January 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] re proposed resolution for issues report on deleted names
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 7, 2005

Jan. 7, 2005

Hello All, I recommend de-coupling the "selling" of names in the secondary market, from registration of domain name agreements at the registry. Being more specific, when names are "sold", the name itself is not being sold. The registrant does not "own" a domain name. What is being sold is a right-to-use a name for a specific period. This right is expressed via a registration agreement between the registrant and the registrar. The term of that right and the associated name is recorded in the registry (in a thick registry the holder of that right is also recorded), along with the registrar responsible for that record. When a registrant sells a name to another registrant, they are transferring the registration agreement. To continue to hold that right, the current registrant must renew the agreement with the registrar, and the registrar records that renewal in the registry. The "primary" market could be described as the transactions between the registrar and the registry, on behalf of registrants. The "secondary" market could be described as transactions between registrants (often facilitated by a registrar or other third party organisations). Generally the market has already developed many models for facilitating transactions between registrants in the secondary market, and I don't believe that this is an issue requiring input from the GNSO. The issue that was discussed in the workshop in Cape Town was specifically dealing with the stability issues associated with multiple registrars contending for a name that has value well above the typical registry fee charged to the registrar. This contention can occur when a new names are released when a new gtld is created, and also when a name becomes available after the previous registrant ceases their agreement. The secondary market is relevant only in that it is able to provide a measure of the market value of a particular domain name agreement. Thus I recommend re-wording the resolution proposed by Philip Sheppard to: Draft resolution Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of their registrants to register specific domain names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.

2 1

Elections of GNSO Council members
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 7, 2005

Jan. 7, 2005

Hello All, Just a reminder that the terms of some Council members expired on 5 Dec 2004. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml Constituencies should ensure that any necessary elections are held as soon as possible, and notify the ICANN Secretary and GNSO Secretariat of the results. I will ask for an update on progress at the Council meeting next week. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Effects of expiry date, auto-renew, cancel and the delete policy on the transfer of names between registrants
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 7, 2005

Jan. 7, 2005

Hello All, Further to my previous email, there is an area in the registration agreement lifecycle where status of agreements and hence the processes for transfer between registrants is less clear. A registrant has a registration agreement with the registrar, which gives the registrant a right to use the domain name for a period from the creation date through to the expiry date. The registrar registers this agreement with the registry, and the registry provides a DNS service associated with the domain name for the period of the agreement. A registrar may explicitly renew a domain name agreement prior to expiry by adding 1 or more years to the agreement term on behalf of the registrant. Most of the gtld registries employ an "auto-renew" process, on the expiry date. This has the benefit of ensuring that a domain name continues to receive DNS services (good for stability), until a registrar explicitly "cancels" the domain name. Some registries immediately charge a registrar for an additional year of registration at the time of this auto-renew process, but provide a refund for this fee, if the registrar cancels the name prior to the end of an "auto-renew" grace period (typically 45 days). Other registries only charge the registrar at the end of the grace period. The deletes policy (http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htm ) specifies that: "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." Thus if the registrant doesn't eventually consent to the renewal, then the name should be cancelled. Some registrars and resellers do have a standing consent via an auto-renew in their agreements (ie the registrar or reseller will typically hold a credit card, and charge against this card at the time of renewal). During the auto-renew grace period, it is not clear what rights the original registrant has in the name. There is a large range of different business processes used by registrars in this period (including removing the name from the gtld zonefile by putting the name on registrar hold, re-directing the traffic from the name, and putting up a parked webpage). A registrant would need to carefully read their registration agreement with their registrar to determine their rights. Recently some registrars have begun to facilitate a transfer of the domain name between registrants during the auto-renew grace period, if they have not received an explicit renewal from the original registrant. Presumably in this scenario, they transfer the licence between registrants, and then renew the name (effectively this means that they do not cancel the renewal at the registry, and they establish a new registration agreement with the new registrant). The consent for this process seems to be handled via terms in the original registration agreement (which can often be changed at any time, by posting on a website). ICANN issued an advisory around this process on 21 September 2004: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21sep04-1.htm While there has been some concern from members in the industry about this new practice, there does not seem to be any negative consumer reaction, and the legal structures for the processes are mainly handled via terms in the agreement between the registrar and registrants. I have not yet heard any security and stability issues, which would be the responsibility of ICANN, raised by the various business practices described above. There are issues of consumer education, and ensuring that registrants fully understand what agreements they enter into, and ensuring that they make informed decisions when selecting a registrar. It seems more the role of consumer protection organisations to assist in educating the registrant community. Perhaps ICANN and the GNSO can assist with providing authoritative information on the policies and processes of domain name registration to these organisations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2005

Jan. 6, 2005

Hello All, Please find below a draft agenda for a Council meeting on 13 Jan. The timing of the meeting is to ensure we can coordinate a response to the GNSO Council external review by 24 Jan 2005. Happy New Year! Regards, Bruce Tonkin Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005 NOTE CHANGE IN TIME FOR MEETING FOR NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER TIME Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes Item 2: Response to GNSO Council external review (the public comment period is due to complete on 24 January 2005) http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf Item 3: Update on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture and operation of a gTLD registry. Item 4: Update on WHOIS task forces Item 5: ICANN strategic plan (comment period 28 Feb 2005) Regards, Bruce Tonkin

6 9

GNSO Council draft minutes CT meeting 3 Dec. 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Jan. 6, 2005

Jan. 6, 2005

Dear Councillors, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Cape Town on 3 December 2004, attached in html and in plain text version. If there are any changes that you would like made, please let me know. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat 3 December 2004. Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C. Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. - remote participation- proxy to Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries - remote participation - proxy to Ken Stubbs Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies - proxy to Kiyoshi Tsuru/Niklas Lagergren Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Robin Gros - Non Commercial Users C. Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C. - remote participation, proxy to Alick Wilson/Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial Users C. Alick Wilson - absent - apologies - proxy to Amadeu Abril i Abril Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril 16 Council Members Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations - absent - apologies John Jeffrey - General Counsel - absent - apologies Vittorio Bertola - acting ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Suzanna Sene - GAC Liaison -absent - apologies Real Time Captioning Quorum present at 10:40 local time, Bruce Tonkin chaired the meeting. Bruce Tonkin welcomed the new Non Commercial Users Constituency representative, Robin Gross. Item 0: Approval of Agenda Item 1: Approve the minutes of : GNSO Council teleconference 18 November 2004 Deferred to the next GNSO Council meeting Item 2: Update on Draft initial report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture and operation of a gTLD registry. Bruce Tonkin reported that the report had been reviewed by ICANN staff and in their analysis over 80% of the requests were simple, with two in particular that were more complex. A copy of the staff analysis is available at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registry-services/L-PDP-registry-services-ver3- 28nov04.pdf Bruce Tonkin will update the draft initial report to take into account this staff input and present to the Council committee for review. Item 3: Update on WHOIS Bruce Tonkin reported that the Whois task force 1 & 2 had developed consensus around two positions: 1. Recommendations relating to improving notification and consent for the use of contact data in the Whois system. 2. A Procedure for conflicts, when there are conflicts between a registrar's of registry's legal obligations under local privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN. The GNSO constituencies were required to further consider the recommendations for review. The next step was to develop an initial report based on these recommendations which would include constituency impact statements and financial impacts before putting out the recommendations for the first public comment period. The WHOIS task force 3, relating to accuracy, met a couple of times in Cape Town and the focus was on a standardized procedure for when a registrar received a complaint, the steps that the registrar would take to resolve that complaint, and as well as considering what to do when it was necessary to respond quickly on an issue that might impact security or stability associated with a particular domain name. The next step was to provide an initial report which would be put out for public comment, and the aim would be to have some concrete recommendations by the Mar del Plata meeting in Argentina. Item 4: Discussion of recommendation from ICANN staff to Board on WIPO-II recommendations Paul Verhoef referred to the letter and annex from WIPO and stated that a middle ground should be sought to move forward. Philip Sheppard, a member of the President's working group on WIPO, responded that there were three options open: - to do nothing - to amend the existing trademark UDRP in such a way as to accommodate country names and international organization names, albeit in slightly different ways - the creation of one, perhaps two completely separate dispute resolution processes which would accommodate the WIPO request. The complexity of the issue has to do with the fundamental difference between the two processes whereby the existing UDRP had always worked on the basis that if either party did not like the outcome of the UDRP they could resolve the issue in court. Bruce Tonkin concluded that the Council was in monitoring mode, seeking what the public comments would be and identifying if there would be a middle ground suitable for refinement via a policy development process. Item 5: GNSO Council self-review - motion to vote for approval of self-review document Philip Sheppard seconded by Cary Karp and Kiyoshi Tsuru proposed the motion: Council resolves to forward draft 2.2 of the council's self-review within 7 days to Patrick Sharry unless substantive changes are received to the report from council members, in which case it may necessary to reconsider a new draft and a new council meeting to vote on the report. Motion passed unanimously Decision 1: Council resolves to forward draft 2.2 of the council's self-review within 7 days to Patrick Sharry unless substantive changes are received to the report from council members, in which case it may necessary to reconsider a new draft and a new council meeting to vote on the report. Bruce Tonkin referred to the issue of two versus three representatives per constituency, where, at the 2003 annual meeting, the board was requested to provide an extension of one year of the three representatives while the GNSO review, part of the ICANN bylaws, was conducted. The council wished to request a further extension of that ruling until the meeting in Argentina, which would give adequate time for the public to comment on the review and adequate time for ICANN to draft changes and put those changes out for public comment. Bruce Tonkin clarified that General Counsel's feedback on the motion before the Council was that the ICANN Board would prefer to have a date on an issue they were to approve, but if that date became a problem, Council would seek a further extension at that time. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Tom Keller, proposed the following motion with a nominated vote: "Whereas at the ICANN meeting in Tunisia (October 2003) the Board resolved to change the transition article (Article XX) to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; and resolved to perform a review of the GNSO Council in or around July 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. Taking into account the draft of the external review report on the GNSO Council, and the Council's self-review, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board extend the current arrangement of 3 representatives per constituency until the ICANN meeting in Mar del Plata, Argentina (April 2005). This will allow time for the external review to be completed following a public comment period, allow time for ICANN to announce a proposed change to the ICANN bylaws to allow three representatives per constituency on an ongoing basis, and allow an appropriate period for public discussion before changing the bylaws." Motion passed, 27 votes in favour. Decision 2: "Whereas at the ICANN meeting in Tunisia (October 2003) the Board resolved to change the transition article (Article XX) to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; and resolved to perform a review of the GNSO Council in or around July 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. Taking into account the draft of the external review report on the GNSO Council, and the Council's self-review, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board extend the current arrangement of 3 representatives per constituency until the ICANN meeting in Mar del Plata, Argentina (April 2005). This will allow time for the external review to be completed following a public comment period, allow time for ICANN to announce a proposed change to the ICANN bylaws to allow three representatives per constituency on an ongoing basis, and allow an appropriate period for public discussion before changing the bylaws." Item 6: ICANN strategic plan The GNSO Council welcomed that the supporting organizations would be involved in a dialogue with the ICANN staff on the best way to manage the process of consultation with appropriate time lines before the ICANN Board signed off on the plan. Item 7: Any other business Staff support update Paul Verhoef reported that recruiting was taking place throughout the organization. It was foreseen that John Jeffrey and Kurt Pritz would have additional staff which would assist in providing Council with continued general counsel office advice and verification that operational implications were taken into account. On the GNSO Senior position, final candidates had been interviewed and on the GNSO support position, decisions would be made shortly, hopefully both candidates being in place by January or February 2005. Bruce Tonkin, on behalf of the GNSO Council, expressed thanks and appreciation to Amadeu Abril I Abril for his contributions as a Nominating Committee representative at the conclusion of his term. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending, those councillors on the phone and the audience for their participation. The meeting ended: 12 :23 ( local time) Next GNSO Council teleconference 13 January 2005. see: Calendar

1 0

RE: Agenda item for Council call next week
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2005

Jan. 6, 2005

Hello Marilyn, Are you able to recommend an amount needed to cover the meeting room and organizational expenses? Regards, Bruce ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:mscade@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2005 11:09 PM To: GNSO Council; Bruce Tonkin; Gnso. Secretariat Cc: Paul Verhoef; Kurt Pritz; Paul Twomey; Barbara Roseman Subject: Agenda item for Council call next week Bruce, Glen Under the item "Strategic Plan", I would like to add an agenda item to propose that interested Councilors agree to organize a consultative workshop on the ICANN Strategic Plan for the purpose of understanding the SP; and developing comments and recommendations for the public comment process. I propose that the Council authorize funding from its reserve budget of an amount needed to cover a meeting room and organizational expenses. The consultation could be inclusive of interested constituency members and liaisons, as well as possibly members of the other SOs, who might wish to participate. I think this could best be accomplished by having an informal working group of interested parties to organize. I would think that the ICANN staff should be invited to present the Strategic Plan as part of such a workshop. I'd like to have a discussion within Council for feedback from fellow Councilors, and seek interest as well as approval of funding for the meeting costs. It would be necessary to hold the meeting by early February at the latest in order to meet the comment deadline of February 28.

2 1

RE: Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 6, 2005

Jan. 6, 2005

I will add it as an item 6 on the agenda. Regards, Bruce ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:49 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005 Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13 January Council meeting on behalf of the BC? Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served and this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and registrars is small and similar. But it does not work for special names where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name has perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic with the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some names are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic still active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business opportunity for registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are "slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names. Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars, some registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars whose sole purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for the parent registrar to get desirable names. This massive set of requests is affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona fide business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of these new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed. Proposal Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the need for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report. Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate. Many thanks Philip PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the resolution should this help clarity.

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes teleconf. 18 November 2004
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Jan. 4, 2005

Jan. 4, 2005

Dear Councillors, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 18 November 2004 in plain text and attached in html. If there are any changes that you would like made, please let me know. Thanks you very much. Happy New Year! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org 18 November 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 - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin/Alick Wilson 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. - absent - apologies - proxy to Lucy Nichols Jisuk Woo - Non Commercial users C. - absent - proxy to Marc Schneiders Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial users C. Carlos Afonso - Non Commercial users C. - absent - apologies - proxy to Marc Schneiders Alick Wilson - absent - apologies - proxy to Amadeu Abril l Abril/Demi Getschko/Bruce Tonkin(directed vote for chair) Demi Getschko- absent - apologies - proxy to Amadeu Abril l Abril Amadeu Abril I Abril 15 Council Members Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations Barbara Roseman - ICANN Staff Manager Thomas Roessler - acting ALAC Liaison Christopher Wilkinson - GAC Secretary Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison Michael Palage - ICANN Board (GNSO seat 14) - observer Patrick Sharry - External Consultant engaged for GNSO Review Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 Recording Quorum present at 20:05 Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda Bruce Tonkin proposed adding the WIPO ll discussion between Item 3 and Item 4. Marilyn Cade proposed an update on the Staff support recruitment situation. Agenda approved Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of 21 October 2004 Ken Stubbs seconded by Marc Schneiders moved the adoption of the Minutes of 21 October 2004 The motion carried with two abstentions: Niklas Lagergren and Amadeu Abril I Abril Decision 1: The Minutes of 21 October 2004 were adopted Item 3: Election of GNSO Council chair for 12 month term. Bruce Tonkin handed the chair to Philip Sheppard as he was a candidate for the GNSO Chair elections. The GNSO Secretary reported that there had been one nomination, Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader and Demi Getschko. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Marilyn Cade and Ken Stubbs, proposed a motion of clarification: Whereas there had been a question raised as to whether or not the GNSO Chair could have a renewed term of office . Whereas the question related to the old Rules of Procedure of the Names Council and those rules no longer applied under the new ICANN Bylaws, the vote for the GNSO chair would be solely under the grounds of the current ICANN bylaws as they apply to the GNSO Council. The motion carried unanimously with a voice vote, quorum was confirmed before the vote was taken. Decision 2: Whereas there had been a question raised as to whether or not the GNSO Chair could have a renewed term of office . Whereas the question related to the old Rules of Procedure of the Names Council and those rules no longer applied under the new ICANN Bylaws, the vote for the GNSO chair would be solely under the grounds of the current ICANN bylaws as they apply to the GNSO Council. Philip Sheppard proceeded with a nominated vote: Yes, for Bruce Tonkin as GNSO Chair for the term of one year, until 18 November 2005, no or abstain. All members present with proxies voted yes, one abstention, Bruce Tonkin. The vote was confirmed. Decision 3: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year, November 18 , 2004 to November 18, 2005. Philip Sheppard, on behalf of the GNSO Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin and handed the chair back to him. Bruce Tonkin proposed a discussion on the WIPO ll issue. Lucy Nichols requested that prior to the Board receiving ICANN Staff's WIPO ll recommendation, the GNSO Council be informed of the substance. The Intellectual Property Constituency's primary concern was that the ICANN Staff and President would be making a recommendation regarding WIPO II and that the Board could make a decision based upon that recommendation prior to the GNSO Council's knowledge and discussion of the recommendation. John Jeffrey and Paul Verhoef stated that the WIPO staff had provided a commentary on the work of the WIPO-II committee which would be published for comment on the ICANN website. Bruce Tonkin encouraged ICANN to give the Council adequate prior notice so that there would be an opportunity to comment on the recommendation before going to the ICANN Board, particularly given that there was no consensus from the Council, and that the issue was related to gTLDs. Item 4: Draft Initial Report on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry. Kurt Pritz reported that the document had been reviewed by the ICANN President and Senior Staff and that concerns hovered around ICANN's ability to provide timely service for registry requests. The flow chart was compared with 18/20 case studies of registry requests for changes over the past year and the vast majority of them fell into a straight forward category which did not require all the steps set out in the flow charts. The document is being revised so as to take into account simple and more complex cases and will be available before the Cape Town meetings. Update on Process for appointing staff Paul Verhoef reported that 2 short lists had been established for the two GNSO related positions and interviews were taking place with the aim of engaging shortly the successful candidate for the policy support position soon while the senior role would likely be filled at the beginning of 2005. Item 5: Update on process for review of GNSO Council Item Patrick Sharry, a Master of Science in Decision Sciences from the London School of Economics, Master of Education in mathematics education, a Graduate Diploma of Teaching and a Bachelor of Arts comes from a teaching background and has worked with ICANN over the last 12 months. Currently he is undertaking the GNSO review process, interviews have been conducted and the draft report is expected to be complete by mid week, 24 November 2004. Item 6: ICANN strategic plan Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Strategic Plan should be an agenda item for the GNSO Council committee discussion in Cape Town. Item 7: Update on WHOIS Marilyn Cade reporting for the Whois combined task force 1 and 2, said that there would be draft recommendations to put forward at the GNSO public forum relating to a draft procedure for conflicts, step by step, and Conspicuous notice, while tiered access was at a developmental and exploratory stage and work was progressing on identifying expert categories and possible experts to address the issue. The task force was also working on questions which could be addressed by the public to be included in the report as guided comments. Barbara Roseman reported that Whois task force 3 intended to have a physical meeting in Cape Town. Challenges revolved around the ways in which the Intellectual Property Constituency and other Constituencies saw the usefulness of data accuracy and the Registrars application of a cost benefit ratio for taking on additional burdens of verifying accuracy. There appeared to be no disagreement about the actual issues but about who would bear the costs. Thomas Roessler commented that there appeared to be no consensus on whether to optimize for increasing data quality on large scale or to optimize for going after a small number of bad actors. Sanctions tied to inaccurate data if there were few cases could be harsher than sanctions applied on a large scale. Care should be exercised in sanctions as they could destabilize legitimate domain names on a large scale. Bruce Tonkin suggested that the task forces meet on Wednesday with the whole GNSO Council to get additional perspectives and Ken Stubbs suggested that Barbara Roseman prepare a summary of the fundamental issues involved in task force 3. Item 8: Update on planning for ICANN meeting in Cape Town Suggestions for discussion were as follows: Tuesday 30 November 2004, 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm GNSO Council external review GNSO Council self-review ICANN Strategic plan Priority policy issues for 2005 Wednesday 1 December 2004 all day 10:30 to 12:30 Whois GAC working group /GNSO Council and task force members lunch 4:00 to 6:00 Whois Friday 3 December 2004 8:30 to 10:30 Public Forum Whois task force recommendations Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry Summary of workshop solutions to the contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry GNSO Council review Open microphone for the community to raise issues the GNSO should examine Bruce Tonkin declared the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 20:15 UTC. Next GNSO Council meeting will be held on Friday 3 December 2004 at 10:30 local time, 8:30 UTC in Auditorium 1 in the Cape Town International Convention Center see: Calendar

1 0