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