[council] GNSO Council draft minutes 16 November 2006

[council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 16 November 2006. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen .............................................................................. 16 November 2006 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries June Seo - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C -( joined the call late, stayed on for a short while) Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC. Norbert Klein - NCUC. Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 19 Council Members (25 Votes quorum) ICANN Staff Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison Jonathan Nevett Registrar Constituency chair - invited guest Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - apologies Quorum present at 19:08 UTC. MP3 Recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Bruce Tonkin proposed an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN working group. Item 1: Update any statements of interest No updates noted Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 19 October 2006. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes. Abstentions were noted from absent Council members: Lucy Nichols, Alistair Dixon, Mawaki Chango and Maureen Cubberley Motion approved. Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 19 October 2006 were adopted. Marilyn Cade requested an update from staff: - information how to reform or update the PDP -whether there had been a response to the resolution passed by Council "To request the Board to delay any decision on the .biz .info and .org agreements until the ICANN Board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN meetings 2006 and to take into account the current outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that time." - Request and update on "the ICANN Board has requested the staff to engage an outside agency to deliver findings on economic questions relating to the domain registration market and how the Council and task force could take input". Bruce Tonkin noted that he had not received any correspondence from the ICANN Board in response to his request relating to the timing of the present agreements. Denise Michel reported that the ICANN Board had not made a decision on the .biz .info and .org agreements Bruce Tonkin noted that the item was on the ICANN Board agenda for the next meeting on 22 November 2006. Bruce Tonkin noted that 7 days before a GNSO Council meeting was a target for Task Force reports to be submitted to the Council for consideration, but if task force or other meetings occurred within 7 days of the GNSO Council meeting, it was acceptable to submit a report to the Council following that meeting. Item 3: Proposed bylaws amendment to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals. Proposed draft wording Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." The proposed bylaw amendment was to require publication of material agreements 21 days prior to a vote by the Board. The purpose of this proposed amendment was that the GNSO Council would pass on the resolution to the ICANN Board for consideration. This item arose from a request to the GNSO Council in August, 2005 to a proposed change to ICANN bylaws to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals. At the GNSO Council meeting in September 2006, it was suggested to change ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY in the bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#III and to amend Section 6 NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS to add in 'policies or contracts'. On examination, the General counsel's office suggested creating a new section 7 under the transparency article: Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals "With respect to any proposed GTLD registry or registrar agreement that includes material contractual provisions that substantially differ from other past ICANN agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement with a public comment forum on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." At the GNSO Council meeting in October, 2006, Alistair Dixon and Jon Nevett were tasked to revise the wording. The revised wording clarified that ICANN should notify the GNSO Council when there was an effect that differed materially from previous agreements, and materially affected policy changes. The new language, referring to article 10 of the ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X limited contractual conditions to gTLDs and extended beyond registrar and registry agreements, for example the outsourcing of approving a new TLD agreement. Another consideration was whether ICANN as whole should be taking on the issue or should there be a companion provision relating to ccNSO matters. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Avri Doria proposed the motion to adopt the following wording: Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals. "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." The motion passed with 24 votes in favour: Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Lucy Nichols (IPC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Maureen Cubberley, Avri Doria, (Nominating Committee appointees) Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader, Tom Keller, (2 votes each - Registrars constituency) Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs, June Seo, (2 votes each - gTLD Registries constituency) Ute Decker, Kiyoshi Tsuru (IPC) and Sophia Bekele Nominating Committee) (3) no vote, absent. Total 27 votes Decision 2 Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals. "With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement." Item 4. The GNSO IDN Working Group. Bruce Tonkin referred to the formation of the GNSO IDN working group at the GNSO Council meeting in May 2006 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18may06.shtml for the purpose of going through the Issues Report and deciding how to go ahead with a Policy Development Process on IDNs. There were further discussions at the ICANN meeting in Morocco, followed by meetings of the GNSO committee on new gTLDs in Amsterdam. It was agreed that IDNs should be considered as a type of new gTLD. Bearing this in mind, matters relating to IDNs, should be consistent with the policies for new gTLDs. However it was recognised that there could be policy issues not defined in the PDP-Dec05 process, thus, at the GNSO Council meeting on 19 October, 2006 it was agreed to reinstate the GNSO IDN working group to consider material, including the technical tests, the Internet Architecture Board comments and new materials which have arisen since the issue was examined, review the material and identify what policy issues there may be for consideration by Council. Considerable interest had been shown in the group, and Bruce Tonkin noted, that due to his time constraints, the group should elect a chair to move the work forward. Nominations for the position of chair had been put forward and there was currently an election process underway. The purpose was to provide clarity on the IDN working group and the processes and procedures. Bruce Tonkin proposed the following charter for the GNSO IDN Working Group. GNSO IDN Working Group Charter The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs http://www.icann.org/committees/idnpac/ which has been in operation since November 2005. Amongst other things this committee is tasked with analyzing the challenges relating to the technical implementation of internationalized top level domains and suggestions towards their resolution. In particular the committee is supervising laboratory tests (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm). (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm for version 2.1 of the Guidelines dated - 22 Feb 2006. (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs should also apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 on IDNs available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://www.ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and prioritise any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps: (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaising with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. A Task Force was defined as a group that was specifically working on a policy development process while working group was an ad hoc group formed to perform a specific task. Council discussion on the Proposed Charter included asking the ccNSO how they were engaging in broader ccTLD groups. It was agreed that the definition of membership should be broadened. Mawaki Chango commented When "we say the new gTLD policy being developed applies to IDN [responding to a change suggested by Marilyn Cade on the charter], I'd like to make sure that we don't mean to equate policy for new gTLD to policy for IDN, and that it at best would apply only for the corresponding IDN-gTLD. Furthermore on that same note, I'd like to warn not to cede to the temptation to preempt or preclude a possible future IDN policy, as specific issues unfold, by the current new gTLD policy (drawing on the idea that the latter applies to the former.)" Bruce Tonkin clarified that the difference between an IDN TLD was in the encoding that was in the string, other than that, it was a new domain name. The policy being worked on, regarding new domain names applied to any kind of domain name, irrespective of the encoding mechanism. There maybe some issues that arise from IDNs that are policy issues that have not been considered and if the policy issues were identified they would be studied by a Policy Development Process. Ken Stubbs, seconded by Avri Doria proposed : GNSO IDN Working Group Charter The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs http://www.icann.org/committees/idnpac/ which has been in operation since November 2005. Amongst other things this committee is tasked with analyzing the challenges relating to the technical implementation of internationalized top level domains and suggestions towards their resolution. IN particular the committee is supervising laboratory tests (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm). (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm for version 2.1 of the Guidelines dated - 22 Feb 2006. (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://www.ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps: (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. The GNSO IDN Working Group Charter was passed by an unanimous acclamation vote. Decision 4: GNSO IDN Working Group Charter The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN: (1) There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs http://www.icann.org/committees/idnpac/ which has been in operation since November 2005. Amongst other things this committee is tasked with analyzing the challenges relating to the technical implementation of internationalized top level domains and suggestions towards their resolution. IN particular the committee is supervising laboratory tests (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm). (2) There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm for version 2.1 of the Guidelines dated - 22 Feb 2006. (3) The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information. (4) The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm (5) The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 (http://www.ccnso.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug06.pdf) the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues. (6) External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4690.txt) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names. The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps: (i) review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs (ii) review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests, (iii) review the ICANN staff issues report, (iv) review the IAB document (RFC4690) (v) liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria: (A) is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; (B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; (D) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or (E) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council. ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group. Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council. Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco. Item 5: Regarding term limits Proposed Resolution from Ross Rader: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. Denise Michel reported that the Board Governance committee had on its agenda for final approval, a process for GNSO improvements that entailed creating a joint Board-GNSO working group to consider the recommendations raised in the Patrick Sharry Council Review, the LSE review and other input from the GNSO and the public to develop specific recommendations to be considered by the ICANN Board. Approval was anticipated in the next few weeks and the council would be apprised. The next meeting date for the Board Governance committee was still to be decided. Two groups could be envisaged: - the ICANN Board would appoint a group that would be comprised of Board members, Council members and others, - that the GNSO might decide to form a working group with a wider group of GNSO members. The Board group would take input from any structure that the GNSO decided to create. Philip Sheppard proposed providing immediate input to the members of the Board Governance committee and referred to his proposed resolution as an amendment to the resolution under agenda item 6. Whereas the GNSO council review report and GNSO review reports are now complete. The Council resolves to establish a GNSO working group. The working group membership should be wider than just members of Council embracing all relevant parties and work in a collaborative manner. Council instructs staff to draft terms of reference for the working group within 14 days with a proposal for membership that balances broad participation by relevant parties with practicality. Maureen Cubberley supported Philip Sheppard's approach of cooperative development. It was fair that the Board wanted to deal with the issue and it should be noted that the Council had expressed its wish to be involved in the options. Philip Sheppard's proposal, council deliberations indicating the desire to be involved in discussions with the Board at an early stage and prior to it making a final decision should be passed on to the Board for consideration. Bruce Tonkin commented that the GNSO Council could not set term limits, it could recommend to the Board to make a bylaw change in that regard or it could recommend that constituencies voluntarily adjust their processes accordingly. Dan Halloran, deputy General Counsel, confirmed that the GNSO was governed by the ICANN Bylaws and that it would require a Board vote to change the ICANN bylaws. The resolution was making a recommendation to the Board and the resolution was not binding on any constituencies. Alistair Dixon asked what the rationale was for addressing the one particular recommendation from the LSE Report. Ross Rader responded that the Council was long standing, new blood would be useful, and the LSE recognised it as an item that could be delt with separately, outside of the reform process. No research had been undertaken on the impact on the other constituencies before drafting the resolution, however, it should be noted that the Registrar constituency had term limits, and the author was be affected by those. It was argued that the resolution was put forward by a Council member on the mailing list, posted on the agenda 7 days prior to the meeting which gave Council members the opportunity to discuss resolutions with their constituencies prior to the meeting and it was up to each of them to determine the impact of the motion on the constituency. It was considered that the impact on constituencies would differ from one to another. Concern was expressed that Council was intervening in the governance of the constituencies which was not an issue that could be adequately addressed sporadically on the mailing list. No one recommendation from the LSE Review had any status above another. The LSE Review was intended as an independent review and should not be seen in the light of an external entity mandating changes to be implemented. It was up to the ICANN Board and the community to read it along with the previous Patrick Sharry Council Review and other inputs to define a process for improving the GNSO and to move forward with recommendations. Philip Sheppard who chaired LSE briefings, noted that a question was posed as to the nature of the report that some elements could be taken together and some elements could be separable. In that discussion, term limits were mentioned as being able to be separated out, recognising that many other elements could not, while another part of the proposal talked about joining constituencies together and the impact that that would have in terms of the nature of the term limits. Thus the premise that this particular item could be separated is flawed. Philip Sheppard posed the following questions: - why do you think that there is a lack of new blood on Council? - why do you believe that elections are able to provide new blood? - what are the precise benefits of term limits versus not term limits - why do you believe that Council should impose this as opposed to the constituencies being allowed to exercise their sovereign right to do so? The discussion that followed highlighted that constituencies were not seen to have rights independent of the ICANN bylaws, but they did have the right to question the bylaws and they could run their affairs consistent with the ICANN bylaws as they saw fit. Ross Rader commented that the resolution did not address the capability of constituencies to govern themselves or appointing members to task forces, but amending the qualifications for the Council members. Furthermore there seemed to be no reason to delay such a resolution and did not believe that it affected the larger reform. The average term of participation in the Council is much longer than in any similarly situated body. The rules of the constituencies specified the appointment of a specific number of members to the council, so the resolution in no way changed the governance structure of the constituencies but rather changed the constitution of the Council. The difference between the nature of the constituencies was pointed out. The registrars and gTLD registries constituencies, were likely to draw engaged and available participation as opposed to other constituencies which were recipients of the services offered by the registries and registrars. Tony Holmes commented that one element could not be singled out and the passion noted in the discussions was reason to object to the vote without more dialogue. Robin Gross commented that the issue was not new and failed to understand that it would be a loss of control within constituencies, rather it should be seen as levelling the playing field among the constituencies. The LSE report was not an all in one package. Tony Holmes noted that the ISPC had no concerns over appointing new blood to the Council and if it is appropriate and it is the view of the constituency then it would certainly happen, there is nothing in the bylaws to stop it, it is a concept that we support putting the best people in the process. Bret Fausett commented that there were sound policy reasons against term limits, the scope should be discussed, and recommended, that the issue be taken up at the Sao Paulo meetings. Greg Ruth considered that the Council imposing term limits on constituencies was equal to the council controlling constituencies. The constituencies had sovereign rights, they did not have the same bylaws, thus they did not need to play by the same rules. It appeared a bad way to conduct a bottom up policy making process. Bruce Tonkin commented that there were views for and against the motion and the need for further reflection at a face-to-face meeting in Sao Paulo. The standard rules are that if there is quorum, it is the majority of the votes in the meeting in which there is quorum that determines the outcome. The Registrar and gTLD Registries constituency members have double voting in the procedural motion. Bruce Tonkin proposed a procedural vote on calling the question. Should the motion proposed by Ross Rader be voted now at the meeting or should the motion be tabled for voting on in Sao Paulo. The motion carried with 13 votes in favour of voting on the resolution at the present meeting: Lucy Nichols, (IPC) Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Ross Rader and Tom Keller, (2 votes each - Registrars constituency) Cary Karp, Ken Stubbs and June Seo, (2 votes each - gTLD Registries constituency) 7 votes against voting on the resolution at the present meeting: Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Maureen Cubberley 2 votes abstaining: Bruce Tonkin GNSO chair abstained (2 votes) 5 votes not recorded: Avri Doria, Ute Decker, Mawaki Chango did not vote, (dropped off call) Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele no vote, absent. Total 27 votes Motion to table the resolution to the next Council meeting in Sao Paulo, failed. Ross Rader, seconded by Cary Karp proposed: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. Councillors were called to make Statements of Interest on the impact of the resolution on them as individuals. Marilyn Cade called a point of order to the Deputy General Counsel's comment that the GNSO Council could not set term limits and thus objected to speculation on the impact on individuals. The resolution carried with 15 votes in favour. Lucy Nichols, (IPC) Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, (NCUC) Ross Rader would not be impacted by the motion as he would be ineligible to serve on the Council after the end of his current term under the terms of the Registrar constituency (2 votes) Tom Keller is likewise bound by the Registrar constituency bylaws, (2 votes) Bruce Tonkin is bound by the Registrar constituency bylaws with his term expiring at the end of 2007. In addition Bruce supports the motion as the effect of the motion is a recommendation to the Board and that the Board would take input from the community as part of its procedure to making any bylaw change. (2 votes) - Registrars constituency) Cary Karp, - noted that he would be no longer eligible for any further service on Council at the end of his term (2 votes) Ken Stubbs, June Seo, (2 votes each - gTLD Registries constituency) 7 votes abstaining: Marilyn Cade, Phillip Sheppard, Alistair Dixon, (CBUC) Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, (ISPCPC) Maureen Cubberley Statements of abstention Philip Sheppard (CBUC) I am abstaining on this vote for the following reasons that I would like read into the record: I object to the piecemeal and ill-considered approach to the items in the LSE review and prefer to discuss them in the broader context of a working group. In such a group the inter-relation of different aspects of the review can be better understood and their implications debated with all interested parties. The specific question of term limits is inseparable to the proposal for joined constituencies and touches on the bottom-up sovereignty of the constituencies themselves. Marilyn Cade (CBUC) I am abstaining with regret because I am accountable to the Constituency that elected me, to the GNSO and ICANN community. I do not support the resolution and I have reasons for not supporting it. I do not think that the Council should vote on one or two elements of a review that impacts, in fact the constituency, not just the council. The LSE team itself acknowledged that the report was not definitive but should be seen as one set of input. We have a lot of work to do, that work is pending and it deserves Council and the broader community within the GNSO attention in a productive, pragmatic, and mutually respectful approach that I am not seeing at this time, and how we work together to ensure improvements and evolution in the GNSO. I think the GNSO Council has a responsibility to discuss and examine issues thoughtfully, and that we need to seek to hear from the constituencies themselves before voting on the resolution that is being proposed, so I cannot vote on this resolution. I do not understand or accept the Council's authority, I have heard from the assistant General Counsel, we have no authority other than to make a recommendation. A Constituency should govern itself, select its representatives, it should determine the number of years by electing them and I do not understand why one constituency would seek to establish rules when other constituencies, that may be very different, all constituencies are every different. If I were to ask the Council to look ahead, which I will do now, we have a lot of work on the GNSO Review and I would think that the community broadly, and all of our constituencies would prefer that we set this resolution aside and we focus on productive ways to work together so that others in the GNSO community could have ways to improve the GNSO with the resources available to the GNSO from ICANN to support and form policy development, to examine ways to broaden and deepen participation. Therefore I state that I am abstaining. Alistair Dixon (CBUC) I am abstaining. I do not support moving ahead with this proposal in isolation from the broader recommendations of the GNSO Review from the LSE, so I would like to abstain. Tony Harris (ISPCPC) I abstain from the vote and as far as I am aware the Council is not being commissioned to undertake a reform by anybody. The LSE was hired to do that job and this would be preempting their work, so in view of that I am abstain from the vote. Tony Holmes (ISPCPC) I am very disappointed that some members of Council seem to force this vote, whilst the ISPCPC remains totally committed to the work of the GNSO and as an ISPCPC selected member have no option other than to abstain from a vote from this issue. The ISPCPC does not offer any support for a process that chooses to selectively identify specific aspects of the GNSO Review and drive those forward as totally separate elements that can be voted on in isolation. There has to be recognised, both within the review undertaken by the LSE and also the earlier work undertaken by Patrick Sharry, that this is a complex and intertwined set of issues. The proposed approach raises several other issues that require a more detailed analysis before any decision can be taken. This includes questions over the authority of the Council to impose any restrictions on constituencies under the existing bylaws, as well as the fact that there are terrific constraints on the election of candidates, the voluntary nature of the heavy work load imposed on councillors, the ability of constituencies to select their most effective and well qualified members to undertake those important roles. It is even more inappropriate to take any decision on this issue when the structure and working arrangements of the Council itself are being questioned, if not to say, exercised. Finally choosing to adopt a piecemeal approach to the GNSO Review and call for votes on any specific recommendation prior to considering the very broad aspects of the review and the opportunity to seek additional input and listen to other parts of the community is unwise, unacceptable and bad practice, in addition its sets a very bad precedent for the future work of the council. I would like to add that the ISPCPC are ready and willing to play an active part in assessing the report from the LSE as part of a full study that needs to be undertaken to ensure that the GNSO functions as a first class element of the ICANN structure. Greg Ruth (ISPCPC) I wish to abstain because I consider this motion to be an illegal motion under the bylaws, Under the governing principles of ICANN in general. I believe that it is inappropriate for the Council to impose constraints on the governance of the individual constituency. The way that a bottom up process works is that constituencies run the Council, not the other way round. Maureen Cubberley (Nominating Committee appointee) I abstain. Originally I posted to the list in support of term limits. Personally, as a Nominating Committee appointee, my term is up in December 2006 and I have not sought re-appointment and therefore will not be returning. I support the principle under the direction of the proposed resolution. I do not think that it is thorough enough and having heard the passion in this discussion that to make a decision on this today would contribute to the dysfunctionality of the group rather than move it forward, so for that reason I wish to be on the record as abstaining from the vote, but supporting the principle of term limits. 5 votes not recorded: Avri Doria, Ute Decker, Mawaki Chango did not vote, (dropped off call) Kiyoshi Tsuru and Sophia Bekele, no vote, absent. Total 27 votes The motion passed Bruce Tonkin noted that the motion would be forwarded to the Board for consideration and to the constituencies to voluntarily consider. Decision 5: The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. Item 6: Update on New gTLDs. Liz Williams posted an updated draft report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR-14Nov06.pdf and staff comments http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-StaffMemo-14Nov06.pdf Agreed upon time frame: Teleconference on Monday 27 November at 19:00 UTC. Sunday 3 December there will be a working session in Sao Paulo on new gTLDs. Item 7: Update on PDP Feb06. Maureen Cubberley reported that a teleconference was scheduled for 17 November 2006, thanked Avri Doria for being the interim chair, and Marilyn Cade and Jon Nevett for leading two rapporteur groups. Task force support was sought for the draft proposals, and further timelines would be discussed at the meeting the following day. Item 8: Sao Paulo Update Sunday 3 December 2006 IDN Breakfast meeting Update from Tina Dam and laboratory tests Thursday 7 December 2006 Nominating Committee meeting - lunch Thursday morning Breakfast GNSO working group and ccNSO IDN group Thursday afternoon GNSO/GAC meeting Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everybody for participating. The meeting ended: 21:35 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on December 6 2006 in Sao Paulo at 10:00 local time 12:00 noon UTC see: Calendar -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org