July 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Revised GNSO Council Montreal meeting June 24, 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 28 Jul '03

28 Jul '03

[To Council(a)dnso.org] Please find the revised minutes as proposed by Philip Sheppard, concerning Item 8. Thank you Glen GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org 1 July 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-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 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. -absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton Mueller Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee Demi Getschko - Nominating Committee Amadeu Abril I Abril - Nominating Committee - not yet seated as still a Board member 16 Council Members Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Web casting Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Montreal, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of last meeting http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Jeff Neuman. The motion was carried unanimously. Decision 1: Motion adopted. Item 3: Welcome to the three new council members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee Bruce Tonkin welcomed: Demi Getschko from Brazil, Alick Wilson from New Zealand, and Amadeu Abril I Abril, currently seated on ICANN Board, who would join the GNSO Council following the Board meeting. Item 4. Ratify e-mail vote on GNSO Council chair Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard for this agenda item. Philip Sheppard reported that the current chairman was renominated, accepted the nomination, duly stood for nomination and the results of the votes which were an electorate of 18 persons were: 22 votes in favour of Bruce Tonkin, one abstention, (Bruce Tonkin, with 2 votes) total 24 votes. Philip Sheppard called for ratification of the vote therefore electing Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. Vote: 23 votes in favour, Bruce Tonkin abstained, (with 2 votes). The motion carried. Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin who thanked Council for their support. Item 5. Deletes Task Force recommendations - approve recommendations as consensus policy http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows: A draft report was presented to Council at the teleconference on April 17 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html ICANN Staff provided input suggesting that the implementation issues of the recommendations needed to looked into further. Subsequently an implementation committee was formed with representation from registries, registrars as well as representation from the Deletes task force membership to deal with the concerns. The Deletes implementation committee completed its report, the Deletes Task Force, revised its recommendations. Jordyn Buchanan, chair of the Deletes Task Force, presented the Deletes task force recommendations, reminding Council of the 4 areas it was charted to discuss. 1. Uniform delete practice, after domain name expiry by registrars. All recommendations were made with regard to this issue. 2. The deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. 3. Registry delete process. Interest was expressed by the task force for further exploration and it was recommended that Council pursue the issue in a new task force, as a result could not be produced in the time frame and scope of the present one. 4. Reversal of renewal transactions While this was an issue of concern, it was proposed that it be dealt with in a technical fora to add the capability rather than in a policy fora. Recommendations: 3.1 Uniform deletion practice after domain name expiry by registrars 3.1.1 Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been received by the registrar from the registrant or someone acting on the registrants behalf by the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period (generally forty-five days after the domain's initial expiration). As a mechanism for enforcing this requirement, registries may elect to delete names for which an explicit renew command has not been received prior to the expiration of the grace period. 3.1.2 Domain names must be deleted within 45 days of the expiration of the registration agreement between the registrar and registrant, unless the agreement is renewed. 3.1.3 These requirements retroactively apply to all existing domain name registrations beginning 180 days after the adoption of the policy. 3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy, as well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at the time of registration. This policy should include the expected time at which non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to the domain's expiration date, or a date range not to exceed ten days in length. 3.1.5 Registrars must provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies in a conspicuous place on their websites. 3.1.6 Registrars should provide, both at the time of registration and in a conspicuous place on their website, the fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. 3.2 Registrar deletion practice after domain name expiry for domain names subject to a pending UDRP dispute 3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider. 3.2.2 In such an event, the complainant will have the option to pay for a one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing rate for renewals. 3.2.3 In the event that the complainant paid the renewal fee prior to the domain names expiration, the original registrant will have up to thirty days after the end of the relevant registrys Auto-renew Grace Period in which to pay for the renewal of the domain name. If neither the complainant or the original registrant pay for the renewal of domain name, it will be subject to deletion no later than the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period. 3.2.4 In the event that both the registrant and the complainant pay for the renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original registrant in accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any renewal fee paid by the complainant will be refunded and shall not effect this provision. 3.2.5 In the event that only the complainant pays for the renewal of the domain name, prior to the expiration of the Auto-renew Grace Period the registrar will: 3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS. 3.2.5.2 Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific registration information for the Whois record. 3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated prior to a panel decision being rendered, but after the domain name reaches this state, the domain name will be deleted. 3.2.6 Where only the complainant paid the renewal fee for a domain name the subject of a UDRP action and the complainants UDRP case fails, if the relevant registrys normal renewal grace period has expired, the domain name will be deleted. 3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome of the UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies. 3.3 Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy 3.3.1 The Redemption Grace Period will apply to names deleted due to a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. However, prior to allowing the redemption in such a case, the registrar must update the registration with verified WHOIS data and provide a statement indicating that the data has been verified in conjunction with the request for the names redemption. The same rules that apply to verification of WHOIS data for regular domain names following a complaint will apply to deleted names. Jordyn Buchanan proposed adding the supermajority task force vote: In favour: Intellectual Properly Interests constituency, Internet service and Connectivity Providers constituency, Non commercial Users constituency, Commercial and Business Users constituency, Registrars and gTLD Registries constituencies. Vote Against: ccTLD representative No Vote registered: General Assembly representative did not vote to the Final Deletes report before sending it to the ICANN Board for approval. During discussion, Louis Touton remarked on the language of : 3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider. and suggested it should read "In the event that a domain name which is the subject of a UDRP dispute is deleted or expires during the course of the dispute.... " Bruce Tonkin called for the policy recommendations to be put to the vote, ( According to the Policy Development Process, each person should vote individually.) Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 3: The Deletes Task Force final report was recorded as a consensus recommendation to be forwarded to the ICANN Board with the appropriate changes in paragraph 3.2.1. Bruce Tonkin, joined by Jeff Neuman, thanked the Deletes Task Force and its chair, Jordyn Buchanan, for the good work done. Item 6. Discussion of ICANN Staff Manager's Issue Report on UDRP - decide whether to implement policy development process on UDRP Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton, as Staff Manager or General Counsel to comment. Louis Touton commented as General Counsel and apologised that the Issue report on UDRP which was requested by the Council in Rio de Janeiro was not complete due to pressure of work. Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton to provide an update on the status of the WHOIS and Transfers task force recommendations the Board accepted. Louis Touton reported that the WHOIS recommendations forwarded by the Council to the Board in February, were accepted by the Board at the ICANN Rio de Janeiro meeting at the end of March. 1. The implementation process has begun and notification has been posted on the ICANN website setting forth the second consensus policy ever, called the WDRP, standing for the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, regarding the first recommendation relating to registrars notifying their customers and reminding them to update the WHOIS data on record . (see: http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.html) It is planned is to phase the policy in from October 31,2003 to October 31, 2004, so that reminders would occur at the renewal or anniversary dates of registration creations. 2. Circumstances or handling of names that are deleted due to inaccurate WHOIS data and if they go into the redemption grace period, they can be restored by the registrant but cannot become activated, taken off registrar hold until the data is rectified. This policy is due to be implemented and was held up waiting the outcome of the Deletes Task Force report. 3 & 4. Relate to the prohibition of marketing Bulk WHOIS data and will be implemented within the next three to four weeks. Transfer recommendations, some aspects require further community or task force consultation such as the form of a standard notice for authorization of a transfer. This is being undertaken in consultation with a group of providers. A word of caution was given to Council and to staff, that when things are done, they should be done right which requires prioritization of the limited resources. Item 7: Update on ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations Bruce Tonkin stated that the Board asked the Council to provide advice. Council provided the advice that the recommendations needed further analysis and that the President consider creating a policy development process before voting or recommendations could be considered. Subsequently the Board did meet and stated that the President would contact the GNSO, ALAC, GAC chairs to form a working group. Item 8: gTLDs committee report on new gTLDs - approve report associated with the GNSO Council resolution of 22 May 2003: (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.) Document: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.html Bruce Tonkin stated that that the ICANN board had requested the advice of the GNSO Council on whether the new gTLDs should be structured in such a way that perhaps there was a predefined list of names and that entities could potentially be proposed to operate one of those names or alternately, organizations that wished to create a new TLD could propose one of their own. The recommendation was that the namespace should be market driven and that organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use to DNS users. Philip Sheppard, chair of the gTLD Council committee reported that the final report before Council divided up: - Objectives in expansion of the namespace which summarized previous statements of the then Names Council or the Board and what would be subject to a future policy development process - List of possible criteria - Statement with regard to continuity in the event of business failure - Criteria relating to technical and financial competence? Editorial changes and suggestions were made. The report was a complement to the resolution adopted: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Louis Touton commented that the report was one of the many inputs to a process of evaluation on gTLDs and the alternatives for handling them in the future. Cary Karp asked what the relation was to the RFP that had been posted: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm Louis Touton responded that the document posted was further work on moving forward on the RFP based on the criteria that were discussed at the Rio de Janeiro meeting and in writing subsequently. The study of the various items that the new TLD evaluation process recommended would be supplemented by other inputs to reach consensus in the community about how best to deal with the introduction of new top level domains. Bruce Tonkin called for a vote to approve the report to be given to the ICANN Board by the GNSO Council. Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 4: 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. Item 9: Discussion on improving communication between the ICANN Board and the GNSO. Bruce Tonkin, referring to a Council communication by Jeff Neuman http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00001.html reported that there was discussion on the Council list about ICANN Board members participating in GNSO Council discussions and suggested that Board members could be invited to speak to Council where a briefing on a topic of concern or the Council could seek clarification from the Board regarding its process or consideration or what advice it was seeking from the Council. Louis Touton responded to the message to Council stating that it started from a false premise that the Council had representatives on the Board. Two members were selected by the GNSO Council that sit in parallel with all other Board members that have a duty to the Internet community and ICANN. He was of the opinion that there would be no objection periodically requesting interactions with Board members. Jeff Neuman clarified that what he meant was a liaison function. Bruce Tonkin proposed the following motion: The GNSO Council requests the Chair to communicate with the ICANN President to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board and the GNSO Council. Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 5: The GNSO Council Chair will communicate with the ICANN President to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board and the GNSO Council. Item 9: Any Other Business 9. a. WHOIS privacy steering Group Bruce Tonkin announced that two Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO Council agreed to join the WHOIS Privacy steering group and that the group was scheduled to meet during the Montreal meeting. 9. b. ccNSO Marilyn Cade reported on the Country Code Naming Supporting Organization (ccNSO) saying that many of the constituencies were supportive of the creation of the ccNSO. Open dialogue between the Government Advisory Committee and the Board was attended by several Council members as well open meetings between the ccNSO and the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC). Many of the differences that were in existence between the ERC and the Country Codes were broadly and narrowly addressed which indicated broad support for the formation of a ccNSO with a large number of Country Code members who would be coming into the Supporting Organization. A Country Code Name Supporting Organization would probably be seated by the next ICANN meeting in Carthage. 9.c. RFP relating to new gTLDs Jeff Neuman raised the topic of the RFP. http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm saying that the comment period was short and asked whether the GNSO Council would want to make a joint comment, or whether individuals could respond. Louis Touton commented that comments should be made as soon as possible and that there would be a possibility for discussion during the Public Forum. Bruce Tonkin suggested that individual constituencies put forward coordinated comments. 9. d. The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00012.html Jeff Neuman stated that the gTLD Registry constituency put forth a paper called; The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS which had been sent to Council: Subsequently notice was given that the paper had been included in the RPF. Response to the paper was encouraged. There had been response to the word "filtering" that would probably be substituted by "support" or "supporting of top-level domains. Further more it was believed that it was not only an ISP problem but an application problem that affected the businesses not just of the sponsored TLDs but also several of the unsponsored TLDs. A proposal for moving forward would be advantageous. Tony Holmes commented that the word "filtering" had been misleading and led the ISPs to investigate the problem. The issue was the way the new domain names are looked at within the resolves and the way that the action was taken. Mark Mc Fadden, the ISPCPC secretary commented from the floor that 15 ISPs in North America and 5 ISPs in Europe had been surveyed and no instances of filtering were found. It has been made an item for discussion in the ISPCPC. Louis Touton commented on process saying that the sTLD RPF http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm had been posted in draft form, exhibit E was the paper provided by the gTLD registries constituency. The purpose for including it was to alert possible applicants to the reality that getting a TLD in the root does not necessarily work for end users, giving a measure of fairness to the applicants in assessing how to proceed. If the gTLD registry wished to amend the paper by removing the word "filtering" they should do so quickly. Bruce Tonkin said the action to be taken from the meeting was to mention during the Public Forum - that a technical issue had been identified. That there had been some problems with resolving some of the new TLDs, just as there would be problems in the rollout of IDNs as well. Consideration should be given to improving and increasing awareness among the different parties as technical changes at the core of the DNS which affects the viability of some of the new registries. - that something should be coming out of the evaluation of the new TLD process. - that it should be remembered that the seven new TLDs were created as an initial experiment, and that the issue is an example of a problem that has arisen in the process which could not be foreseen initially and should be taken into consideration when creating new TLDs. 9. d. Resolution thanking Louis Touton Bruce Tonkin proposed a final resolution: To thank Louis Touton as General Counsel of ICANN, who had announced that he would be leaving ICANN, for the enormous support that he had provided both the Names Council and the GNSO Council. That he was available at 5:00 am for some of the GNSO teleconferences as well as available on Sundays. He made himself available to the Council well beyond the average call of duty for any individual and the GNSO Council formally thanked him for his dedication and the work that he put into ICANN. The GNSO Council unanimously supported the resolution with a standing ovation. Louis Touton reciprocated by thanking Council for the good healthy dialogue, engagement and working together to solve problems to help people on the Internet and felt gratified having been able to work with the DNSO/GNSO Council since 1999. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody for attending, at 3:45 local time. The meeting ended: 15:45 local time Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday July 17, 2003 at 12:00 UTC see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

1 0

GNSO Council Montreal meeting June 24, 2003, draft minutes
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

[To: council(a)dnso.org] Dear Council Members and Liaisons, Please find below the draft minutes for the GNSO Council meeting held in Montreal, on June 24, 2003. If there are any changes that you would like made, please contact me. Thank you, Glen GNSO Secretariat GNSO.Secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org 1 July 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-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 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. -absent, apologies, proxy to Laurence Djolakian Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Milton Mueller Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent Alick Wilson - Nominating Committee Demi Getschko - Nominating Committee Amadeu Abril I Abril - Nominating Committee - not yet seated as still a Board member 16 Council Members Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison Elisabeth Porteneuve - ccTLD Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Web casting Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Montreal, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-agenda.html Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of last meeting http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Jeff Neuman. The motion was carried unanimously. Decision 1: Motion adopted. Item 3: Welcome to the three new council members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee Bruce Tonkin welcomed: Demi Getschko from Brazil, Alick Wilson from New Zealand, and Amadeu Abril I Abril, currently seated on ICANN Board, who would join the GNSO Council following the Board meeting. Item 4. Ratify e-mail vote on GNSO Council chair Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard for this agenda item. Philip Sheppard reported that the current chairman was renominated, accepted the nomination, duly stood for nomination and the results of the votes which were an electorate of 18 persons were: 22 votes in favour of Bruce Tonkin, one abstention, (Bruce Tonkin, with 2 votes) total 24 votes. Philip Sheppard called for ratification of the vote therefore electing Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. Vote: 23 votes in favour, Bruce Tonkin abstained, (with 2 votes). The motion carried. Decision 2: Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. Philip Sheppard handed the chair back to Bruce Tonkin who thanked Council for their support. Item 5. Deletes Task Force recommendations - approve recommendations as consensus policy http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows: A draft report was presented to Council at the teleconference on April 17 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html ICANN Staff provided input suggesting that the implementation issues of the recommendations needed to looked into further. Subsequently an implementation committee was formed with representation from registries, registrars as well as representation from the Deletes task force membership to deal with the concerns. The Deletes implementation committee completed its report, the Deletes Task Force, revised its recommendations. Jordyn Buchanan, chair of the Deletes Task Force, presented the Deletes task force recommendations, reminding Council of the 4 areas it was charted to discuss. 1. Uniform delete practice, after domain name expiry by registrars. All recommendations were made with regard to this issue. 2. The deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. 3. Registry delete process. Interest was expressed by the task force for further exploration and it was recommended that Council pursue the issue in a new task force, as a result could not be produced in the time frame and scope of the present one. 4. Reversal of renewal transactions While this was an issue of concern, it was proposed that it be dealt with in a technical fora to add the capability rather than in a policy fora. Recommendations: 3.1 Uniform deletion practice after domain name expiry by registrars 3.1.1 Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been received by the registrar from the registrant or someone acting on the registrants behalf by the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period (generally forty-five days after the domain's initial expiration). As a mechanism for enforcing this requirement, registries may elect to delete names for which an explicit renew command has not been received prior to the expiration of the grace period. 3.1.2 Domain names must be deleted within 45 days of the expiration of the registration agreement between the registrar and registrant, unless the agreement is renewed. 3.1.3 These requirements retroactively apply to all existing domain name registrations beginning 180 days after the adoption of the policy. 3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy, as well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at the time of registration. This policy should include the expected time at which non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to the domain's expiration date, or a date range not to exceed ten days in length. 3.1.5 Registrars must provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies in a conspicuous place on their websites. 3.1.6 Registrars should provide, both at the time of registration and in a conspicuous place on their website, the fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. 3.2 Registrar deletion practice after domain name expiry for domain names subject to a pending UDRP dispute 3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider. 3.2.2 In such an event, the complainant will have the option to pay for a one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing rate for renewals. 3.2.3 In the event that the complainant paid the renewal fee prior to the domain names expiration, the original registrant will have up to thirty days after the end of the relevant registrys Auto-renew Grace Period in which to pay for the renewal of the domain name. If neither the complainant or the original registrant pay for the renewal of domain name, it will be subject to deletion no later than the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period. 3.2.4 In the event that both the registrant and the complainant pay for the renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original registrant in accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any renewal fee paid by the complainant will be refunded and shall not effect this provision. 3.2.5 In the event that only the complainant pays for the renewal of the domain name, prior to the expiration of the Auto-renew Grace Period the registrar will: 3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS. 3.2.5.2 Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific registration information for the Whois record. 3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated prior to a panel decision being rendered, but after the domain name reaches this state, the domain name will be deleted. 3.2.6 Where only the complainant paid the renewal fee for a domain name the subject of a UDRP action and the complainants UDRP case fails, if the relevant registrys normal renewal grace period has expired, the domain name will be deleted. 3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome of the UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies. 3.3 Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy 3.3.1 The Redemption Grace Period will apply to names deleted due to a complaint on WHOIS accuracy. However, prior to allowing the redemption in such a case, the registrar must update the registration with verified WHOIS data and provide a statement indicating that the data has been verified in conjunction with the request for the names redemption. The same rules that apply to verification of WHOIS data for regular domain names following a complaint will apply to deleted names. Jordyn Buchanan proposed adding the supermajority task force vote: In favour: Intellectual Properly Interests constituency, Internet service and Connectivity Providers constituency, Non commercial Users constituency, Commercial and Business Users constituency, Registrars and gTLD Registries constituencies. Vote Against: ccTLD representative No Vote registered: General Assembly representative did not vote to the Final Deletes report before sending it to the ICANN Board for approval. During discussion, Louis Touton remarked on the language of : 3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to the UDRP provider. and suggested it should read "In the event that a domain name which is the subject of a UDRP dispute is deleted or expires during the course of the dispute.... " Bruce Tonkin called for the policy recommendations to be put to the vote, ( According to the Policy Development Process, each person should vote individually.) Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 3: The Deletes Task Force final report was recorded as a consensus recommendation to be forwarded to the ICANN Board with the appropriate changes in paragraph 3.2.1. Bruce Tonkin, joined by Jeff Neuman, thanked the Deletes Task Force and its chair, Jordyn Buchanan, for the good work done. Item 6. Discussion of ICANN Staff Manager's Issue Report on UDRP - decide whether to implement policy development process on UDRP Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton, as Staff Manager or General Counsel to comment. Louis Touton commented as General Counsel and apologised that the Issue report on UDRP which was requested by the Council in Rio de Janeiro was not complete due to pressure of work. Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton to provide an update on the status of the WHOIS and Transfers task force recommendations the Board accepted. Louis Touton reported that the WHOIS recommendations forwarded by the Council to the Board in February, were accepted by the Board at the ICANN Rio de Janeiro meeting at the end of March. 1. The implementation process has begun and notification has been posted on the ICANN website setting forth the second consensus policy ever, called the WDRP, standing for the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, regarding the first recommendation relating to registrars notifying their customers and reminding them to update the WHOIS data on record . (see: http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.html) It is planned is to phase the policy in from October 31,2003 to October 31, 2004, so that reminders would occur at the renewal or anniversary dates of registration creations. 2. Circumstances or handling of names that are deleted due to inaccurate WHOIS data and if they go into the redemption grace period, they can be restored by the registrant but cannot become activated, taken off registrar hold until the data is rectified. This policy is due to be implemented and was held up waiting the outcome of the Deletes Task Force report. 3 & 4. Relate to the prohibition of marketing Bulk WHOIS data and will be implemented within the next three to four weeks. Transfer recommendations, some aspects require further community or task force consultation such as the form of a standard notice for authorization of a transfer. This is being undertaken in consultation with a group of providers. A word of caution was given to Council and to staff, that when things are done, they should be done right which requires prioritization of the limited resources. Item 7: Update on ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO recommendations Bruce Tonkin stated that the Board asked the Council to provide advice. Council provided the advice that the recommendations needed further analysis and that the President consider creating a policy development process before voting or recommendations could be considered. Subsequently the Board did meet and stated that the President would contact the GNSO, ALAC, GAC chairs to form a working group. Item 8: gTLDs committee report on new gTLDs - approve report associated with the GNSO Council resolution of 22 May 2003: (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.) Document: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.html Bruce Tonkin stated that that the ICANN board had requested the advice of the GNSO Council on whether the new gTLDs should be structured in such a way that perhaps there was a predefined list of names and that entities could potentially be proposed to operate one of those names or alternately, organizations that wished to create a new TLD could propose one of their own. The recommendation was that the namespace should be market driven and that organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use to DNS users. Philip Sheppard, chair of the gTLD Council committee reported that the final report before Council divided up: - Objectives in expansion of the namespace which summarized previous statements of the then Names Council or the Board and what would be subject to a future policy development process - List of possible criteria - Statement with regard to continuity in the event of business failure - Criteria relating to technical and financial competence? Editorial changes and suggestions were made. The report was a complement to the resolution adopted: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Louis Touton commented that the report was one of the many inputs to a process of evaluation on gTLDs and the alternatives for handling them in the future. Cary Karp asked what the relation was to the RFP that had been posted: http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm Louis Touton responded that the document posted was further work on moving forward on the RFP based on the criteria that were discussed at the Rio de Janeiro meeting and in writing subsequently. The study of the various items that the new TLD evaluation process recommended would be supplemented by other inputs to reach consensus in the community about how best to deal with the introduction of new top level domains. Bruce Tonkin called for a vote to approve the report to be given to the ICANN Board by the GNSO Council in association with the decision: The recommendation that the namespace should be market driven and that organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use to DNS users. Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 4: The GNSO Council advises the ICANN Board that the namespace should be market driven and that organizations were free to propose names that they believed would be of use to DNS users. Item 9: Discussion on improving communication between the ICANN Board and the GNSO. Bruce Tonkin, referring to a Council communication by Jeff Neuman http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00001.html reported that there was discussion on the Council list about ICANN Board members participating in GNSO Council discussions and suggested that Board members could be invited to speak to Council where a briefing on a topic of concern or the Council could seek clarification from the Board regarding its process or consideration or what advice it was seeking from the Council. Louis Touton responded to the message to Council stating that it started from a false premise that the Council had representatives on the Board. Two members were selected by the GNSO Council that sit in parallel with all other Board members that have a duty to the Internet community and ICANN. He was of the opinion that there would be no objection periodically requesting interactions with Board members. Jeff Neuman clarified that what he meant was a liaison function. Bruce Tonkin proposed the following motion: The GNSO Council requests the Chair to communicate with the ICANN President to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board and the GNSO Council. Vote: All Council members present in favour; as well as the proxies carried by Milton Mueller for Chun Eung Hwi and Laurence Djolakian for Ellen Shankman and Lynda Roesch, 25 votes. Motion carried. Decision 5: The GNSO Council Chair will communicate with the ICANN President to seek some mechanisms for improving the communication between the Board and the GNSO Council. Item 9: Any Other Business 9. a. WHOIS privacy steering Group Bruce Tonkin announced that two Nominating Committee appointees to the GNSO Council agreed to join the WHOIS Privacy steering group and that the group was scheduled to meet during the Montreal meeting. 9. b. ccNSO Marilyn Cade reported on the Country Code Naming Supporting Organization (ccNSO) saying that many of the constituencies were supportive of the creation of the ccNSO. Open dialogue between the Government Advisory Committee and the Board was attended by several Council members as well open meetings between the ccNSO and the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC). Many of the differences that were in existence between the ERC and the Country Codes were broadly and narrowly addressed which indicated broad support for the formation of a ccNSO with a large number of Country Code members who would be coming into the Supporting Organization. A Country Code Name Supporting Organization would probably be seated by the next ICANN meeting in Carthage. 9.c. RFP relating to new gTLDs Jeff Neuman raised the topic of the RFP. http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm saying that the comment period was short and asked whether the GNSO Council would want to make a joint comment, or whether individuals could respond. Louis Touton commented that comments should be made as soon as possible and that there would be a possibility for discussion during the Public Forum. Bruce Tonkin suggested that individual constituencies put forward coordinated comments. 9. d. The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc13/msg00012.html Jeff Neuman stated that the gTLD Registry constituency put forth a paper called; The filtering of new top-level domains by the ISPS which had been sent to Council: Subsequently notice was given that the paper had been included in the RPF. Response to the paper was encouraged. There had been response to the word "filtering" that would probably be substituted by "support" or "supporting of top-level domains. Further more it was believed that it was not only an ISP problem but an application problem that affected the businesses not just of the sponsored TLDs but also several of the unsponsored TLDs. A proposal for moving forward would be advantageous. Tony Holmes commented that the word "filtering" had been misleading and led the ISPs to investigate the problem. The issue was the way the new domain names are looked at within the resolves and the way that the action was taken. Mark Mc Fadden, the ISPCPC secretary commented from the floor that 15 ISPs in North America and 5 ISPs in Europe had been surveyed and no instances of filtering were found. It has been made an item for discussion in the ISPCPC. Louis Touton commented on process saying that the sTLD RPF http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm had been posted in draft form, exhibit E was the paper provided by the gTLD registries constituency. The purpose for including it was to alert possible applicants to the reality that getting a TLD in the root does not necessarily work for end users, giving a measure of fairness to the applicants in assessing how to proceed. If the gTLD registry wished to amend the paper by removing the word "filtering" they should do so quickly. Bruce Tonkin said the action to be taken from the meeting was to mention during the Public Forum - that a technical issue had been identified. That there had been some problems with resolving some of the new TLDs, just as there would be problems in the rollout of IDNs as well. Consideration should be given to improving and increasing awareness among the different parties as technical changes at the core of the DNS which affects the viability of some of the new registries. - that something should be coming out of the evaluation of the new TLD process. - that it should be remembered that the seven new TLDs were created as an initial experiment, and that the issue is an example of a problem that has arisen in the process which could not be foreseen initially and should be taken into consideration when creating new TLDs. 9. d. Resolution thanking Louis Touton Bruce Tonkin proposed a final resolution: To thank Louis Touton as General Counsel of ICANN, who had announced that he would be leaving ICANN, for the enormous support that he had provided both the Names Council and the GNSO Council. That he was available at 5:00 am for some of the GNSO teleconferences as well as available on Sundays. He made himself available to the Council well beyond the average call of duty for any individual and the GNSO Council formally thanked him for his dedication and the work that he put into ICANN. The GNSO Council unanimously supported the resolution with a standing ovation. Louis Touton reciprocated by thanking Council for the good healthy dialogue, engagement and working together to solve problems to help people on the Internet and felt gratified having been able to work with the DNSO/GNSO Council since 1999. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody for attending, at 3:45 local time. The meeting ended: 15:45 local time Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday July 17, 2003 at 12:00 UTC see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

1 0

Notice of Public Comment Period re: Sponsored TLD Request for Proposals
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

[To: Council(a)dnso.org; announce(a)dnso.org] [To: ga(a)dnso.org; liaison6c(a)dnso.org] Please note Dan Halloran's mail, Wednesday 23 July 2003 02:17, sent to the GNSO Secretariat Object : Notice of Public Comment Period re: Sponsored TLD Request for Proposals To ICANN's Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations: This message is a notice/reminder that the ICANN Board has invited public comments on a draft request for proposals for new sponsored TLDs <http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm>. Comments should be submitted by e-mail to <stld-rfp-comments(a)icann.org> on or before 25 August 2003. Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Dan Halloran Acting Secretary ICANN halloran(a)icann.org 1-310-823-9358

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference minutes - 5 June 2003
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 18 Jul '03

18 Jul '03

[To: announce(a)dnso.org; ga(a)dnso.org] [To: ga(a)dnso.org; council(a)dnso.org] ICANN/GNSO GNSO Council Teleconference on 5 June 2003 - minutes 7 June 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.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 Thomas Keller- Registrars Ken Stubbs - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Jeff Neuman - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. -( joined late for Item 7 of the agenda) Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Milton Mueller Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. 14 Council Members Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 recording of the meeting Philppe Renaut - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030605.GNSOteleconf.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/20030605.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of last meeting http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Marilyn Cade . The motion was carried unanimously. Decision 1: Motion adopted. Item 3: Motion to recommend to the ICANN Board to adjust the quorum requirements for the GNSO Council in the ICANN Bylaws: Council recommends that the ICANN Board change the ICANN by-law relating to quorum in the GNSO (Article X, section 3(8)) from the present text: "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business...." with "A majority of the total number of Council members in office, provided that those members are entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council, shall constitute a quorum". Philip Sheppard commented that the recommended amendment was aimed at clarifying an oversight in the bylaws and the new wording aimed at legitimacy. Discussion: Marilyn Cade supported the recommendation saying that it protected broad geographical and Council participation. . Ellen Shankman supported having as many members of council involved in discussions as possible. Ken Stubbs and Jeff Neuman felt that there was no necessity to amend the bylaws and no cases of abuse had been recorded. Louis Touton referred to his paper on proposed by-law revisions dated 31 May 2003 (http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-31may03.htm), where he stated that: "Philip Sheppard wrote on 12 May 2003 that the GNSO Council, at its meeting on 22 May 2003, would likely adopt a resolution requesting a change to the New Bylaws concerning the GNSO Council's quorum rules. He suggested that such an amendment could be added to the group of amendments to be considered by the Board at its 2 June 2003 meeting. In fact, the GNSO Council did not consider the proposed resolution at its 22 May 2003 meeting due to the overcrowded agenda for that meeting. (It appears likely that the GNSO Council will meet on 5 June 2003 to complete the agenda of its 22 May 2003 meeting.) The proposal referenced by Mr. Sheppard would amend Article X, Section 3(8) of the New Bylaws. Currently there are 18 members on the GNSO Council, consisting of 6 members from "providers constituencies" and 12 members from "users constituencies." Votes are equalized, so the two groups of constituencies each have 12 votes, for a total of 24. Under the quorum provision in Section 3(8) as currently written, the GNSO Council can act when members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes on the Council (i.e. 13 votes) are present. The proposal would require that, in order to transact business, the GNSO Council would need both a majority of votes (i.e. 13 votes) and a majority of members (i.e. 10 members) present. Thus, under the proposal the non-attendance of nine members, having as few as 37.5% of the votes on the GNSO Council, would prevent the GNSO Council from acting. The proposal is a substantive change from the intended effect of equalized voting, rather than a technical correction consistent with the intended effect of the Bylaws. As such, it would appear more appropriate to address the proposal as part of the process for periodic review of ICANN structure and operations under Article IV, Section 4. Under that Section, the first periodic review will be initiated within one year following the adoption of the New Bylaws and will cover the GNSO Council. Among the topics to be considered in that review should be the equalized voting concept and its implications." Philip Sheppard, who originally proposed the motion, suggested it be put to the vote. Vote: 7 votes support (Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth, Tony Harris,Tony Holmes (via proxy to Tony Harris), Laurence Djolakian (via proxy to Ellen Shankman), Ellen Shankman) 6 votes oppose (Jeff Neuman, Cary Karp, Jordyn Buchanan), 7 votes abstain (Ken Stubbs, Thomas Keller, Bruce Tonkin, Gabriel Pineiro) . 4 voters absent: (Greg Ruth, Milton Mueller, Lynda Roesch, Chun Eung Hwi). The motion failed. The motion failed. Item 4: Update on the deletes implementation committee Jordyn Buchanan reported that the Deletes Implementation Committee report was under discussion in the Deletes Task Force and a final report was expected 7 days before the Montreal meeting. Item 5: Budget update: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.ICANN-GNSO-finances-recap.html - status of constituency payments for 2003 - balance of account The Secretary reported that the unencumbered funds totalled $49 042,11 and the NCUC dues for 2003 were still outstanding. On the debt issue, there was currently $103,444.84 in outstanding receivables in the DNSO financial records. According to ICANN's financial policies, there has been a bad debt reserve created for this amount as it is more than 90 days past due. Before completing the processing of closing out the GNSO accounts, instructions would be needed from the GNSO Council on how to handle this debt on the ICANN books. If it is to be written off, then ICANN needs to be advised that the DNSO (now GNSO) wishes to take that action. Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Budget committee make a proposal to the GNSO Council to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting in July which would allow for an understanding of the final status of the accounts. Item 6: Updated GNSO rules of procedure http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.GNSOprocedures.html - no comments have been received - schedule for vote at the June meeting Any other business Bruce Tonkin stated that the GNSO Rules of Procedure have been combined with the ICANN bylaws to bring them in line and that they should be approved in July by the ICANN Board. Louis Touton stated that this was not a requirement, but the Constituency bylaws had to be submitted and approved by the ICANN Board in July. Bruce Tonkin referred to the 14 day voting period and the current term for the GNSO Chair which may want to be changed. Louis Touton informed the Council that at the Montreal meeting, three members of the Nominating Committee would be seated and would be eligible to vote. Item 7: Any other business 7a. Bruce Tonkin stated that at the last GNSO Council meeting, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Council voted to form a WHOIS Steering Group. Two issues to be considered: 1. Membership of the WHOIS Steering Group. Bruce Tonkin proposed that each constituency should nominate one member who could be a non council member or a council member. 2. WHOIS Steering Group Chair. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the chairperson be independent of the constituencies and recommended Mike Roberts. The purpose of the WHOIS Steering Group would be to determine the topics and not to create policy. Milton Mueller joined the meeting. Ken Stubbs commented that Mike Roberts would be an excellent person, but if he were to decline, there should be a methodology in place to another person. Could a Board member be chosen? Marilyn Cade mentioned that it would be more advantageous to have a non Board member. Milton Mueller proposed Scott Bradner, a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Tom Keller proposed two persons from each constituency and the Chair chosen from the European Community. Bruce Tonkin supported the proposal of two members per constituency. Louis Touton clarified saying that the WHOIS Steering group would be making recommendations to the Council for moving forward. The proposed time line: Steering Committee in place for the Montreal meeting so the outputs of the public forums could be considered. Thirty days for the first drafts, and possible discussion at Council level. Thirty days to refine the drafts. Thus a sixty day period to obtain the initial output with a recommendation for one, two or three task forces with clearly defined purposes for each. Louis Touton clarified the voting position in the proposed WHOIS Steering Group, saying that the bylaws do not define the voting in task forces and steering groups. Cary Karp left the meeting and handed a proxy to Jeff Neuman. Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be appropriate for the WHOIS Steering Group to have liaisons from the GAC and the ALAC. Audri Mukhopadhyay commented that there were 9 liaisons in the GAC and that the invitation would be extended to them. Bruce Tonkin proposed: That each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS Steering Group, - the members may be from outside the GNSO Council - each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the WHOIS Steering Group. Vote: motion carried unanimously. Decision 2: Each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS Steering Group - the members may be from outside the GNSO Council - each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the WHOIS Steering Group. Bruce Tonkin urged the constituencies to appoint one or two members before Montreal and that the independent chair to the steering group could be achieved by consensus among the steering group members, or a chair could be appointed from within the steering group. Bruce Tonkin supported the request from the ALAC to appoint two representatives to give flexibility, with the understanding that only one person has the right to vote and extended the same invitation to the GAC representation. 7 b. Bruce Tonkin inquired whether there was convergence on the gTLD committee document. Philip Sheppard reported that the wording on the issue of International Domain Names still had to be reviewed and the document would be ready for the ICANN Montreal meeting on June 24, 2003. 7 c. Audri Mukhopadhyay extended an invitation to the GNSO Council to meet with the GAC gTLD working group on Monday morning, June 23, 2003, to discuss whatever issues the Council wished to raise with the GAC which could cover gTLD policies, deletes and transfers. It was requested that a list of topics be drawn up by the GNSO Council Chair and forwarded to the GAC in preparation for the meeting. The meeting would follow after the GNSO Council breakfast meeting in the same room at 9:00 AM. Marilyn Cade requested a list of the GAC working groups. Action: Secretary will request the list from Christopher Wilkinson, Secretary to the GAC. and post to GNSO Council list. 7 d. Ken Stubbs said that requests had been received from various users expressing concern about users who had relied on Internet Service Providers (ISP) over the last years to manage domain names. The Internet Service Providers, were experiencing difficult times and some had gone out of business resulting in the users, who have domains with them, not having any portability. Would it thus be possible to develop a methodology to deal with the problem, which could be communicated to the users? Bruce Tonkin replied that it was an appropriate subject for the Registrar's constituency to consider. 7 e. Bruce Tonkin asked the GNSO Secretariat for a status report on the process for the GNSO Council Chair vote. The secretary explained that nominations would close on Friday June 6, 12:00 UTC The ballots would be sent out just after the close of nominations. The GNSO Council will vote by e-mail between Friday , June 6, 15:00 UTC and Friday, June 20, 15:00 UTC 2003 to elect the GNSO Council Chair. The vote will be ratified at the GNSO Council meeting in Montreal on June 24, 2003. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed Call ended: 15:20 CET, 13:20 UTC, 23 :20 Melbourne time Thursday 5 , June , 2003. Next GNSO Council meeting: Tuesday June 24 , 2003 at 14:00 local time in Montreal see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Information from: © GNSO Council

1 0

resend: NEW: gnso.icann.org
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 18 Jul '03

18 Jul '03

This is a resend to Council, there was a technical problem which has been solved! Thank you for your patience! GNSO Secretariat [To: ga(a)dnso.org, council(a)dnso.org] [To: liaison6c@dnso.org,announce@dnso.org] The DNSO website has moved! The new site is <http://gnso.icann.org>. In order to preserve links, the old domain name, dnso.org, and most of the content of the old site will be preserved, but new content will be referenced only under the gnso.icann.org domain. Practicaly speaking, you should see no change when looking for all documents and mailing lists up to the end of June 2003, the URLs are with http://www.dnso.org, and the access is from the new website under: DNSO Site Archive. Mailing lists from 1 July may be found at http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/ Addresses for mailing lists continue to support the dnso.org domain for the next few weeks, but they will be converted to gnso.icann.org addresses in the near future. For example, the address for the GA list will change from "ga(a)dnso.org" to "ga(a)gnso.icann.org", council(a)dnso.org to council(a)gnso.icann.org. You will be notified well before dnso.org email is deactivated. Work is still underway, but the migration has gone smoothly thanks to the great work done by AFNIC and ICANN teams. You may find things missing, so please be patient and let me know! If you have any questions please address them to the GNSO Secretariat whose address has changed to: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org. Thank you. GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
by Bruce Tonkin 14 Jul '03

14 Jul '03

Hello All, Note: - The ICANN nominating committee appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council in June 2003 - the ICANN by-laws require each constituency to appoint 2 representatives to the GNSO to take up office at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003 - the ICANN by-laws require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following the adoption of the ICANN by-laws (15 Dec 2002) I would expect based on recent responses from the ICANN General Counsel in response to questions about the voting arrangements, that the Board would not want to change the b-laws until the GNSO had been reviewed. (see http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-31may03.htm) The problem is that it is unlikely the review would be conducted prior to the ICANN annual meeting in 2003. The date for the annual meeting in 2003 has not been set, although it was assumed that this would be at the meeting in Cathage. Note that last year the annual meeting was in December. Changing the ICANN by-laws is not actually a function of the GNSO Council. A possible option would be: - to request a change in the transition article to allow 3 representatives until the end of the annual meeting in 2004 - request a change to the ICANN by-law to allow a review of the GNSO council June 2004 (ie 12 months after the appointment of three members to the council by the nominating committee, rather than 12 months after the adoption of the by-laws) A procedural approach maybe: - a council member proposes a motion relating to the ICANN by-laws, with a seconder - an email vote is arranged on the motion - if the motion is in favour of changing the by-laws in some way, we could schedule a joint teleconference between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to discuss Such a procedure could occur outside the normal schedule of GNSO meetings to discuss GNSO policy matters. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair

1 0

CANCELLED: GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003
by Bruce Tonkin 14 Jul '03

14 Jul '03

Hello All, On the basis of the responses I have received, I will cancel the teleconference for this week. The next teleconference is scheduled for: 14 August 2003, UTC 12:00. Here is a preliminary agenda, that I will firm up over the next couple of weeks: 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Summary of last meetings 3. Update on ICANN President's working group on WIPO-II recommendations [15 mins] 4. Discussion of Staff Managers report on UDRP [30mins] 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group [15 mins] 6. Discussion on council structure [30 mins] - The ICANN nominating committee appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council in June 2003 - the ICANN by-laws require each constituency to appoint 2 representatives to the GNSO to take up office at the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2003 - the ICANN by-laws require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following the adoption of the ICANN by-laws (15 Dec 2002) 7. Budget committee report [15 mins] 8. Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
by Milton Mueller 13 Jul '03

13 Jul '03

Marilyn and Grant make persuasive arguments in favor of their position, particularly regarding the pressure to "find someone" from a third region. But this argument could be turned on its head. GNSO Constituencies, when they have only two reps, may want to make sure that regions outside NA and EU get to hold them once in a while. As Marilyn puts it: >>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade(a)att.com> 07/13/03 09:34AM >>> >The issue of how a representative votes is not the same issue as >the diversity of perspective which has gone into the development of >a position. Exactly. This means that the diversity of perspectives can be taken into account regardless of whether there are two or three formal representatives. The constituency structures ought to provide representation to ALL the regions - at least, ours (NCUC's) does. And our new NCUC charter will impose "term limits" on GNSO Council reps. As Grant suggests, the unified position generally emerges after internal deliberations in the constituencies. ALL regions are represented in those deliberations, not just three. And that is better, no? Bottom line for me is, I don't think this is going to make a lot of difference either way. From a strictly NCUC point of view, we would rather put two people on the Council who really participate (and take responsibility for rounding up others for task forces, etc.) than have "three" representatives, one of whom is a phantom. Your mileage may vary. --MM p.s. Grant, I am shocked, shocked, to see you publicly disassociating yourself from the first-world, white anglo male caucus. What is the world coming to? (True, we honkeys could never agree on IPR protection, Whois, TLDs, at-large representation, and GNSO procedure. But our unified world-domination did extend to the selection of wine at Council dinners once in a while.)

1 0

RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP 13 Jul '03

13 Jul '03

Dear Councilors The issue of how a representative votes is not the same issue as the diversity of perspective which has gone into the development of a position. Constituencies are all very diverse in their perspectives. It may be that each of us thinks our own constituency is so unique that perhaps it is hard to understand the diversity of other constituencies. :-) But, recognizing each constituency has uniqueness and diversity within its membership is a place to start. Some consultations lead to positions within constituencies; these undoubtedly guide the votes of the elected representatives. Milton is right that there is a significant amount of work to be done. In fact, as we look ahead, our next year at ICANN will be a busy policy year, that is clear. The Business Constituency has found that having three elected reps familiar with the work of Council, and the rest of the work of ICANN, helps us to inform our members better about issues, and to work back into the constituency to ensure that they can comment on positions/policy as it is being developed, etc. We have additional concerns -- and strong ones, about diversity on many fronts. Reducing the number of representatives to two limits 1) geographic diversity for the constituencies 2) diversity of perspectives within the constancies 3) will undoubtedly affect gender diversity as well as cultural diversity Let me discuss 3 a bit more: So far, it has been easier, if I may speculate, and this is a visual observation, not a fact based one, to find Americans and Europeans who have been able to take on the work of the Council. We have all worked hard to ensure that we can also have our third representative from one of the other regions, and that has been very good for the Council, and for ICANN as a whole, to have the broadest possible participation in the work of Council. It is often a fact that both time and availability of resources means that within a constituency, those who can afford to take on Council work are from the most developed economies. But, by ensuring that one of the representatives is form a third region, the constituencies all do the due diligence needed to find someone interested, willing, and supportable by the constituency. And, if a constituency needs to support that third member's participation in some way, they are free to do that. To deny the constituencies the representative ness this represents sets the Council back, and sets ICANN back. It is tempting for others to want to impose a framework of their own comfort upon Council. That seems to be what the ERC and the Board have done. Whatever the rationale which the Board used in its deliberations, it was not a bottom up dialogue. Council has been functioning quite well in its work. The Board is NOT Council, and vice versa. There may come a time when the Council would itself make a decision which changes how representative ness, or representation is undertaken and make such a recommendation. I do not see that time as now, just as we enter the work phase of a reformed ICANN. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 6:05 PM To: council(a)dnso.org; Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2? While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per constituency. In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which we have rarely been able to generate regular and informed participation by all three GNSO Council members. We look forward with relief to the prospect of only needing two members to devote so much time to GNSO Council activities. But we believe the argument applies equally well to the other constituencies, because we note that in almost all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC, which is actually has the most diversified interests) all three representatives vote the same way. What, then, is the point of having three representatives? If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC, IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would feel differently about this. But the record shows that invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way regardless of what region they are from on every significant issue. --MM

1 0

RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
by Grant Forsyth 13 Jul '03

13 Jul '03

Milton Thanks for being frank in your personal view. It does not surprise me that all elected representatives of a constituency vote in the same way - hopefully in line with their constituency determined stand on an issue. For an elected member to vote against the policy position their constituency had decided to adopt, would likely be unacceptable to the constituency - regardless of the region the GNSO representative comes from. However, to focus simply on the voting on GNSO Council of constituency members misses the argument as to the desirability of the greater regional diversity that 3 versus 2 constituency representatives bring. In a well functioning constituency, the GNSO representatives perform a number of roles including bringing to the GNSO discussions their culturally diverse experiences, contributing that diversity to discussions, task forces and work groups and bringing back to their constituency their perspective - again, enriched by their particular diverse cultural experience - for discussion within the constituency in the process of determining a constituency policy position. Hopefully you have experienced this diversity and enriched perspective in the consultation that NCUC reps have engaged in between the matters and discussions of the GNSO Council and the NCUC constituency policy determination process? I for one, not withstanding that some on Council might wish to offensively "lump" me into a general category of "white middle class male", consider that my experiences are different to those of my NA and EU colleagues. I hope that my experiences, and those from others around the world, contribute value in the discussions that are held on Council. Besides the benefits of greater cultural diversity, the other major benefit of 3 versus 2 constituency reps, is the acknowledgement that for most of us ICANN is job in addition to our day jobs and hence we are quite constrained in the time that we can devote to ICANN. For that reason, having 2 rather than just 1 representative colleague to share the work and available for reflection on GNSO Council matters, is crucial. You can see that like Ken and others, I think this is an issue that needs to be given proper consideration by Council in sufficient time to be put before the Board to ensure that they can properly consider the issues and make a determination such that the individual constituency elections will not be disrupted through uncertainty. Bruce, I look forward to this being on the Council agenda - if not on 17 July, then at our next meeting. Regards Grant Forsyth Business Constituency Rep -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, 13 July, 2003 10:05 To: council(a)dnso.org; Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2? While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per constituency. In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which we have rarely been able to generate regular and informed participation by all three GNSO Council members. We look forward with relief to the prospect of only needing two members to devote so much time to GNSO Council activities. But we believe the argument applies equally well to the other constituencies, because we note that in almost all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC, which is actually has the most diversified interests) all three representatives vote the same way. What, then, is the point of having three representatives? If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC, IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would feel differently about this. But the record shows that invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way regardless of what region they are from on every significant issue. --MM

1 0