May 2004 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Proposed Budget
by Kurt Pritz 17 May '04

17 May '04

All: The ICANN Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2004-05 is being posted today at 4 PM Pacific time. See, http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may04.pdf. The budget, in its present form, is the product of comprehensive consultations with many constituencies, the Budget Advisory Group and the Board Finance Committee. We will continue to collect and consider commentary as we head toward adoption of the budget at the ICANN Board meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 23 July. Obviously, there is significant work to do. I and others at ICANN will appreciate any constructive commentary toward amending the budget in a way that will facilitate the acheivment of ICANN objectives. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read and consider the document. Please call or write with comments, questions or requests for clarification. Sincerely, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1.310.301.5809 (office) +1.818.903.8880 (cell)

1 0

RE: Reminder: 17/18 May "Approval process for registry changes pdp" teleconference
by Philip Sheppard 17 May '04

17 May '04

I am unlikely to be able to make this call. I give my proxy to Grant then Marilyn. I can say however that I am overall broadly in favour of the flow charts presented in the last version. Guiding principles for any further change (if proposed) should be: - is there an existing ICANN process that we can use here rather than inventing a new one? - is the process simple and easy to understand? - is there the right balance between consultation and speed / simplicity? Philip

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes,teleconference May 6, 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 15 May '04

15 May '04

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Please find the draft GNSO Council teleconference minutes for May 6, 2004 in html and plain text version. If you would like any changes made, please let me know. Thank you very much. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat **************************************************************************** ********************************* 06 May 2004. Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Greg Ruth - ISCPC - absent Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies, proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Lucy Nichols Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - ( joined after roll call) Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C.- absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk Woo Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Jisuk Woo Alick Wilson - absent Demi Getschko - absent Amadeu Abril I Abril 11 Council Members Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Young-Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call. Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2 - absent Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 Recording Quorum present at 12:10 UTC, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of Agenda Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of the April 1, 2004 minutes Deferred until GNSO Council teleconference, June 10, 2004. Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Brian Darville - status of constituency statements - next steps - possible recommendations Jeff Neuman, task force 1 chair's apologies for being absent were noted and a report was provided in which an extension in time was requested for the preliminary report. Tom Keller, in Jordyn Buchanan's, absence reported that the Whois task force 2 was making good progress but that at least another week was needed to complete the preliminary report. Brian Darville, task force 3 chair supported an extension and a deadline where all 3 task forces would produce reports at the same time. A substantive section of the report deals with recommendations addressing best practices and further work required on the issue. Bruce Tonkin had consulted with John Jeffrey and reported that if final recommendations were to be made before the ICANN meetings in Kuala Lumpur, the report would have to be submitted to the ICANN Board 45 days before the Board meeting. He proposed extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to the end of May , followed by the prescribed public comment period so that in early July the reports could be updated in response to the public comments and presented to the GNSO Council for consideration at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed: That the Whois task forces' timing for producing their first reports be extended to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting be scheduled for 2 weeks time. The motion carried unanimously Decision 1: The deadline for the submission of preliminary reports for the three Whois task forces be extended to May 28, 2004 and that a joint task force meeting take place before the deadline. Item 3: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin) Bruce Tonkin gave a high level summary of questions he had discussed with John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel. 1. The approval process: In the approval process did the ICANN Board need to approve a change or could the ICANN staff approve the change directly? The key question for ICANN staff would be "is the contractual change a material change?" A material change would require ICANN Board approval. In most of the instances involving a Quick Look Process or Detailed Review Process, where competition or technical advice is required, a contractual change is likely to require the ICANN Board's approval. The staff would be able to give approval to a proposal which was consistent with a clear existing ICANN policy or consistent with a previous Board decision. What sort of notice did the ICANN Board require to make a decision? Notice of a motion would be put out 45 days prior to the Board meeting, with 30 Days for public comment. The public comment would be summarized and included with the Board motion and presented to the Board members at least two weeks before the Board meeting. 2. The criteria for evaluation: It was Counsel's opinion that all the criteria could be framed under the headings: a. Technical - would the change affect the stability, interoperability or security of the Internet b. Competition - would the change have an impact on competition in the general sense. The criteria discussed by the Council in Rome could all be included as guidelines of issues for ICANN staff to consider when reviewing technical or competition aspects of the proposed change. 3. Appeals process Counsel felt that the reconsideration process in the existing bylaws would apply. There were already several processes in place, such as the dispute resolution provisions in the registry agreements, the reconsideration process in the ICANN bylaws, and the court of law under which the jurisdiction for the contracts fell and other mechanisms. Adding yet another appeal process would not add much value. Bruce Tonkin proposed updating the diagrams of 5 May, 2004, to explicitly include the ICANN Board approval step as well as the timing factor and inviting General Counsel to participate in a GNSO Council committee teleconference on the Policy Development Process for the approval process for gTLD registry changes. Item 5: Re-assignment of .net Receive an update from the .net Council subcommittee Philip Sheppard, .net Council subcommittee chair, reported that there had been a few teleconferences and mailing list exchanges in which all the subcommittee members had participated, Commercial and Business Users Constituency: Philip Sheppard Noncommercial Users Constituency: Marc Schneiders Registrars Constituency: Ross Rader gTLD Registries Constituency: Cary Karp Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: Lucy Nichols The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency: Tony Holmes ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council: Thomas Roessler The first draft report listed the criteria to be considered under 6 headings: 1. Criteria related to the targeting of the domain Dot net should remain un-sponsored. Dot net should remain un-chartered. 2. Criteria relating to stability: technical and financial competence The current .net registry agreement; efficiency and reliability, a baseline for the functional capabilities and performance specifications to handle potential migration issues, name service resolution time should not exceed the current time for existing .net name service resolution and the minimum financial stability should be required. 3. Criteria related to promotion of competition Maximization of consumer choice, pricing, innovation and new services should be considered. 4. Criteria related to existing registry services such as the pending Verisign wait list service, the redemption grace period and the migration of the test-bed internationalised domain names. Applicants should be asked "Does the applicant wish to maintain all existing registry services?" If yes, please provide specifics and demonstrate the technical and legal ability of the registry to maintain existing services. If no, please expand on any issues relating to the withdrawal of such services. 5.Continuity Grand fathering where existing registrants should not be penalised by changes in policy as a result of this process and should be entitled to maintain their registrations on terms materially consistent with their existing contracts under current policy, including the right to transfer a .net domain to another party. 6. Policy compliance Consensus policies of ICANN, both existing (UDRP, WHOIS, Deletes, Transfers etc), and any which are developed via the ICANN process in the future should be complied with by the registry operator. Policy development Policy development for .net should continue to take place in an open bottom-up process and all registrars that have qualified to operate as .net registrars, must be treated equitably by the registry operator. Bruce Tonkin cautioned that transparency was important and Cary Karp and Ken Stubbs suggested adding a disclaimer: "DRAFT report from the .net sub-committee in preparation for submission to the GNSO Council" on each page of the draft report . For the next meeting, Bruce Tonkin requested an audio record. The aim is to present the Final .net report to the GNSO Council at the June 6, 2004 teleconference. Item 6: Any Other Business 1. Update on ICANN staff support for the GNSO Council Bruce Tonkin reported that Paul Verhoef, mentioned that a full time GNSO Policy Officer position would be advertised in August, once the new budget was approved by the ICANN Board, and until then, there would be no full time support. It would be impossible to meet the ICANN bylaws' timelines and this should be made clear to the ICANN Board and the community. Marilyn Cade reminded Council that the Board's approval was needed to change the policy development process timelines. Grant Forsyth urged Council to communicate to Paul Verhoef that not only was it being put in the invidious position of trying to run a policy development process without the necessary resources but that the global expectations of ICANN as a whole were seriously threatened given that a full time GNSO support was noted as a crucial function in the reform process and that the organization had filled and created other positions ahead of what was clearly identified during the reform discussions,. Marilyn Cade commented that ICANN's legitimacy was based on the policy development process which was a shared responsibility and essential in assuring that ICANN remained the place where technical coordination, management of the key technical aspects and indicators of the Internet were undertaken, particularly given the concerns and even offers from other organizations to undertake some of the work. Philip Sheppard suggested finding out where the CEO's priorities lay in terms of staffing as a basis for discussion. Bruce Tonkin proposed giving immediate feedback to Paul Verhoef that the GNSO Council felt that they could not wait till August to replace the policy officer and called for a small group of volunteers to seek a solution with senior ICANN staff. Marilyn Cade mentioned that a WSIS update was being planned for Kuala Lumpur in a timeframe allowing everyone, including the GAC to attend. Bruce Tonkin reported discussions with a ccTLD representative about joint meetings in Kuala Lumpur to discuss internationalised domain names and Tuesday morning of the GNSO Council meeting was proposed as an initial schedule. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 12:54 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference on June 10, 2004, at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar

1 0

Council Meeting Clarification
by Kurt Pritz 07 May '04

07 May '04

All: First, allow me this opportunity to apologize for missing the call earlier today. I planned to attend then was unable to at the last minute. I listened to the recording of the meeting and wish to offer a clarification and an explanation. STAFF SUPPORT Regarding the hiring of staff support, Bruce reported that ICANN will hire a GNSO Policy Officer in August. While this is true, I believe that it was not made clear that this position is in addition to the existing position of GNSO Staff Manager. While Barbara will be stepping out of that role, she will continue in the staff manager position until a replacement is found. That search is underway. As manager of the budget, I will coordinate with Paul Verhoef so that we can begin the search for the Policy Officer position earlier so that the new position can be filled coincident with the adoption of the new budget. Paul Twomey, Paul Verhoef and I are in active discussion to ensure better support of the GNSO process - it is a top priority for us. ICANN BUDGET During the call, the proposed ICANN budget was also discussed. Concern was voiced that some of the appropriate reviews had not yet occurred. In accordance with the original plan, ICANN will consult with the Budget Advisory Group and others prior to the posting of the budget. During the time since the Rome meeting, Paul Twomey and I have been (and are) in extensive consultations with many constituency members, discussing alternative funding and spending proposals. Through that process, we have learned much about the business models of different stakeholders. ICANN's evolving revenue model is an attempt to better match revenue sources to spending beneficiaries, develop predictable fees for various stakeholders over a longer period, and develop new sources of revenue. The result of this work is a budget that differs in many ways from those in past years. The budget will enable significant improvements in staff support for the GNSO as well as other ICANN undertakings. This collaboration has built a sense of team across various parts of the community and the ICANN staff. While extremely positive and beneficial, in hindsight I would have conducted the process somewhat differently. While developing a consensus to support the budget, posting the preliminary budget was somewhat delayed. Therefore, the budget will not be available for review as a posted document as early as in past years. (ICANN will still make time for public comment and will incorporate those comments in changes to the proposed budget as required.) In hindsight, these extensive consultations should have begun earlier. Absent that, perhaps the "work-in-progress" budget could have been posted with the understanding that revenue models and spending plans could change significantly. The point to be made is the time spent on budget discussions heretofore was employed with the goal of supporting the community in a way that has been, up to now, impossible due to resource constraints. Having gone through that process, ICANN will proceed with appropriate reviews prior to and after posting. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider this. In an effort to improve my personal support of the organization, I will work with Bruce to develop a mechanism to provide periodic updates regarding ICANN staff activities. As mentioned above, I will also work to ensure there are significant improvements in the level of staff support as soon as is practicable. Please call or write with comments, questions or request for clarification. Sincerely, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1.310.301.5809 (office) +1.818.903.8880 (cell)

1 0

Whois task force reports extension, Friday MAY 28, 2004 & joint meeting
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 06 May '04

06 May '04

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: DOW1tf[at]gnso.icann.org;DOW2tf[at]gnso.icann.org;DOW3tf[at]gnso.icann.org; At the GNSO Council teleconference, held on May 6, 2004 a motion was approved extending the deadline for producing the Whois task force preliminary reports to MAY 28 and that a joint Whois task force meeting be scheduled for two weeks time. Please indicate as soon as possible whether Wednesday 19 May at 5:00 Honolulu, 8:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 EST, 15:00 UTC, 17:00 CET. would be an appropriate date and time for the joint task force meeting. Thank you very much, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference, May 6, 2004, MP3 recording
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 06 May '04

06 May '04

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on May 6, 2004 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20040506.mp3 (there are some silent patches at the beginning) Happy listening! GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reducing echo on the conference call
by Bruce Tonkin 06 May '04

06 May '04

Hello All, As we are quite a large group, the chances of hearing echos on the teleconference line increase. If you choose to use a speaker phone, please also mute the line when you are not speaking. Entering touch-tone no.6 will turn mute on/off. Also if you are calling from a cellphone/mobilephone, please mute the line when you are not speaking. This will help make the discussion easier to hear. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Report from WHOIS task force 1
by Bruce Tonkin 05 May '04

05 May '04

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Chair, WHOIS Task Force 1 I believe that we are making good progress. We have a really good start on a preliminary report, however, it has become evident that we will need a few more weeks to complete the report. The latest version of the report can be found at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1tf/msg00131.html. Another draft should be posted shortly. One thing I did want to mention is that the Preliminary Report will have a number of questions that we would like to see comment on and/or areas that need to be further explored (either by our Task Force or by another one of the Council). As you can imagine many of the issues are extremely controversial and which have divided the Task Force among constituency lines. However, I believe the report will be an unbiased presentation of all of the relevant sides. In sum, I would like to propose a few additional weeks to complete the report. I have spoken with Jordyn from Task Force 2 and I believe they are in a similar position. Please let us know as soon as possible.

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes April 1, 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT 04 May '04

04 May '04

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the last GNSO Council meeting held on April 1, 2004 in text and html version. If you would like any changes to be made, please contact me. Thank you very much, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat **************************************************************************** ************************************* 01 April 2004. Proposed agenda and related documents 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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies, proxy to Greg Ruth Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies, proxy to Ross Rader Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marc Schneiders Alick Wilson Demi Getschko - absent Amadeu Abril I Abril 17 Council Members Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Kurt Pritz - ICANN Vice President, Business Operations Paul Verhoef - Vice President Policy Development Support Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Christopher Wilkinson - Alternate GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison The WHOIS Task Force Chairs were asked to join the call. Jordyn Buchanan - Whois Task Force 2 Jeff Neuman - WHOIS Task Force 1 Chair absent - apologies Brian Darville - WHOIS Task Force 3 Chair absent Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP 3 recording Quorum present at 20:08 UTC, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of Agenda Marilyn Cade added a request to discuss the importance of staff support for the new gTLD issue. Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of the March 3 minutes : Ken Stubbs, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the March 3 minutes The motion was carried. Amadeu Abril I Abril and Lucy Nichols abstained. Decision 1: Minutes of the March 3 meeting adopted. Item 3: Update on WHOIS task forces Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Brian Darville - status of constituency statements - next steps - possible recommendations Jordyn Buchanan, task force 2 chair, on data collection and display, reported that the task force appeared to be on the same timeline as the other task forces and requested an additional 10 day extension for receiving the constituency statements. The due day for constituency statements, March 29 was past and only one statement from the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) had been received which delayed the task force in meeting the deadline for the preliminary report on April 19. Limited input had been received during the data collection process, but substantial data from other sources was available. Since the policy development process does not take data gathering into account, the constituency statements would not benefit from the data gathered, however it was hoped that there would be a significant input of data during the public comment period and that the final report might differ from the preliminary report. The task force was running pretty close to the extended schedule despite the delays. Jeff Neuman, task force 1 chair, being absent Bruce Tonkin read his report, stating that task force 1 had only received 7 or 8 responses to the questionnaire that was sent out in February and constituency statements from only two constituencies, viz. At Large Advisory Committee, Noncommercial Users and Intellectual Property and none from the gTLD Registries, Registrars, Business or Internet Service Providers Constituencies. He said that it would be difficult to have a Preliminary Report by April 9, 2004. In summary, progress was being made, there were some preliminary recommendations but they believed that drafting the report would take more time and requested whether the due date for the Preliminary Report could be moved out a few weeks. Ross Rader, in Brian Darville's, absence reported on task force 3, data accuracy, saying lack of data was the primary concern, but that 3 or 4 constituency statements had been received and some had been sent back to the constituencies for further refinement. He was optimistic that there could be a preliminary report by April 9, 2004. Barbara Roseman suggested that an extra two weeks would be helpful in allowing constituencies to submit statements. Marilyn Cade commented that the policy development process was still a learning process and had not been field tested, so concern was expressed that there would not be adequate time for the public comment period if the constituency statement period were extended. A time extension would not affect the specified 20 public comment period. The task forces were urged to proceed with writing the preliminary reports whether or not the constituency statements had been received. Marc Schneiders commented that the Noncommercial Users Constituency, composed of volunteers, usually endeavored to meet deadlines which should not be prolonged each time as it appeared that there was a lack of interest in the issue, but urged all constituencies to make the same effort. Marilyn Cade, speaking for the Commercial and Business Users Constituency, said they were making an active effort to develop input, they were working on a draft report that was being brought to closure, and the fact that people were extremely busy, all volunteers and doing their best for policy development should not be characterized as being a lack of interest. Barbara Roseman urged constituencies to submit any draft statements for the task forces to work on and if voting in the constituency would change the statement, the task forces would take that into consideration. Bruce Tonkin agreed with Marc Schneiders that in future timelines should be improved. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marc Schneiders proposed a motion extending the deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces to APRIL 16, 2004, and extending the deadline for the preliminary reports to MAY 6, 2004. The motion carried unanimously Decision 2: The deadline for the submission of constituency statements to the three Whois task forces extended to APRIL 16, 2004 and the deadline for the Preliminary Reports extended to MAY 6, 2004. Item 4: Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes Receive an update from the GNSO Committee chair (Bruce Tonkin) Bruce Tonkin reported that the Council Policy Development Process committee for the approval process for gtld registry changes met on March 29, 2004. 1. Some minor changes to diagram 1, diagram 2 and diagram 3 were proposed and 2. Scheduling a teleconference with General Counsel, around the selection criteria, developed during the Rome meeting, -- to have input on which of these were in or out of the scope of ICANN's mission, to have wording that could be used a legal base -- to clarify whether the Board should approve changes in contracts and if so, the public comment periods should be aligned to prevent duplication -- to have clarity on the Reconsideration and Review mechanisms in the ICANN bylaws. Philip Sheppard, absent during the call, enquired how the gTLD registries constituency, viewed the process which appeared to move forward in a spirit of consensus and agreement. Ken Stubbs commented that there was agreement on the framework, but staff support was needed to ensure that the suggestions and proposed wording were practical from a legal stand point and that a process motivating free and open communication between the registry and ICANN should be encouraged while time lines and confidentiality caused concern. It was proposed that Barbara Roseman formulate the questions and post them to John Jeffrey with a copy to the reg-com mailing list and a call be set up during the week beginning April 12, 2004. Item 5: Re-assignment of .net - recommend establish a subcommittee of the Council - establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN staff manager) - review Namescouncil recommendations with respect to .org - collect constituency statements Bruce Tonkin reported that Paul Verhoef, in a letter, had formally requested the GNSO Council to consider the .net reassignment. Kurt Pritz stated that there were weekly meetings at ICANN in Marina del Rey to discuss the .net succession plan. The goal was to publish the process for selecting a registry operator by June 30, 2004 and it would include the GNSO effort which would have to be accomplished rapidly but could be after June 30, 2004. The scope of the GNSO was to develop criteria for independent evaluators to use in deciding who the registry operator should be. Bruce Tonkin stated that the .org statement made by the DNSO Names Council on 17 January 2002 could be a useful starting point but the focus of .dot org would be slightly different from that of .net. Council had 3 options how to handle the situation: 1. Council committee as a whole 2. Council sub committee formed by one representative per constituency on the GNSO council 3. Initiate a policy development process and form a task force Grant Forsyth asked how the GNSO Council contribution would it be considered if it was delivered after June 30, 2004. Dan Halloran explained that on day X the draft proposal, which would include mention of criteria proposed by the GNSO, would be published but in fact the criteria could be submitted at a later date. Marc Schneiders commented that as price was important, any process should take criteria for offering services at a lower price into consideration. Kurt Pritz, responding to the tender date, said that at least 9 months was foreseen which would include the GNSO process, 3 months solicitation, 3 months evaluation, 3 months negotiations and awards and transition period. Christopher Wilkinson excused himself and dropped off the call Suzanne Sene, for the Government Advisory Committee, (GAC) commented that the GAC had recently created a new GNSO working group which combined the gTLD and Whois working groups and she would convey the .net reassignment question to the group for their input. Bruce Tonkin proposed forming a sub committee of the GNSO Council, with 1 representative per constituency of the Council, to review the .org material, draft a set of terms/conditions and criteria for .net consistent with the ICANN mission and core values, seeking constituency input via the mailing lists and having a draft report for consideration by the Council at its May 6 meeting with the final report to meet the June 30, 2004 deadline. By April 9, 2004, Council members should have notified the GNSO secretariat of the constituency representatives and a meeting would take place in the week beginning April 12, 2004. There was general support for a sub-committee of the GNSO Council with the possible inclusion of experts on the committee. Item 6: new gtlds - establish list of issues to consider and terms of reference (via ICANN staff manager) - collect constituency statements - consider establishing a task force >From the MOU with the US Dept of Commerce: "Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of: a. The potential impact of new TLDs 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. Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004)." Marilyn Cade reminded the participants that the purpose of the GNSO Council was to develop and advise on policy related to gTLDs and that the ICANN Board had, via a resolution, indicated intent to move forward on examining the process which would guide this. She suggested that Council consult the Board guidelines and the MOU and establish a process which would fulfill its responsibilities and develop the appropriate policy to guide the ICANN Board. Paul Verhoef suggested that Council members address specific issues to himself or the the ICANN Staff Manager, Barbara Roseman within the next two weeks so that they could be included in an Issues Report. Bruce Tonkin suggested aiming for a short issues report (following Philip Sheppard's guidelines) on new gTLDs for the July ICANN meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 22:20 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference on May 6, 2004, at 12:00 UTC see: Calendar

1 0

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting 6 May 2004
by Bruce Tonkin 03 May '04

03 May '04

Hello All, The draft agenda mostly consists of getting a status update from the various policy development processes underway. Apologies for the late agenda. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Agenda for Council meeting 6 May 2004, 12:00 UTC (10pm Melbourne, 1pm London, 8am Washington, 5am Los Angeles) Item 1: Approval of minutes of last meeting - 1 April 2004 - Actions arising Item 2: Update on WHOIS task forces (30 mins) Receive an update from the WHOIS task force chairs - status of constituency statements - next steps - possible recommendations Item 3:Update on PDP for approval process for gtld registry changes (5 mins) Item 4: Re-assignment of .net (30 minutes) Receive an update from the .net Council subcommittee Item 5: Any other business

1 0