[announce] GNSO Council Teleconference minutes 16 Jan. 2003
[To: announce@xxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxx]
[To: liaison6c@xxxxxxxx]
ICANN/DNSO
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, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: © GNSO Council