[To: announce@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org] [To: ga@dnso.org; council@dnso.org] ICANN/GNSO GNSO Council Teleconference on 5 June 2003 - minutes 7 June 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html 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 - absent, apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris Thomas Keller- Registrars Ken Stubbs - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Jeff Neuman - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. -absent, apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. -( joined late for Item 7 of the agenda) Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Milton Mueller Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. 14 Council Members Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel Thomas Roessler - ALAC Liaison Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat MP3 recording of the meeting Philppe Renaut - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030605.GNSOteleconf.mp3 Quorum present at 14:05 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during summer time in the northern hemisphere). Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Item 1: Approval of the Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030605.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html Agenda approved Item 2: Summary of last meeting http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Marilyn Cade . The motion was carried unanimously. Decision 1: Motion adopted. Item 3: Motion to recommend to the ICANN Board to adjust the quorum requirements for the GNSO Council in the ICANN Bylaws: Council recommends that the ICANN Board change the ICANN by-law relating to quorum in the GNSO (Article X, section 3(8)) from the present text: "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business...." with "A majority of the total number of Council members in office, provided that those members are entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council, shall constitute a quorum". Philip Sheppard commented that the recommended amendment was aimed at clarifying an oversight in the bylaws and the new wording aimed at legitimacy. Discussion: Marilyn Cade supported the recommendation saying that it protected broad geographical and Council participation. . Ellen Shankman supported having as many members of council involved in discussions as possible. Ken Stubbs and Jeff Neuman felt that there was no necessity to amend the bylaws and no cases of abuse had been recorded. Louis Touton referred to his paper on proposed by-law revisions dated 31 May 2003 (http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-31may03.htm), where he stated that: "Philip Sheppard wrote on 12 May 2003 that the GNSO Council, at its meeting on 22 May 2003, would likely adopt a resolution requesting a change to the New Bylaws concerning the GNSO Council's quorum rules. He suggested that such an amendment could be added to the group of amendments to be considered by the Board at its 2 June 2003 meeting. In fact, the GNSO Council did not consider the proposed resolution at its 22 May 2003 meeting due to the overcrowded agenda for that meeting. (It appears likely that the GNSO Council will meet on 5 June 2003 to complete the agenda of its 22 May 2003 meeting.) The proposal referenced by Mr. Sheppard would amend Article X, Section 3(8) of the New Bylaws. Currently there are 18 members on the GNSO Council, consisting of 6 members from "providers constituencies" and 12 members from "users constituencies." Votes are equalized, so the two groups of constituencies each have 12 votes, for a total of 24. Under the quorum provision in Section 3(8) as currently written, the GNSO Council can act when members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes on the Council (i.e. 13 votes) are present. The proposal would require that, in order to transact business, the GNSO Council would need both a majority of votes (i.e. 13 votes) and a majority of members (i.e. 10 members) present. Thus, under the proposal the non-attendance of nine members, having as few as 37.5% of the votes on the GNSO Council, would prevent the GNSO Council from acting. The proposal is a substantive change from the intended effect of equalized voting, rather than a technical correction consistent with the intended effect of the Bylaws. As such, it would appear more appropriate to address the proposal as part of the process for periodic review of ICANN structure and operations under Article IV, Section 4. Under that Section, the first periodic review will be initiated within one year following the adoption of the New Bylaws and will cover the GNSO Council. Among the topics to be considered in that review should be the equalized voting concept and its implications." Philip Sheppard, who originally proposed the motion, suggested it be put to the vote. Vote: 7 votes support (Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth, Tony Harris,Tony Holmes (via proxy to Tony Harris), Laurence Djolakian (via proxy to Ellen Shankman), Ellen Shankman) 6 votes oppose (Jeff Neuman, Cary Karp, Jordyn Buchanan), 7 votes abstain (Ken Stubbs, Thomas Keller, Bruce Tonkin, Gabriel Pineiro) . 4 voters absent: (Greg Ruth, Milton Mueller, Lynda Roesch, Chun Eung Hwi). The motion failed. The motion failed. Item 4: Update on the deletes implementation committee Jordyn Buchanan reported that the Deletes Implementation Committee report was under discussion in the Deletes Task Force and a final report was expected 7 days before the Montreal meeting. Item 5: Budget update: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.ICANN-GNSO-finances-recap.html - status of constituency payments for 2003 - balance of account The Secretary reported that the unencumbered funds totalled $49 042,11 and the NCUC dues for 2003 were still outstanding. On the debt issue, there was currently $103,444.84 in outstanding receivables in the DNSO financial records. According to ICANN's financial policies, there has been a bad debt reserve created for this amount as it is more than 90 days past due. Before completing the processing of closing out the GNSO accounts, instructions would be needed from the GNSO Council on how to handle this debt on the ICANN books. If it is to be written off, then ICANN needs to be advised that the DNSO (now GNSO) wishes to take that action. Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Budget committee make a proposal to the GNSO Council to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting in July which would allow for an understanding of the final status of the accounts. Item 6: Updated GNSO rules of procedure http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.GNSOprocedures.html - no comments have been received - schedule for vote at the June meeting Any other business Bruce Tonkin stated that the GNSO Rules of Procedure have been combined with the ICANN bylaws to bring them in line and that they should be approved in July by the ICANN Board. Louis Touton stated that this was not a requirement, but the Constituency bylaws had to be submitted and approved by the ICANN Board in July. Bruce Tonkin referred to the 14 day voting period and the current term for the GNSO Chair which may want to be changed. Louis Touton informed the Council that at the Montreal meeting, three members of the Nominating Committee would be seated and would be eligible to vote. Item 7: Any other business 7a. Bruce Tonkin stated that at the last GNSO Council meeting, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030522.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html Council voted to form a WHOIS Steering Group. Two issues to be considered: 1. Membership of the WHOIS Steering Group. Bruce Tonkin proposed that each constituency should nominate one member who could be a non council member or a council member. 2. WHOIS Steering Group Chair. Bruce Tonkin proposed that the chairperson be independent of the constituencies and recommended Mike Roberts. The purpose of the WHOIS Steering Group would be to determine the topics and not to create policy. Milton Mueller joined the meeting. Ken Stubbs commented that Mike Roberts would be an excellent person, but if he were to decline, there should be a methodology in place to another person. Could a Board member be chosen? Marilyn Cade mentioned that it would be more advantageous to have a non Board member. Milton Mueller proposed Scott Bradner, a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Tom Keller proposed two persons from each constituency and the Chair chosen from the European Community. Bruce Tonkin supported the proposal of two members per constituency. Louis Touton clarified saying that the WHOIS Steering group would be making recommendations to the Council for moving forward. The proposed time line: Steering Committee in place for the Montreal meeting so the outputs of the public forums could be considered. Thirty days for the first drafts, and possible discussion at Council level. Thirty days to refine the drafts. Thus a sixty day period to obtain the initial output with a recommendation for one, two or three task forces with clearly defined purposes for each. Louis Touton clarified the voting position in the proposed WHOIS Steering Group, saying that the bylaws do not define the voting in task forces and steering groups. Cary Karp left the meeting and handed a proxy to Jeff Neuman. Bruce Tonkin commented that it would be appropriate for the WHOIS Steering Group to have liaisons from the GAC and the ALAC. Audri Mukhopadhyay commented that there were 9 liaisons in the GAC and that the invitation would be extended to them. Bruce Tonkin proposed: That each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS Steering Group, - the members may be from outside the GNSO Council - each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the WHOIS Steering Group. Vote: motion carried unanimously. Decision 2: Each constituency could appoint one or two members to the WHOIS Steering Group - the members may be from outside the GNSO Council - each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in the WHOIS Steering Group. Bruce Tonkin urged the constituencies to appoint one or two members before Montreal and that the independent chair to the steering group could be achieved by consensus among the steering group members, or a chair could be appointed from within the steering group. Bruce Tonkin supported the request from the ALAC to appoint two representatives to give flexibility, with the understanding that only one person has the right to vote and extended the same invitation to the GAC representation. 7 b. Bruce Tonkin inquired whether there was convergence on the gTLD committee document. Philip Sheppard reported that the wording on the issue of International Domain Names still had to be reviewed and the document would be ready for the ICANN Montreal meeting on June 24, 2003. 7 c. Audri Mukhopadhyay extended an invitation to the GNSO Council to meet with the GAC gTLD working group on Monday morning, June 23, 2003, to discuss whatever issues the Council wished to raise with the GAC which could cover gTLD policies, deletes and transfers. It was requested that a list of topics be drawn up by the GNSO Council Chair and forwarded to the GAC in preparation for the meeting. The meeting would follow after the GNSO Council breakfast meeting in the same room at 9:00 AM. Marilyn Cade requested a list of the GAC working groups. Action: Secretary will request the list from Christopher Wilkinson, Secretary to the GAC. and post to GNSO Council list. 7 d. Ken Stubbs said that requests had been received from various users expressing concern about users who had relied on Internet Service Providers (ISP) over the last years to manage domain names. The Internet Service Providers, were experiencing difficult times and some had gone out of business resulting in the users, who have domains with them, not having any portability. Would it thus be possible to develop a methodology to deal with the problem, which could be communicated to the users? Bruce Tonkin replied that it was an appropriate subject for the Registrar's constituency to consider. 7 e. Bruce Tonkin asked the GNSO Secretariat for a status report on the process for the GNSO Council Chair vote. The secretary explained that nominations would close on Friday June 6, 12:00 UTC The ballots would be sent out just after the close of nominations. The GNSO Council will vote by e-mail between Friday , June 6, 15:00 UTC and Friday, June 20, 15:00 UTC 2003 to elect the GNSO Council Chair. The vote will be ratified at the GNSO Council meeting in Montreal on June 24, 2003. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed Call ended: 15:20 CET, 13:20 UTC, 23 :20 Melbourne time Thursday 5 , June , 2003. Next GNSO Council meeting: Tuesday June 24 , 2003 at 14:00 local time in Montreal see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Information from: © GNSO Council