May 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Possible roles for GNSO vice chair/s
by Bruce Tonkin July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hello All, Having been in the role as chair for a while, I can see at least a couple of vice-chair roles that would help spread the workload: (1) vice-chair for meetings - work with staff to schedule the various GNSO related meetings at each major ICANN meeting, as well as help plan any inter-sessional meetings (2) vice-chair for operating planning - work with staff to develop the budget for GNSO related expenses to feed into ICANN's annual operational plan/budget - e.g travel costs, as well as work with staff to plan for both staff and GNSO volunteer resources for various projects (task forces, working groups etc) - identify projects that provide efficiency improvements (e.g website updates, new use of collaboration tools, document management systems etc) - maintain a rolling 12 month operational/work plan - ensure we don't over commit projects to the available resources Note that in either case the vice chair would work with staff to essentially prepare documents for review by the Council as a whole, and publish the relevant material in sufficient time to allow Council feedback and discussion at a Council meeting. Note that at various times these roles have existed - but never really formalised. Marilyn Cade often assisted in meeting planning, and we did have a planning committee chaired by Grant Forsyth at one time. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

7 10

GNSO Chair election results
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 31, 2007

May 31, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The GNSO Chair results are: 15 FOR Avri Doria 9 FOR Philip Sheppard 0 ABSTAIN (The winner requires a majority of 14 or more.) There are 27 votes in total accounting for 21 Council members. http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml 19 Council members voted - accounting for 24 votes. 2 Council members did not return their ballots accounting for 3 votes, one council member holding a single vote and one holding a double vote. Please check below and confirm that your vote was correctly counted. The results of the GNSO Chair election will be confirmed at the Council meeting on 7 June 2007. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Counted Ballots: B1cc961780D:20070516102204:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B1cc961780D:20070516102204:[] FOR Avri Doria B1cc961780D:20070516102204:[] ABSTAIN B83a6f7eb2D:20070516102702:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B83a6f7eb2D:20070516102702:[X] FOR Avri Doria B83a6f7eb2D:20070516102702:[] ABSTAIN B14b3cc74fD:20070516125012:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B14b3cc74fD:20070516125012:[] FOR Avri Doria B14b3cc74fD:20070516125012:[] ABSTAIN Bc00566ec1D:20070516144009:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc00566ec1D:20070516144009:[] FOR Avri Doria Bc00566ec1D:20070516144009:[] ABSTAIN B7bf68ac88D:20070516150918:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B7bf68ac88D:20070516150918:[] FOR Avri Doria B7bf68ac88D:20070516150918:[] ABSTAIN Bdbeff9d10D:20070516151454:[XX] FOR Philip Sheppard Bdbeff9d10D:20070516151454:[] FOR Avri Doria Bdbeff9d10D:20070516151454:[] ABSTAIN Ba0fbc9c96D:20070518065941:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Ba0fbc9c96D:20070518065941:[X] FOR Avri Doria Ba0fbc9c96D:20070518065941:[] ABSTAIN B88b92dc21D:20070518183742:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B88b92dc21D:20070518183742:[X] FOR Avri Doria B88b92dc21D:20070518183742:[] ABSTAIN Bc02a03a59D:20070522020429:[x] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc02a03a59D:20070522020429:[] FOR Avri Doria Bc02a03a59D:20070522020429:[] ABSTAIN B5eb1f34aeD:20070522021852:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B5eb1f34aeD:20070522021852:[X] FOR Avri Doria B5eb1f34aeD:20070522021852:[] ABSTAIN B2bb81b783D:20070522064628:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B2bb81b783D:20070522064628:[] FOR Avri Doria B2bb81b783D:20070522064628:[] ABSTAIN Bf3f0ff003D:20070522181137:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bf3f0ff003D:20070522181137:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bf3f0ff003D:20070522181137:[] ABSTAIN Bc9ccfcbadD:20070523045156:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc9ccfcbadD:20070523045156:[] FOR Avri Doria Bc9ccfcbadD:20070523045156:[] ABSTAIN B1eccf6b4dD:20070523133025:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B1eccf6b4dD:20070523133025:[X] FOR Avri Doria B1eccf6b4dD:20070523133025:[] ABSTAIN Bdb0a481ceD:20070523145838:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bdb0a481ceD:20070523145838:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bdb0a481ceD:20070523145838:[] ABSTAIN Bc35565763D:20070523181424:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bc35565763D:20070523181424:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bc35565763D:20070523181424:[] ABSTAIN B6523ad5b3D:20070529081823:[X] FOR Philip Sheppard B6523ad5b3D:20070529081823:[] FOR Avri Doria B6523ad5b3D:20070529081823:[] ABSTAIN B67747ad5cD:20070529140622:[] FOR Philip Sheppard B67747ad5cD:20070529140622:[X] FOR Avri Doria B67747ad5cD:20070529140622:[] ABSTAIN Bfe3a54407D:20070530065256:[] FOR Philip Sheppard Bfe3a54407D:20070530065256:[X] FOR Avri Doria Bfe3a54407D:20070530065256:[] ABSTAIN -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

5 6

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by Gomes, Chuck May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Mawaki, I personally think the suggestions of deceit and political ambition are inappropriate and suggest that you argue your points objectively without making such assertions. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:29 PM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - > Thursday 7 June 2007 > > >>> [Bruce] it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises > risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to > update the recommendations based on experience of the first round. > > Do you have anything specific in mind? what and where are the > provisions to ensure such flexibility? I think it is > important to know concretely how this can be handled, should > the need arise. > > I don't see any contradiction between the fact that a lot of > work has been put into a PDP, and the possibility for the > *Council* to determine in the end the level of support for > each recommendation so that, as Bruce has put it, at least > the recommendations that are capable of supermajority be > secured and built on later on. > > The argument that the recommendations cannot be considered > individually because they are inter-dependent is a fallacious > one because i) most of the recommendations have been > discussed separately during the process, and ii) if > recommendations are so inter-related that it wouldn't make > sense to adopt/implement one without the other, then clearly > those who support one will support the other. > > Similarly, the idea of the committee having thoroughly > discussed the issues raised by NCUC (for example) without any > proponents of those ideas/issues being there to explain and > respond is deceitful. > > > Note > > Not all the recommendations please everyone. > > It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because > > individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to > persuade. > > If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our > > original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc. > > This is so bright! just that in such perspective, the PDP > process is nothing but a merely political process governed by > corporatism. (You may note, Liz, that this is not the best > mindset and environment for dialogue between constituencies > as you've been encouraging for.) If that's the case, then it > should be no surprise that courts become (are?) the only > place where some sense of higher norms and overall legitimacy > is re-stablished in the ICANN's decisions. > > That shouldn't worry me, but I'm worried that this is the > perspective of an aspirant chairman for the council. > > Mawaki > > > --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> wrote: > > > > > Bruce, > > allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle the gTLD > > report. > > > > 1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of > Council. This > > process was explicitly to ensure incremental buy-in to > recommendations > > by Council. It escapes all logic that Council would then > vote on each > > recommendation. That process would seem suited to a task > force report. > > Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not. > > > > 2. We also opened the group to observers and received > excellent input. > > That was also a process designed to explicitly ensure incremental > > buy-in to recommendations by the wider community. > > > > 3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of > the report so > > that we were all able to track emerging recommendations > that achieved > > broad support. > > What was the point of all > > that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came > from nowhere > > ? > > > > 4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. > > Many are inter-dependent. We > > will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the > recommendations can > > operate in isolation. > > > > Conclusion > > We must vote on the report as a whole. > > > > Note > > Not all the recommendations please everyone. > > It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because > > individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to > persuade. > > If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our > > original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc. > > > > Further work > > There are a lot of issues that need further work or at > least feedback > > to Council on their implementation. Indeed this applies to most > > recommendations ! > > It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where > > Council expects formal feedback from staff. > > That makes it clear for us, clear for staff. > > > > Link to the sub groups > > We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion > and support > > for these reports where appropriate. > > > > > > Philip > > > > > > > > > > > >

4 5

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by Bruce Tonkin May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Hello All, Below is a draft agenda for the Council meeting next week. Note that this is a GNSO Council meeting to consider the current draft of the new gTLDs report. Those constituency representatives and observers that have attended new gTLD committee meetings are welcome to attend the teleconference as observers. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 (5:00 LA, 8:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne, 00:00 Auckland Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007 Item 0: Roll call of Council members present physically or available via teleconference Item 1: Update any statements of interest Item 2: Approval of minutes - minutes for 24 May 2007 Item 3: Ratify the result of the election for the GNSO Council chair Item 4: Review new gTLD recommendations The purpose of this discussion is to review any changes/updates to the draft recommendations since Lisbon. Item 5: Review options for voting on the recommendations (note a vote will not be conducted at this meeting, but the aim is to discuss the how such a vote would be managed): Options include: (a) Each Council member votes on recommendations as a whole (b) Each Council member votes on each individual recommendation (c) We separate recommendations that are "complete", versus those that need further work Item 6: Any other business

4 4

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Council members, Thank you Chuck for your helpful suggestion. Allow me to explain a little further the problem as we see it. Suppose we do choose to vote recommendation by recommendation. Rec 1 is - do you support new TLDs. Well the answer to that recommendation in isolation is no. The BC supports new TLDs subject to such things as financial and technical standards, safeguards to avoid criminal abuse, and safeguards for consumer protection. That was the entire essence of our work. I thought that we al support these goals. The recommendations were not written in isolation but listed for clarity for the benefit of those who will implement. If this work is unfinished, we should continue as the committee to work. If this work is finished, we should vote as Council on the report presented. Philip

2 1

Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
by Bruce Tonkin May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Hello All, With respect to the Council meeting on 7 June, I would like to get a sense of how the Council wants to handle the current new gTLD recommendations. As others have pointed out, some of the recommendations require further work with respect to developing dispute resolution processes. There are also no doubt some recommendations with stronger support than others. The intent is that the recommendations as currently drafted by staff are capable of supermajority support based on the discussions during the new gTLD committee meetings. My current concern is that if we don't move the work we have done to some kind of vote - which may accept all or some of the recommendations by super-majority vote - we are in danger of losing the consensus that has been built up through many meetings. I also feel we are at the point of diminishing returns. No significant new issues were raised in Lisbon that had not already been discussed in the new gTLD committee. I feel that there is a community expectation that the GNSO Council either conclude its work, or at least identify which bits are concluded to allow the Board to consider the recommendations and to allow staff to begin to do further work. We don't want the GNSO to be seen as the barrier to new TLDs (either IDN or non-IDN based). If we can't make some sort of statement about the level of consensus of the recommendations, it becomes hard to justify ICANN staff spending additional time working on the implementation details. I expect that as staff begin working on the implementation details of dispute processes and other implementation details, that they may seek further clarification of the recommendation, or even recommend the removal of a recommendation if not external dispute process can be developed. I would also expect that we will get more input on the dispute processes once detailed drafts are published - this will ensure that issues such as freedom of speech are properly addressed in the dispute processes. No doubt as new people become involved in ICANN and the GNSO - there will be desire to reset the clock, and start the policy development again. I feel however that we will never get a perfect answer, and that it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based on experience of the first round. It would be useful to hear the views of Council members on this topic via the Council mailing list prior to the Council meeting next week. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
by Philip Sheppard May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

Further to discussion on how we handle the gTLD report. 1. I would still like to hear a counter-argument to the principles I outlined earlier regarding the objective of Council working as a committee of the whole. 2. For the record the BC does not support any recommendations characterised informally by Chuck as "Broad agreement" without the safety net of those recommendations characterised informally as "Work Ongoing". We have all worked diligently on this and see the report as an integrated whole. If it is to be separated, we will likely be forced to vote against systematically. If it is to be separated we will likely be forced to vote against a committee of the whole approach for any future PDP based on its meaningless approach. To date we hear from just one constituency calling for this separate approach. Lets hear from others before we decide as Council how we will vote on our own work. Philip BC rapporteur

2 1

Issues Report on Domain Tasting
by Maria Farrell May 29, 2007

May 29, 2007

Dear Council members, Attached is the Issues Report on Domain Name Tasting requested by the At-Large Advisory Committee on 9 May (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html) Best regards, Maria Farrell

3 2

GNSO Council draft minutes 24 May 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 29, 2007

May 29, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 24 May 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ........................................................................ 24 May 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC- absent - apologies Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries - absent - apologies Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC. Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 15 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Sue Jonklaas - Regional Business Advisor -Asia Pacific, Office of the General Counsel. Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Craig Schwartz -Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Quorum present at 12:10 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes: 28 March 2007 12 April 2007 Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of both sets of GNSO Council minutes, 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007 Motion approved. Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007 Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007 were adopted. Item 3: Update on election process for GNSO Council chair - GNSO Secretariat to provide an update Glen de Saint Géry reported that the formal nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council chair for the period 7 June 2007 until 31 January 2008 was open for two weeks from Friday 27 April to Friday 11 May 2007. Two candidates were nominated and seconded, Philip Sheppard and Avri Doria. The voting began on Wednesday 16 May, and closes on Wednesday 30 May at 15:00 UTC. The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period and the results will be confirmed at the GNSO Council meeting on 7 June 2007. Item 4: Proposed motion to create a Vice-Chair role: Bruce Tonkin commented that the ICANN bylaws mentioned a formal position of Vice Chair for the ICANN Board and the ccNSO Council but the roles were not defined. The effect of the proposed motion was to the rules and procedures of the Council without pre-empting any Board changes to the bylaws following the GNSO review. It was agreed that the vice-chair would be appointed via a vote of Council members using the same procedure as used to elect a chair. Bruce Tonkin, seconded Avri Doria, whose friendly amendment was accepted, proposed the motion: The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of acclamation. Decision 2: The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed. Action Item: The Secretariat was requested to open a process to select a vice chair as soon as the current GNSO chair election was resolved after 7 June 2007. Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. The registry constituency put forward a position paper http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03500.html with the conclusion: "The Registry constituency urges the GNSO not to accept the Intellectual Property constituency recommendation. There is no sound basis for requesting an Issues Report on this subject. The proposed Dispute Resolution Process is far from ICANN’s mission of technical coordination of the domain name system and the protection of security and stability of the Internet. It would be a radical departure from the current globally accepted understanding of ICANN’s role." Bruce Tonkin commented that it was a request from the external world to ICANN to examine the issue in more detail, and if ICANN were not able to do anything then it would be for individual countries to deal with the issue and create laws in the countries. The secretariat was requested to point to a previous Council decision on this topic. (See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml) In the light of the new gTLD work, it could be advantageous to examine a mechanism for a new dispute processes. Caution should be taken in that the dispute resolution process should not provide a blanket protection for all International Intergovernmental Organizations to register which ever names they wished. Constituency resources and staff support were two factors that had to be considered. It was clarified that creating an issues report was separate from Council deciding whether there were sufficient issues for a policy development process to be commenced and whether Council and the constituencies would be able to resource it. Assurance was given that there would be adequate staff resources should Council decide to follow through with a policy development process. Council was reminded of the provisions in the the ICANN bylaws regarding: "1. Raising an Issue An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following: b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made." Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ross Rader proposed the following motion: Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required. Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. The motion passed by nominated vote: in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Alistair Dixon, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth - 1 vote each Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader - 2 votes each Total 10 votes in favour - (8 Council members voted in favour) against the motion Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes - 2 votes each Avri Doria, Sophia Bekele, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, - 1 vote each Total 8 votes against - (6 Council members voted against the motion) Tom Keller - one abstention (counting for 2 votes ) No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru, Tony Harris, Mawaki Chango, Cary Karp, Jon Bing. In total, 15 Council members voted, accounting for 20 votes Decision 3: Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required. Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ). The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. Item 6: ALAC request for an issues report on domain tasting - note request under clause 1(c) of the GNSO Policy Development Process - proposal to schedule consideration of the issues report at the San Juan meeting of the GNSO Council, and get input from the constituencies during the meeting (under clause 3(b) of the PDP) Council acknowledged receipt of the request from ALAC for an issues report and it was proposed that the completed Issues Report would be posted on the website so that there could be additional feedback from community and the constituencies. It was generally agreed to table the report until the Council meeting in San Juan, and possibly have Staff present it at the GNSO public forum. Item 7: Consideration of the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 ( See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07…) Item 7: Consideration of the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 ( See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07…) It was generally agreed that staff would comment on the implementation issues arising from the major recommendations in the Final Report PDPFeb06 and these would be further discussed with the community during the meetings in San Juan. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended: 13:10 UTC Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 7 June 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election process for GNSO Council vice chair when the current GNSO Chair elections were resolved. 2. Arising from item 5, a. The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. b. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2. 3 Arising from item 7, Staff comments on the major recommendations in the Task Force Report: Policies for Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries - PDP-Feb 06 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 27, 2007

May 27, 2007

[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 24 May 2007 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

7 23