November 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Excerpt: Draft Version Staff Manager's Issues Report: Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Nov. 3, 2003

Nov. 3, 2003

[To:council@gnso.icann.org] [To:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] [To:ga@gnso.icann.org] http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/draft-registry-svcs-report-31oct03.h tm This excerpt from the Staff Managers Issues Report is being posted in order to provide the ICANN community with an opportunity to review the issues under consideration at this time. The recent ICANN meeting in Carthage, Tunisia was a rich source of information and discussion of the many issues involved with the development of this Issues Report. In order to fully reflect this information, the posting of the full Issues Report will be postponed until no later than 7 November 2003. Preliminary Catalog of Issues Based on a review of the sources, it appears that the following issues concerning new registry services are thought by at least some segment of the community to be worthy of discussion leading to policy development within the GNSO. 1. Issues Concerning the Development of Procedures 1.1 Is it possible to develop a process for evaluating the introduction of new registry services while preserving appropriate market competition? 1.2 Should the focus of a process be instead on changing registry contracts to heighten technical and stability considerations? 1.3 Is it possible to introduce any new registry services in the top level domains without affecting global interoperability of the DNS, that registry, or the Internet, regardless of the process followed? 2. Issues Concerning Current Process 2.1 Do the current registry contracts contain a process for evaluating new registry services prior to implementation? 2.2 Who performs the evaluation of new registry services under the current process 2.3 Are there sufficient enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the current process? 2.4 Who is responsible for enforcement? 3. Issues Concerning Classification of New Registry Services 3.1 Who will determine which new services are subject to the introduction process? 3.2 Will this introduction process be an adjunct to the registry contract, or will it be an element of the contract? 3.3 Will there be distinct limits to the scope of registry services to which the process is applied? 3.4 Will the existence of this process stifle innovation in registry services? 4. Issues Concerning Enactment of New Process 4.1 Should the introduction process be performed by ICANN staff, perhaps using identified experts in specific areas? 4.2 Should new registry services be reviewed prior to their introduction, or after their introduction? 4.3 Who will initiate the introduction process? 4.4 Is it reasonable to differentiate between registries based on formal or informal criteria, such as sponsored/non-sponsored; dominant/non-dominant; for-profit/not-for-profit; etc. 4.5 Is it appropriate to differentiate between public and private registries during the evaluation? 4.6 What is an appropriate time frame for the introduction process? 4.7 What will be the appeals process? 4.8 How will enforcement be managed? 5. Issues Concerning Services Competition 5.1 If new registry service is not unique to a single point of provision, will that service be opened to competition? 5.2 Will it be necessary to have the registry provide the new service, or can some new services be developed and introduced by a separate company? 5.3 Should new registry services be launched in a competitive fashion? 5.4 How should the value of uniformity of user experience of the DNS be weighed against marketplace choice and registry differentiation? 6. Issues Concerning Services Particulars 6.1 What weight should be given to the opinions of the communities served by a registry regarding new registry services, which in the case of top-level domains can be interpreted as the entire set of Internet users? 6.2 What evidence should the registry provide as to the affect of the new service on existing DNS practices? 6.3 What weight should be given to the functionality of the new registry services? 6.4 Is it sufficient for a new registry service to comply with current best practices and standards? 6.5 Should there be a method of initiating new standards requirements as a part of the process development? 6.6 If new registry services are deliverable at other points in the network besides the core of the domain, should that be a factor in the introduction process? 6.7 Will the introduction of a new registry service be extensible to other registries? 6.8 Should new registry services include an opt-out function? 7. Issues Concerning Non-GNSO Stakeholders 7.1 At what point in the introduction process will the non-GNSO stakeholders participate? 7.2 What weight will be given to the opinions of other stakeholders, such as the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, or the IETF, in the introduction process? 7.3 Will there be mechanisms of participation in the introduction process to ensure the appropriate technical questions are raised and answered to protect operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the DNS, that registry, or the Internet. 7.4 Will there be mechanisms of participation for other Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees? 7.5 Who will make determinations on the weight of various opinions in the final decision? 8. Issues Concerning Services not Subject to New Process 8.1 Will there be an attempt to subject existing services to the new introduction process? 8.2 Will existing services be grandfathered without evaluation? 8.3 If a registry service offering is not considered subject to the introduction process, will there still be timelines imposed for the introduction of the service to the DNS community? 8.4 Will there be a possibility for re-appraisal of a new registry service that is introduced without going through the introduction process? GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin
by ROESCH, LYNDA Nov. 3, 2003

Nov. 3, 2003

I concur. Lynda E. Roesch DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 1900 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8139 (Direct Dial) (513) 977-8141 (Fax) lynda.roesch(a)dinslaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Ellen Shankman [mailto:ellen@ellenshankman.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:41 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin Hey -- I also want to chime in on the encouragement!!! E Ellen B. Shankman, Adv. Ellen Shankman & Associates 13 Weizmann Street Rehovot 76280 Israel tel: +972-54979026 fax: +972-89364241 e-mail:ellen@ellenshankman.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:27 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin Thank you Amadeu, Tony and Demi. I accept your nomination, and thanks for the words of encouragement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Demi Getschko [mailto:demi@agestado.com.br] > Sent: Monday, 3 November 2003 8:17 AM > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Bruce Tonkin > > I second the nomination. > > Demi Getschko > > ========= > Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I hereby nominate Brtuce Toninkin as GNSO Council Chair candidate. > > > > he is been doing a terrfic job, and improving it voer time. > > > > Amadeu > > > ***************************************************************** This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477) or by electronic mail (netadmin(a)dinslaw.com) immediately. *****************************************************************

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 3, 2003

Nov. 3, 2003

Thank you Amadeu, Tony and Demi. I accept your nomination, and thanks for the words of encouragement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Demi Getschko [mailto:demi@agestado.com.br] > Sent: Monday, 3 November 2003 8:17 AM > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org; Bruce Tonkin > > I second the nomination. > > Demi Getschko > > ========= > Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I hereby nominate Brtuce Toninkin as GNSO Council Chair candidate. > > > > he is been doing a terrfic job, and improving it voer time. > > > > Amadeu > > >

2 1

Regarding GNSO Council chair and next Council meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 3, 2003

Nov. 3, 2003

Hello All, The new GNSO Council must elect a chair. >From the ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3, paragraph 7 (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X) "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." The next meeting has been scheduled for 20 Nov 2003. I would expect that this meeting would consider the issues report on registry services (which is supposed to be complete by 7 Nov 2003). The Council needs to meet within 15 days of receving the final report - thus 20 Nov 2003 will probably still work. I suggest: - all constituencies complete the appointment of 3 reps to the new Council by 20 Nov 2003 - the new council members already appointed (which includes the 3 members appinted by the nominating committee) nominate candidates for the GNSO Council chair prior to the meeting on 20 Nov 2003 (the GNSO Secretariat will maintain a current list of members on the GNSO website) - we hold the next Council meeting on 20 Nov 2003, and elect a chair at that meeting Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars Representative on the GNSO Council

3 3

RE: [council] New gtld process
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 3, 2003

Nov. 3, 2003

Hello Milton, > > The upshot of your message, Bruce, is that 4 or 5 multi-year > studies need to be done before any new TLD process can be put > in place. Isn't that it? No. The process approved by the ICANN Board requires the reports to be complete by the March meeting in Rome, with the new strategy approved by the Board prior to 30 September 2004. Note the following quote from the Board resolution: "Whereas the Board believes the development of this long-term policy should begin immediately in November 2003, with the timing of the presentation of reports and receipt of various inputs to occur between ICANN's October 2003 meeting in Carthage, and March 2004 meeting in Rome." I would expect that the GNSO should aim to start its process prior to March 2004 to ensure that formal constituency input can be provided prior to March 2004. With respect to the specific reports - these are at the request of the ICANN Board, and we would need to seek clarification from the ICANN President and General Counsel if the requests for these reports are unclear. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Re: [council] New gtld process
by Milton Mueller Nov. 3, 2003

Nov. 3, 2003

Hi, Bruce: As someone who has researched in some depth the issue of new TLD creation, both in my private capacity as Professor and as part of the U.S. National Research Council committee (note I do NOT speak for anyone on the committee or the committee itself), I find it difficult to agree with your statements below. Here's why: The upshot of your message, Bruce, is that 4 or 5 multi-year studies need to be done before any new TLD process can be put in place. Isn't that it? And if you read the White Paper five years ago, some of the same attitudes were advanced. It called for the same reports on TLD impact on IPR. That was in 1998. And if you read the statements made at the time of the first round in 2000, similar statements were made - TLD addition was a "proof of concept" and numerous "studies" had to be done before any progress could be made. Where are those studies? This is getting ridiculous. We know that the IPR interests don't want any new TLDs, and haven't for years - although it is abundantly clear from the first round that no real threats to trademarks exist; indeed, "sunrise" and other forms of regulation gave them rights to generic terms that no trademark law in history has ever given them. We know that incumbent registries don't want new TLDs, because the market is not as lucrative as they thought and they fear new competition. How much information do you need to know that a market 80% controlled by one supplier and about 95% controlled by businesses in one country is too concentrated? We also know that there are willing suppliers of new registry services, people who have been waiting for three - six years, and we know that there are people who are willing to patronize those new servces because they want different names. I think we know enough. ICANN doesn't need any more information to _define a procedure_ for accepting applications and selecting new TLD proposals. It might need some details to _implement_ a procedure, but defining the procedure requires action and commitment, not two or three more years of waiting for information. This is a delaying tactic and everyone knows it. >- a full assessment of technical standards to support multilingual TLD's >by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) I am not sure what this "full assessment" means. Please clarify. Are you simply saying that the IAB has not approved the final standard for IDNs? Are you saying that the IETF doesn't know what it's doing? How can you "fully assess" a standard without implementing it? >- an assessment of the introduction of competition into the TLD market >and other similar markets, allocation mechanisms and possible >appropriate business models for the TLD manager-ICANN relationship to be >provided by an international economics organization Assigning TLDs is a core part of ICANN's job; if such a basic function has to be outsourced it raises doubts about whether ICANN should exist as an organization. It is not ICANN's job to decide (for consumers and suppliers) whether competition is economically desirable. Its job is to define a procedure that allows businesses or nonprofits that want to enter the market to enter, and users/consumers can decide for themselves whether to patronize them. >- a review and report on intellectual property issues involved in the >introduction of a new TLD shall be requested from the World Intellectual >Property Organization Again? Give me a break. >- reports regarding the technical stability issues related to the >introduction of new TLDs including contingency planning to ensure >continuity of registry services from the IAB and ICANN's Security and >Stability Committee (SECSAC) Ah the "stability" mantra. That one's been used before, too. There is nothing at all mysterious about adding TLDs to the DNS root. It has happened over a hundred times. The DNS was designed to allow zone files to be regularly updated and changed. There is NO noticable impact of the 6 new gtLDs on root service. In the technical community, the idea of adding 50 or so new TLDs per year is considered "conservative." See my paper on this. http://intel.si.umich.edu/tprc/archive-search-abstract.cfm?PaperID=175 Other than fixing the number there are few serious technical issues. Continuity is a much bigger issue for EXISTING registries - what has ICANN done about that? >an independent review of consumer protection issues from a consumer >protection body will be requested Isn't it amazing that ICANN shows so much solicitude for consumers when consumer protection can be used as a pretext for excluding people from the market - but no solicitude at all when real consumer interests are at stake, such as UDRP, Whois, new TLD competition....etc., etc. Real scholars have studied this thing to death. It's just that the message is one that the powers that be within ICANN don't want to hear. If you like, I can get experts from the FCC to make presentations on the advantages of auctions over discretionary hearings in awarding exclusive assignments. The NRC report will be out in a few months. The Berkman Center has done research on registrations within new TLDs. There is all kinds of information you can draw on, if you want to. The only real issue is whether ICANN wants to continue suppressing market entry or not. --MM

1 0

RE: [council] New gtld process
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Nov. 2, 2003

Nov. 2, 2003

Bruce/All It would certainly be inappropriate for Council to proceed prior to the tasks identified below being completed. Additionally ICANN staff would not be able to produce a comprehensive issues report. Council now has a very full agenda following the decisions taken in Carthage on the creation of the 3 WHOIS Task Forces. This seems a good way forward. Tony -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 02 November 2003 18:38 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Paul Twomey; jeffrey(a)icann.org Subject: [council] New gtld process Hello All, I note from the ICANN Board meeting that: (1) ICANN is going ahead with the limited round of sponsored TLDs (2) ICANN is commencing the development of a new strategy for new TLDs (see resolution below) At the council meeting in Carthage we delayed considering the motion to call for an issues report on new TLDs. It would seem to me sensible for this to occur after ICANN receives the following information: - a full assessment of technical standards to support multilingual TLD's by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - an assessment of the introduction of competition into the TLD market and other similar markets, allocation mechanisms and possible appropriate business models for the TLD manager-ICANN relationship to be provided by an international economics organization - a review and report on intellectual property issues involved in the introduction of a new TLD shall be requested from the World Intellectual Property Organization - reports regarding the technical stability issues related to the introduction of new TLDs including contingency planning to ensure continuity of registry services from the IAB and ICANN's Security and Stability Committee (SECSAC) - an independent review of consumer protection issues from a consumer protection body will be requested It note there was no mention of the GNSO in the ICANN Board resolution describing the development of the policy My personal view is: (1) ICANN staff should assist in collecting together the various reports and produce an issues rpeort (2) GNSO initiate policy development to create the policy for new TLDs (3) Board to approve policy (4) ICANN staff to manage the implementation of the policy I will seek to clarify the timing and involvement of the GNSO in the ICANN process as laid out in the Board resolution with the ICANN President, so that we can schedule our work appropriately for 2004. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars rep on the GNSO Council From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm Whereas the development of an appropriate process and policy for the creation of new gTLDs has been a topic of Board and community debate since the creation of ICANN. Whereas there is a fundamental need for a comprehensive process to move from the proof of concept test commenced with the 2000 round to the liberalization of the gTLD market. Whereas ICANN needs to deliver this comprehensive approach to new gtlds not only in response to community demand, but also toward completion of a task agreed under ICANN's new MoU with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Whereas ICANN has committed to deliver, by September 2004, a comprehensive evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new gtlds on the Internet root server system and Internet stability; b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions; c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues. Whereas ICANN is also committed to define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new gtlds using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (development of strategy is to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004). Whereas ICANN also needs to consider technical and operational means by which the operation of a TLD could be undertaken by another party in the event that any incident causes a particular TLD to become inoperable. Whereas the Board recognizes that in order for ICANN to meet these timelines, the evaluation must commence almost immediately, and will require a significant proportion of ICANN resources. Whereas the Board believes the development of this long-term policy should begin immediately in November 2003, with the timing of the presentation of reports and receipt of various inputs to occur between ICANN's October 2003 meeting in Carthage, and March 2004 meeting in Rome. Whereas the areas to be covered in the development of policy on TLDs include completion of the formal review of the TLDs created in the new-TLD proof of concept initiated in 2000, obtaining advice and analysis on issues pertinent to long-term policy for TLDs from expert sources, receipt and review of community input, consideration and commencement if deemed appropriate of a targeted Policy-Development Process within the Generic Names Supporting Organization, and consultation with ICANN's Advisory Committees and other Supporting Organizations. Whereas the final report on the success to date, and issues faced by, the TLDs created in 2000 is expected to be delivered at ICANN's March 2004 meeting in Rome. Whereas ICANN is aware that the TLDs selected in 2000 have faced significant acceptance problems, which should be considered and addressed, if possible. These include compatibility problems with installed software (DNS resolvers, provisioning software and end-user applications) of ISPs, corporate network operators and application providers, as well as other distribution and acceptance issues, such as registrars interested in providing domain name services with respect to a new gtld. Whereas expert advice is expected to be sought from areas including: an international economics organization on the introduction of competition into the TLD market and other similar markets, allocation mechanisms and possible appropriate business models for the TLD manager-ICANN relationship; a review and report on intellectual property issues involved in the introduction of new gtld to be provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization; consumer protection issues, potentially from a consumer protection agency; reports from the Internet Architecture Board and ICANN's Security and Stability Committee on technical stability issues related to the introduction of new gtlds, including planning for registry failures; assessment of the Internet Architecture Board on the need for additional technical standards to support multilingual TLDs. Whereas the Board will be considering, and seeking views from experts and the community on the appropriate balance between corporate/sponsor control of a gTLD and "management on behalf of the Internet community" and with regard to clarifying and better delineating the appropriate structure and scope of the relationship between TLD operators and ICANN. Resolved [03.166] that the Board directs the President to begin an expeditious and targeted development of strategy and policy leading to a streamlined process for the introduction of new gtlds, and Resolved [03.167] that the Board directs the President to begin to seek community input into development of this strategy and process immediately following this meeting in Carthage, and to establish a public forum for comments on new gtld policy at <tldpolicy-comments(a)icann.org>. Resolved [03.168] that the Board has requested that a report on the new gtld policy should be completed by September 30, 2004 and the implementation of the new gtld policy shall commence before December 31, 2004.

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Nov. 2, 2003

Nov. 2, 2003

I fully concur with Amadeu's remarks and second the nomination of Bruce. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: Amadeu Abril i Abril [mailto:Amadeu@abril.info] Sent: 02 November 2003 19:03 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: Bruce Tonkin Subject: [council] GNSO Council Chair - Nomination of Bruce Tonkin Dear all, I hereby nominate Brtuce Toninkin as GNSO Council Chair candidate. he is been doing a terrfic job, and improving it voer time. Amadeu

1 0

Board goes ahead with limited round for sponsored TLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 2, 2003

Nov. 2, 2003

Hello All, It appears as though the ICANN Board has taken into account the concerns of the GNSO with respect to the limited round for sponsored TLDs. >From the Board resolution below, the ICANN president must post an RFP by 15 Dec 2003. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars rep on the GNSO Council From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm Whereas the ICANN community has called upon the Board to commence long term strategic plans to launch a long term process for the creation of new gTLD's and to act on community input already received in a timely manner. Whereas the Board resolved in Montreal to invite public comment on the draft request for proposals for sTLDs posted on 24 June 2003, and in particular on the question whether or not the RFP should be limited to applicants who proposed sponsored sTLDs in November 2000. Whereas, at the ICANN Board meeting held 13 October 2003, the Board discussed at length the topic of how, and within what timeframe, ICANN should proceed with the creation of new gTLDs, including sTLDs. Whereas the GNSO has called upon the Board to go forward with the process for an interim round of sTLDs. The GNSO has discussed and commented on its desire for the Board to take action again on 29 October 2003. Whereas the Board has heard the expression of concerns by experts and affected parties through the GNSO, and from users directly and through the ALAC. Whereas the Board recognizes community consensus that it would be very difficult, both for practical reasons and as a matter of equitable policy, to restrict a new sTLD round to prior applicants from the 2000 round. Whereas the Board also recognizes general community agreement that the appropriate form of sponsoring organization for new sTLDs should not necessarily be restricted to not-for-profit entities, but could include other forms of entity that otherwise meet the criteria for a sponsoring organization. Resolved [03.169] that the Board directs the President to finalize and post no later than 15 December 2003 an open Request for Proposals for a limited number of new sTLDs, such final RFP to be based on the points of agreement indicated above and the comments received concerning the draft RFP. Resolved [03.170] that upon the successful completion of the sTLD selection process, an agreement reflecting the commercial and technical terms shall be negotiated, although such terms may be subject to further amendment, as appropriate, as a result of the New gTLD process which is scheduled to be completed in 2004. Resolved [03.171] that the selection process and implementation for sTLDs shall be evaluated and the results of such evaluation shall be utilized in the New gTLD process scheduled to be completed in 2004.

1 0

Regarding appointment ofconstituency representatives to Council
by Bruce Tonkin Nov. 2, 2003

Nov. 2, 2003

Hello All, With reference to the Board resolution below, each constituency needs to appoint 3 new representatives to Council as soon as possible. I note that some constituencies have already done this. Constituencies need to notify their representatives to the ICANN Secretary (which is now John Jeffrey) Of the three representatives, - one must be identified for a 2 year term - two will serve a one year term (until end of annual meeting in 2004) The Board will review the Council in July 2004 and consider amongst other things whether to make the change from 2 to 3 representatives permanent. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Registrars Representative on GNSO Council Board resolution from: http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm Whereas, the GNSO Council has requested on 14 August 2003, that the change to the number of constituency representatives on the GNSO Council remain unchanged at three (3) representatives per constituency instead of two (2) representatives per constituency as is scheduled to occur at the end of this 2003 Annual Meeting. Whereas, the GNSO Council's predecessor organization DNSO Names Council requested on 1 August 2002, that the GNSO Council be made up of three (3) representatives per constituency. Whereas, Article I, Section 2 (4) sets out as a core value that: -"Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making." Whereas, Article XX, Section 5 (8), in setting out the originally proposed transition that: "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO Council...." Whereas, the Board wishes to take action in support of the GNSO Council and in response to the GNSO Council's request. Resolved [03.164] to change the transition article (Article XX) to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; Resolved [03.165] to perform a review of the GNSO Council in or around July 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council.

1 0