Dear All,
Please find a text and html version of the draft minutes for the GNSO
Council teleconference held on 9 September 2004.
If you would like any changes made, please let me know.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
*********************************************
9 September 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
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent
Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip
Colebrook/Cary Karp
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/Jisuk Woo
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril
16 Council Members
Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager
Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison
Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretariat - absent - apologies
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Jeff Neuman - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair - absent, apologies
Jordyn Buchanan - Task force 1 & 2 combined - Co-chair - absent
Brian Darville - Task Force 3 Chair - absent
Michael Palage - ICANN Board (GNSO seat 14) - observer
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 Recording
Quorum present at 12:09 UTC,
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
Item 1: Approval of Agenda
Agenda approved
Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 19 August 2004
Tony Holmes moved the adoption of the Minutes of 19 August 2004.
The motion carried.
Abstentions noted: Niklas Lagergren, Alick Wilson, Amadeu Abril l Abril,
Marc Schneiders.
Decision 1: The Minutes of 19 August 2004 were adopted
Item 3: Draft Initial Report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering
requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in
the architecture operation of a gTLD registry.
As an action arising from the GNSO teleconference on August 19 2004, a
meeting took place with the registry constituency, Kurt Pritz, and Bruce
Tonkin to identify and improve timelines.
Philip Colebrook reported that the registry constituency needed more
timeline specificity from a business point of view.
Bruce Tonkin referring to the approval timelines sent to the reg-com mailing
list, summarized the timelines for the Quick Look Process:
the first step in the quick look process, would be ICANN's General Counsel
determining whether approval would be required: estimated time 7 days.
If approval were required, ICANN would commence the Quick Look Process, part
of which would be ICANN staff assessing the impact of the change with regard
to security, stability and competition and obtaining expert outside advice:
estimated time 14 days.
Then ICANN would draft a report to which the Registry operator would have 7
days to correct inaccuracies and respond followed by 7 days for ICANN to
produce the final assessment.
Thus ICANN's total assessment period would be 30 days.
If Board approval were required because of a material change to the
contract, it would follow the normal Board processes: publication on the
ICANN website in advance of the Board meeting, public comment on the
proposal and Board decision: estimated time that 45 days.
Total period of 80 days.
If a Board decision were required, part of the information could be provided
to the public and overlap with the public comment period.
Kurt Pritz pointed out that the 30 and 45 day periods ran in parallel. In
addition he emphasized that the aim was to create a partnership between
ICANN and the registries to facilitate the development or implementation of
such services and foster competition rather than the mechanics of creating a
worst case timeline which could be met with regularity. He suggested that
appropriate language should explain that the process could start early on in
the development of new services and ICANN could keep proprietary information
proprietary while working towards getting approval of the process.
It was suggested that the registrar notice periods could start from the
beginning of the public comment periods when the registry operator announced
the intent to offer a new service.
In response to the question, under what circumstances would the Board decide
to place hold action following a reconsideration request it was suggested
that case histories be built up to assess the issue as there was no previous
evidence of similar situations.
The registry would be in control of when the public comment period would
commence because ICANN approval could be an incentive for the registry to
publicize the service as early as possible.
Bruce Tonkin commented that the focus had been on the Quick Look Process
under the expectations that if the registry operator were working closely
with ICANN in the early stages of discussing a potential change, the change
would be constructed in such a way that it was likely to get approved rather
than require a detailed review. The detailed review process was longer due
to more extensive public comment periods.
The Registry constituency raised the issue that the criteria were fairly
loose for making a decision.
Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be difficult for the Council as a
committee to reach consensus on detail at this stage. Discussion in Rome
suggested criteria that have been incorporated and more detail could overly
constrain both ICANN and the registry operator in moving the service
forward.
Barbara Roseman gave feedback from multiple ICANN staff discussions:
1. Stressing ICANN's cooperation and partnership to get new services
established rather than trying to stop new services and initiatives.
2. Consider language in the report to clearly differentiate between
obligations and best practices with regard to ICANN and the registry .
3. Steps 1 & 2 in the Quick Look Process should be clearly stated in the
Detailed Review Section where they are presently omitted.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Lucy Nichols proposed that:
The ICANN staff will prepare a revised draft of the report that addresses
the issues discussed during the teleconference on September 9, 2004 and the
revised draft would be produced by the 24 September 2004. The revised draft
will be posted for review by the Council members and if there are no
substantial objections to that draft, the aim would be to publish the
revised draft of the initial report on Monday, 4 October 2004.
The motion was unanimously approved by the GNSO Council.
Decision 2: The ICANN staff will prepare a revised draft of the report that
addresses the issues discussed during the teleconference on September 9,
2004 and the revised draft would be produced by the 24 September 2004. The
revised draft will be posted for review by the Council members and if there
are no substantial objections to that draft, the aim would be to publish the
revised draft of the initial report on Monday, 4 October 2004.
Item 4: Update on process for new gtlds
Paul Verhoef reported that the issue was advancing, there were deadlines to
meet and it was becoming clear from internal discussions that it was a heavy
item on the joint agendas as it involved a large part of the community
including the GNSO, ccNSO, Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and others.
Everybody should agree on what should be done.
Currently a document, calling for proposals for a process to be taken as the
strategy for determining the selection procedures for the new gTLDs, was
being finalized to meet the September 31, 2004 deadline.
The parameters/dimensions included:
1. What were the issues?
New TLDs but what type of gTLD s,
How to select an allocation mechanism,
What criteria for evaluating proposals,
2 Analysis of reports
3. Precise steps for community involvement: what stage, policy development
process or public consultations, possible policy development process run in
parallel with the ccNSO.
4. Timelines as set forth in the in the Memorandum of Understanding, a
realistic process with sufficient time for discussion, including Board
approvals.
Paul Verhoef suggested that a useful start would be a public comment period,
as soon as possible, on the two available reports:
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
Summit Strategies International (Miriam Shapiro)
The deadline for releasing the document on the strategy implementation plan
will be September 31 2004.
The new strategy would not impact the 10 current proposals for new gTLDS.
Further reports could be expected from the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) in its expert role of Intellectual Property authority
and from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).
Marilyn Cade commented that it was important to have further consultation on
timelines based on Council's experience with the unrealistic timelines built
into the initial policy development process.
Kurt Pritz, responding to a request from Marilyn Cade, said that it was
intended to post all reports and relevant material on the gTLD process in a
single area on the ICANN website.
Item 5: Update on joint Whois
Barbara Roseman, in the absence of the Whois task force chairs, reported
that there had been no further task force meetings but that a graphic
representation assignment of the work outlined in the joint Task Force
discussion on August 3, 2004 had been posted to the joint Whois task force 1
and 2 list.
Whois joint task force 1 and 2 have a meeting, with an agenda posted on the
website, scheduled for 14 September 2004 and Whois task force 3, no agenda,
scheduled for 15 September 2004
Item 6: Any Other Business
Bruce Tonkin enquired from Kurt Pritz about progress with recruitment in
general.
ICANN would be posting positions regarding contractual compliance where a
more proactive program was being implemented given the resources of the new
budget and as well as other positions in lines with the initiatives that
were set up in the budget documents.
Barbara Roseman responded in place of Paul Verhoef who unexpectedly dropped
off the call, on progress in recruiting for the GNSO policy position saying
that Paul Verhoef was reviewing the applications for the different support
positions, a couple of candidates had been identified and the search had
been broadened internationally as it was hoped to fill some positions in
Brussels and some in Marina del Rey.
Bruce Tonkin repeated the request that some GNSO Council members would like
to be involved in the selection process.
Marilyn Cade reported that the resolution to modify the policy development
process timelines would be discussed with Paul Verhoef and ICANN staff for a
resolution at the next Council meeting to be considered at the ICANN Board
meeting in Cape Town.
Marilyn Cade asked ICANN staff what the position was with the report on the
performance of the GNSO Council that Dr. Paul Twomey had retained a
consultant, Dr. Liz Williams, to prepare. Marilyn requested that the report
be shared with Council for purposes of its self-review and on the issue of 2
or 3 representatives per constituency, for Board consideration at ICANN's
annual meeting in 2004, as required in the bylaws, section 4 paragraph 2.
Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for
participating.
The meeting ended: 13:00 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference will be held on Thursday 21 October 2004 at
12:00 UTC
see: Calendar
