[council] Revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 9 August 2007.

To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 9 August 2007. Karen Lentz has requested that the following revisions be noted: Item 3: Under Philip’s first question, old text: “Karen Lentz clarified that when staff examines the issue, they will propose various options.” Changed to: “Karen Lentz clarified that it would be expected that as staff examines the issue, they would be coming back with the various options as part of the interaction with the Council.” 3. Following Craig’s comment underneath this, old text: “Karen Lentz clarified that individual negotiations would be avoided in the new gTLD process and would specifically apply to all past contracts upon contract renewal.” Changed to: "Karen Lentz clarified that the approach developed for fees would apply to existing contracts upon renewal, but would not apply retroactively to existing contracts." Please let me know if you would like any other changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen ........................................................................................ 9 August 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C - Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Adrian Kinderis - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries -absent Cary Karp - gTLD registries - absent -apologies Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C Robin Gross - NCUC - absent Norbert Klein - NCUC Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 14 Council Members (18 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 Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison Karin Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Observers Miriam Sapiro - consultant Liz Gasster - consultant MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest Tom Keller indicated that he would provide an updated statement of interest. Item 2: Approval of GNSO Council minutes - 7 June 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03587.html - 27 June 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03692.html - 12 July 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03705.html - 7 June 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03587.html Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007 Motion approved Mawaki Chango abstained - 27 June 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03692.html Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007 Motion approved Cyril Chua abstained - 12 July 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03705.html Avri Doria moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007 Motion passed Tom Keller, Greg Ruth, Mawaki Chango, Ross Rader abstained Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007 GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007 GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007 Item 3: - consideration of recommendations from Contractual Conditions PDP http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07.htm - discuss staff implementation notes http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSOPDPFeb06-StaffMemo-27jul07.pdf Karen Lentz commented that the staff implementation notes attempted to set out staff actions on implementing each majority supported recommendation. 1. Recommendation 1A. There should be a policy guiding registry agreement renewal. Staff would document current registry agreement renewal guidelines, and establish a draft procedure and timeline, collaborating with the GNSO and incorporating public comment, that is, formalise and write-up current practice 2. Recommendation 1A.2. The initial term of Registry agreements should be for a commercially reasonable length. ICANN staff contemplated using expert economic analysis to determine what was ' reasonable' for the industry and then applying it to all gTLD registries under contract. 3. Recommendation 1C There was majority support for the concept of a re-bid of registry contracts but there are differing opinions as to the conditions under which re-bids would occur. ICANN staff would examine the current terms when an agreement was terminated or not renewed and the consensus where re-bids would be used or would be appropriate to be used. 4. Recommendation 2 A The present limitations to Consensus Policies are appropriate and should continue. Staff considered no further action was deemed necessary, the current way of dealing with the issue should be continued. 5. Recommendation 2B. Certain policy making responsibility should be delegated to the sponsored gTLD operators. Staff commented that the current form of agreement for sponsored top-level domains includes provisions delegating certain policy making responsibilities to the Sponsor thus the recommendation appeared to confirm the existing practice. 6. Recommendation 4A. In order to improve ICANN accountability and effective business planning by registries, ICANN staff should immediately implement a system that avoids individual negotiations of ICANN fees and provides consistency unless there is an established justification for disparate treatment. In formalizing a consistent model for registry fees, ICANN staff would take into account both current practices and the existing fee structure for each registry and continue to work in consultation with the GNSO and the community to refine the current approach. 7. Recommendation 4B. The ICANN Board should establish a Task Force or Advisory Committee to examine budgeting issues, including the manner and allocation of revenue collection, budget oversight and budget approval processes. This group should solicit and review public comments on the issues. ICANN Staff agreed to forward the recommendation relating to the budget process to the ICANN Board. 8. Recommendation 5. In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus policy on the collection and use of registry data, including traffic data, for purposes other than which is was collected, there is first a need for a properly targeted study by an independent third party on the data collected and the uses to which it is put. The study should provide appropriate safeguards to protect any data provided for the purposes of the study, and the confidentiality of which registry, or other group, provides the data. The findings of the study should be published and available for public review. A Statement of Work should be developed by the GNSO Council, with appropriate public review, to cover an analysis of the concerns for data collection and use, the practice involved in collection and use of data - including traffic data, and the availability, when appropriate, for nondiscriminatory access to that data. It is recommended that a current processes document be developed, describing the current registry practices for the collection of data and the uses of that data, for example, but not limited to, operating the registry; preparing marketing materials to promote registration of domain names; gathering of ‘null’ returns, ensuring the integrity of the Registry, or the DNS. This report should be available to the group doing the external study and should be made available to the public for comment. After examining the results of the independent study and public discussions recommended above, the GNSO Council should examine the findings and determine what, if any, further policy process is required. ICANN staff committed to support and carry out, including writing a draft statement of work and securing expert assistance in executing a third-party study on various types of registry data, should Council decide to undertake such a study. 9. Recommendation 6A. There should not be a policy guiding investments in development and infrastructure. Staff commented that currently there was no policy. Existing gTLD registry agreements do not require registry operators or sponsors to invest specific amounts in development and infrastructure. Each registry agreement contains minimum functional and performance specifications which must be met and it was expected that this approach would continue. 10 Recommendation 6B. ICANN should establish baseline requirements for the security and stability of registries and anything above that would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, if necessary. Baseline requirements should be recommended to the Board by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) after consultation with the gTLD registry operators. In determining those recommendations, the SSAC should solicit and consider public comments. It was noted that there were various provisions in the registry agreements that were aimed at the preservation of security and stability and the ICANN staff agreed to consult with the SSAC in establishing base line requirements on security and stability. Karen Lentz concluded that the Task Force’s report included a constructive set of recommendations regarding difficult and controversial issues. Staff could act in accordance with these recommendations without requiring their adoption as formal policy recommendations, and would do so at the direction of the Council. Philip Sheppard requested that an explicit commentary tied to a time line was needed. Staff should revise the implementation document to show the status of proposed actions for each recommendation as follows: ACTION - (explanation) (time line) NO ACTION because it was consistent with staff's existing practice (time line) NO ACTION because it was consistent with the status quo (time line). Then Philip posed three specific questions on the recommendations: - Recommendation 3.1C the fee attached to the re-bid. The overall philosophy of the group had been an expectation to have a policy on re-bid for all contracts both existing and new and the expectation was that staff would specifically advise on implementing a policy of re-bid for a contract. Karen Lentz clarified that it would be expected that as staff examines the issue, they would be coming back with the various options as part of the interaction with the Council. - Recommendation 4A - the consistency of fees. The text must be changed to show a clear recognition that there is currently no policy, and that the objective of this recommendation is a consistent approach, avoiding any individual negotiations on ICANN fees (both for future and past TLDS). Craig Schwartz commented that while consistency across the board was desirable, one of ICANN’s core values was to allow competition and innovation in the name space, there had to be room to accommodate different business models. Karen Lentz clarified that the approach developed for fees would apply to existing contracts upon renewal, but would not apply retroactively to existing contracts. Philip Sheppard thanked staff for the verbal clarification, asked for it to be put in writing as an amendment to the staff document and commented that it was also a necessary clarification in light of recommendation 4B on the budget process. Avri Doria commented that the ICANN by-laws were unspecific on whether the recommendations should be voted as a whole or individually. The presumption was that the recommendations would be voted on as a whole in the absence of a specific motion and vote requesting that they be voted on separately. No such motion was made. Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion that: The GNSO Council supports the recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to the ICANN Board. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pdp-report-feb06-tfr-20Apr07.htm Vote in favour: Philip Sheppard, based on the specific clarifications that have been heard on the call, yes, Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango, Avri Doria (each holding one vote), Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Ross Rader (each holding 2 votes) Total number of votes in favour 16 Vote against: Chuck Gomes (holding 2 votes) Total number of votes against 2 Council members absent who did not vote: Tony Holmes, Robin Gross, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Jon Bing, Sophia Bekele. The motion carried with a supermajority vote as defined in the ICANN bylaws, section 16 http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA Decision 2: The GNSO Council supports by a supermajority vote the recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to the ICANN Board. Liz Williams commented that a Board report would be produced within five days, then it would be transmitted to the board with a detail of the voting record. Council would be advised of the process. Item 4: - review of WHOIS status and decision on how to proceed - include consideration of meeting on 23 August 2007 to consider WHOIS recommendation to board Philip Sheppard reported that the WHOIS working group had completed its substantive work, the draft Outcomes Report of the WHOIS Working Group version 1.6 was currently being circulated for a week to the WHOIS working group to check that all opinions were correctly recorded. The next, and potentially the final version of Outcome Report of the Working Group, version 1.7 would be produced after the Council meeting with a period of commentary from the working group and then the work would be complete. Council was welcome to give guidance on how long it was appropriate for a potentially final report to be circulated to the group before it closed. Avri Doria mentioned that a possible Council meeting could be called on 23 August to discuss the final outcomes report. Some Council members considered more time was needed to complete the report and check the accuracy of the views represented. Ross Rader reminded the group that the mandated time line in the WHOIS working group charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-char..., and the schedule set at the GNSO Council meeting in Sao Paulo http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27jun07.shtml had expired, and encouraged the Council to close off the working group as soon as possible. Ross Rader reminded the Council that the WHOIS working group was not asked to produce implementation guidelines, but that the working group charter specified seeking further definitions around contentious issues. To the degree that those definitions were acceptable to Council, they should be integrated into the final WHOIS Task Force Report. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12... Adrian Kinderis, seconded by Chuck Gomes, and accepting the friendly amendment proposed by Philip Sheppard, clarifying the dates, proposed that: The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 20 August 2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report on 23 August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 2007. Resolution passed unanimously by vote of acclamation Decision 3: The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 20 August 2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report on 23 August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 2007. The Council agreed to change the regular meeting time from 12:00 UTC to 14:00 UTC for all future meetings. Item 5 - review pending action list, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf - includes status from ongoing projects (new gTLD, IGO issues follow up, domain tasting follow-up, - response to board resolution on IDN cc TLDs, - RN recommendations for existing TLDs 5a - New gTLDs The draft “Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains” will be published on the ICANN website with a call for comments open from 10 August to 30 August 2007. 5b - IGO Issues follow up Olof Nordling commented on the IGO issues follow up to draft the dispute resolution procedure, and said that a final document would be provided to the Council on 28 September 2007, so that it could be discussed at the scheduled Council meeting on 11 October 2007. 5c - Domain tasting Avri Doria commented that the due date for the report of the ad hoc group was August 30 2007 and the date of September 6 2007 for Council to act on the proposal. Mike Rodenbaugh, coordinator of the ad hoc group, stated that the group had sent out a request for information which would be published on the ICANN website on Monday 13 August 2007 with the responses due on September 15, 2007. The group holds weekly meetings and would need an extension to complete the work. Ross Rader enquired how the domain name tasting ad hoc group fitted into the policy development process (PDP). Avri Doria clarified that the Council received an Issues Report on Domain Tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun... While a PDP was listed as one of the possible solutions, a resolution was taken at the Council meeting in San Juan to: 1) To create a small, ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain tasting, including but not limited to examination of questions posed on page 30 of the issues report, and to draft terms of reference for a possible GNSO policy development process in a timely way; 2) To direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP; 3) To consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting, and to consider whether to launch a policy development process on domain tasting at the September 2007 GNSO Council meeting. Philip Sheppard, Adrian Kinderis and Chuck Gomes confirmed that that was their understanding as well. Mike Rodenbaugh commented that the group understood it was tasked with directing further research to frame a draft terms of reference. The group's focus was not on defining the actual terms 'domain tasting' and 'domain kiting', but rather the issues around those terms. It was further clarified that the members of this group were not restricted to constituencies, the mailing list was open but the attendance on conference calls was limited. Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh proposed, and accepted the friendly amendment from Mike Rodenbaugh that: The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain name tasting to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council by 4 October 2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007. In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify that 'small' in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives from among each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee appointees and the Advisory Committees. Resolution passed unanimously Decision 4: The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain name tasting to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council by 4 October 2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007. In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify that 'small' in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives from among each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee appointees and the Advisory Committees. 5d - Response to board resolution regarding IDN ccTLDs. Chuck Gomes, the group coordinator, reported that there were six members of the small group plus Olof Nordling providing staff support, and a couple of observers. The group was working on a draft document, for consideration by the full council. Work was taking place on the mailing list and in a couple of teleconferences. The group expected to meet the 13 September 2007 deadline. 5e - RN recommendations for existing TLDs Chuck Gomes reported on the ICANN IANA names and the single letter or digit names at the second or third level. Patrick Jones produced a draft implementation guideline that was being reviewed by other staff before being distributed. Delivery date for the staff report would be confirmed and Craig Schwartz held the token for this item. Avri Doria clarified that it was a Council action item and no longer a group action item as it was a pending item from the Reserved Names working group to discuss the recommendations on IANA names and single letters/digits at the Council level. Ross Rader enquired whether it was still a priority issue for Council. It was agreed that though not a high priority item the work was incomplete and needed to come to a conclusion so that the council was efficient across the board on the tasks it undertook. Avri Doria proposed putting it on the agenda for the next Council meeting. 5f - Developing a plan for holding an extensive comment session on new gTLDs in LA Avri Doria commented that on Monday, 29 October 2007, at the ICANN meetings in Los Angeles, a six-hour session would be scheduled to discuss the new gTLD recommendations in detail, not as a comment-seeking session, but rather in a workshop manner, explaining what was being suggested, as well as the reasoning and the arguments that went into the recommendations. It would be important to clarify the expectations for the audience. Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Adrian Kinderis agreed to provide a draft plan. Item 6 AOB Philip Sheppard, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh, accepted Avri Doria's friendly amendment proposed that: The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of recusal when using a proxy. The resolution passed unanimously Decision 5:The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of recusal when using a proxy. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 14:50 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 30 August 2007 at 14:00 UTC. see: Calendar Action items arising from the Minutes: The Council agreed to change the regular meeting time from 12:00 UTC to 14:00 UTC for all future meetings. Item 5f. Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Adrian Kinderis agreed to provide a draft plan for the proposed workshop in LA on new gTLDs. Item 6: Seek opinion from General Counsel ' In considering this request the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of recusal when using a proxy.' -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org