.GNSOcouncil-teleconf.mp3
Quorum present at
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
·
Item 1:
Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
Item 9 placed first on agenda
9. Report from gtld
committee - Philip Sheppard [10 mins]
- progress to provide a recommendation
"on whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace
and, if so, how to do so."
Agenda approved
·
Agenda Item
9. Report from gtld committee - Philip Sheppard
- progress to provide a recommendation
"on whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace
and, if so, how to do so."
Philip Sheppard reporting on the process and timing of the gTLD committee comprised of all the Council members, said
there had been 3 teleconferences, probably the last being on May 8, each followed
by a summary. Members were urged to direct the version 3 summary to
the constituencies for comments.
Milton Mueller commented that the Board asked the task force whether
the namespace should be structured and as the answer seemed to be no, it was
proposed that paragraph 7 could be taken as the response to the Board.
Bruce Tonkin commented, on the process for providing a response to a question from the ICANN Board compared to the
formal policy development process that includes public
comment processes as documented in the
ICANN bylaws. Bruce
Tonkin recommended that the committee should not aim to create
new policy without using the formal policy development process. The committee may consider dividing its
response to the question from the ICANN Board into two components. The first component could provide a direct
response to the question (e.g that the namespace
should not be structured), and the second component could identify issues
(e.g avoiding names that are confusingly similar) that
arise from this advice that should be subject to future policy development
using the formal policy development process.
Item : Summary of last meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Jeff
Neuman.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
·
Agenda Item
3. Ratify e-mail vote on ICANN Board seat #14 resolution
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting:
To ratify that the e-mail vote was
recorded correctly. If the vote is
ratified, Michael Palage will be
elected to the ICANN Board seat 14.
Vote: 12 Council members (including Charles Shaban) voted.
18 votes in favour, 2 of which were
proxy votes in favour, Thomas Keller, Registrar constituency and J. Scott
Evans Intellectual Property Interests constituency, no votes against, and
no abstentions.
Decision 2: Declare vote ratified
and Michael Palage appointed to seat 14
·
Agenda Item
4. Discuss any adjustments to process for Board seat #13
Bruce Tonkin proposed that before calling for nominations, confirmation
should be sought from the candidates nominated for seat 14 whether they wished
to continue their nomination for consideration for seat 13.
Jeff Neuman reminded the Council that Barbara Simons, from
Bruce Tonkin proposed:
·
Confirming
whether the current candidates wished to stand for seat 13.
·
Nomination
period one week starting on Tuesday, April 22 to
·
Some days for
ICANN and GNSO secretaries to check administrative details before the ballots
are sent out.
·
The ballots
will be run the same way as for seat 14.
An
option for the Council to consider:
Under the ICANN bylaws [Article
X, Section 3(7)] a vote for the ICANN Board members
can be carried out by written ballot (which
includes e-mail) and in the strict legal definition
there no requirement to follow with the vote ratified at a meeting.
Bruce Tonkin supported by Marilyn Cade suggested that the
ratification at a formal meeting was valuable.
Bruce Tonkin's proposal of ratification
at a formal meeting was supported by the Council
·
Agenda Item
6. Vote to approve the Deletes Task Force recommendations and report for submission
to the ICANN Board
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030323.DeletesTF-final-report.html
Bruce Tonkin stated that it was the intention to vote on the recommendations
at the meeting, but following the issuing of the agenda, input received from
ICANN General Counsel and staff indicated that some of the wording may unduly
restrict Registrar operations and there could be extenuating circumstances
where Registrars may wish not to delete a name to protect the registrant.
Bruce Tonkin proposed not to vote on the recommendations.
Discussion highlighted the value of
an implementation group being formed, composed of Registrars, Registries,
task force members and ICANN Staff which would provide feedback to the task
force. Taking into account the critical nature of deleting a domain name,
the process should be correct and the possible timeframe considered for the
report to be voted on by Council was the June 2003 meeting in Montreal.
Bruce Tonkin seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed:
·
That the Chair
of the GNSO Council would liaise with the Chair of the Deletes Task Force
for the creation of an implementation group and the implementation group would
provide input to the Deletes Task Force.
·
The Deletes
task force would have 2 weeks to assimilate the input received and present
the revised Final Report to be voted on by the Council.
Vote: Unanimous support of voting Council
members
Decision 3: The Chair of the GNSO
Council will liaise with the Chair of the Deletes Task Force for the creation
of an implementation group which will provide input to the Deletes Task Force
which will assimilate the input and present a revised Final Report to be voted
on by Council.
·
Agenda Item
5. Presentation by Nominating Committee and discussion regarding filling three
seats on the GNSO Council
http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/formal-call-05apr03.htm
Linda Wilson introduced the presentation with a description of the
general functions of the committee.
The new process, the Nominating Committee
(NomCom) was designed as a result of the At Large
Study Committee and the subsequent Evolution and Reform committee discussions
with the Internet community bringing forth the Final report which met with
the Board's approval.
The Nominating Committee is not an
election process, but a broadly based opportunity for the Internet community
to participate, composed of delegates chosen by the various bodies in ICANN
according to specific criteria such as integrity, intelligence, wide contacts
and commitment to the success of ICANN.
The Committee though not yet fully
composed, as there are no representatives from an Academic Consumer organization
and Root Server Advisory committee, is functioning.
The selection it makes is final and
needs no ratification.
There are 16 positions to be filled
with 19 terms of duty. The aim is to conclude the selection in time to seat
all by the Montreal 2003 ICANN meetings.
All the positions use the same 4 criteria
stated in the Bylaws for the selection of Directors with some
variations in the eligibility requirements
and added considerations for the GNSO Council and the At Large committee.
Balance in the fields of experience
is important in all three groups, Domain names, Internet protocol and Protocol
port and parameter numbers, for which the Nominating Committee is making a
selection.
Extensive outreach is being undertaken
by the Nominating Committee members in all the constituencies and in other
groups in ICANN. Members of the Internet community will have the opportunity
to recommend individuals and volunteer to be considered for the positions
to be filled but each recommendation requires a statement of interest before
it will be reviewed.
All the Nominating Committee Members
have committed themselves to a code of ethics.
Pindar Wong added
that it was a quality in, quality out process, meaning that the quality of
the output is dependent on the quality of the candidates submitting statements
of interest.
Grant Forsyth supported the previous speakers and reiterated the
call to take up the challenge.
Linda Wilson expressed appreciation to the GNSO for the opportunity
of addressing the Council.
Bruce Tonkin asked for clarification on:
- the intent to fill the 3 GNSO Council
seats by the June ICANN meetings
Yes, it was hoped to get all work done
by the June meeting in Montreal.
- request
for information on the activities the GNSO will be examining over the next
years to come.
- information
on what skills the current Council had in house.
Linda Wilson explained that the latter requests were important to
assist the Nominating Committee in considering, faced with multiple candidates
who could meet all the requirements, which people should be added and who
could best complement those currently on the Council, keeping in mind the
necessary balance that is sought. The Nominating Committee will finally decide
independently of specific requests.
The objective is to fill in a matrix
of skills and experiences.
Pindar Wong added
that:
- skills should be seen in the context
of the challenges that the GNSO will face
- Geographic Diversity as provided
for in the Bylaws - there being no one from the
The bylaws state citizenship.
Linda Wilson added that no more than one officer, director or employee
of any particular corporation or other organization shall serve on the GNSO
Council at any given time.
Confidentiality of all disclosed material
will be assured and no posting on the website will be done without permission
from the source.
Antonio Harris asked what the Geographic diversity criteria would
be for the 8 Board seats?
Linda Wilson explained that at no time would the NomCom select a director to fill any vacancy or expired term
whose selection would cause the total number of directors who are citizens
of countries in any one Geographic Region to exceed five and the NomCom shall ensure through its selections that at all times
the Board includes at least one director who is a citizen of a country in
each ICANN Geographic Region.
The requirement on Geographic Diversity
only applies to Board directors.
Linda Wilson raised the issue of cultural and gender diversity and
emphasized the need to bear in mind that men and
women have expertise.
Milton Mueller asked whether the NomCom
would be able to put NomCom members
on the Board, to which the answer was no.
Bruce Tonkin thanked Linda Wilson and Pindar
Wong for their participation.
Grant Forsyth dropped off the call giving his proxy to Philip Sheppard
and then Marilyn Cade.
·
Agenda Item
7. Discussion on WIPO recommendations regarding names and acronyms of International
Intergovernmental Organizations
From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm
Bruce Tonkin introduced the subject having copied to Council from
the Governmental Advisory Committee communiqué in Rio
-that Board hereby requests the President
to inform the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations,
and the other Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ; to provide those bodies
with a copy of the text of the letter; and to invite them to provide, no later
than 12 May 2003, any comments they may formulate, according to their processes,
concerning the matters discussed in the WIPO letter.
Note the Government Advisory Committee
has responded and endorsed the recommendations.
Marilyn Cade suggested that the existing UDRP be maintained for
the purposes for which it was developed and that separate discussions be undertaken
about the appropriateness of developing, and the necessary criteria needed
for, a Dispute Resolution process for names and acronymns referred to in the WIPO letter.
Milton Mueller commented that the NCUC constituency did not support
extending the existing UDRP and expressed concern about the freedom of expression
rights for websites that criticised
Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGO).
Philip Sheppard expressed the importance of assessing whether WIPO's perception was right in terms of the scale of the problem.
Laurence Djolakian said that the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
was still discussing the issue, and would have formal comments in May. It
is commonly felt that the UDRP works well and that an extended mechanism should
not undercut the existing trademark protection. There are different views
in the constituency on the extension to Inter-Governmental Organization names.
There is a risk of creating International law which is not the purpose of
the UDRP, however good arguments should be brought forward if extension is
not favoured.
Thomas Roessler, stated that the ALAC would submit separate comments
to the Board but mentioned the limits of ICANN's
mission which does not include the creation of new international law, contrasted
with the WIPO2 report's finding that there is insufficient international law
in the areas concerned by the recommendations. He cautioned about limiting
future policy-development, and expressed concern that some of the recommendations
actually seemed to focus on the content of domain names, which is outside
ICANN's concern.
Bruce Tonkin resolved, with regard to the WIPO recommendations, that
Council responds back to the Board with the following advice:
·
To consider the WIPO recommendations separately
from
the review of the existing Universal Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP) which is aimed at trademarks.
·
That the
WIPO recommendations associated with Names and Acronyms of International Intergovernmental
Organisations and Country Names
be subject to a policy development process to look at how it can be implemented
taking into account a thorough examination of the issues surrounding
the recommendations.
Proposed by Philip Sheppard,
seconded by Ken Stubbs.
Motion carried unanimously
Decision 4: That Council responds
back to the Board with the following advice:
To consider the WIPO recommendations
separately from the
review
of the existing Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) which
is aimed at trademarks.
That the
WIPO recommendations associated
with Names and Acronymns of International
Intergovernmental Organisations and Country Names should
be subject to a policy development process to look at how they
can be implemented taking into account a thorough examination of the issues
surrounding the recommendations.
·
Agenda Item
8: UDRP Task Force
- propose closing down the current
task force and re-initiating the policy development process under the new
GNSO Policy development process
- UDRP review needs to take
into account experience with new tlds, and the recommendations
from WIPO on names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations
- Council to vote to initiate
a new policy development process and seek an issues report from the ICANN
Staff Manager on current UDRP issues taking into account of the work done
so far by the UDRP task force and recent developments.
- allow staff 45 days for this
report to be completed.
Bruce Tonkin explained that the UDRP task force had been created
some time ago under the old DNSO Names Council and proposed closing it down
and re-initiating the policy development process under the new GNSO Policy
development process.
The date and the context of the UDRP
survey done in 2001 should be considered in further use.
Marilyn Cade proposed, seconded by Laurence Djolakian
·
To thank the
current UDRP task force for the work done
·
To close down
the current UDRP task force that was created under the Names Council
·
To initiate
the policy development process
·
To seek an
issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager and that one of the inputs to the
issues report is the existing material and analysis from the current UDRP
task force.
·
That the
issues report be done in a 45 day period
Motion carried unanimously.
Decision 5:
To thank the current UDRP task
force for the work done
To close down the current UDRP
task force that was created under the Names Council
To initiate the policy development
process
To seek an issues report from
the ICANN Staff Manager and that one of the inputs to the issues report is
the existing material and analysis from the current UDRP task force.
That the issues
report be done in a 45 day period
Agenda Item 10. Any other business
Bruce Tonkin commented on the Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC) liaison on the GNSO Council and given that new policy is involved, requested
the GAC to examine the Deletes task force report.
Audri Mukhopadhyay the GAC Liaison, commented that there were two GAC
working groups, on gTLDs and
WHOIS relevant to the GNSO Council
·
Bruce Tonkin declared
GNSO meeting closed and
thanked all the participants for being on the call.
Call ended:
Next GNSO Council teleconference:
see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html
|
Information from: |
©
GNSO Council |