[council] GNSO Council draft minutes: April 17, teleconference
Dear Council Members,
Below please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held
on April 17, 2003.
If there are any changes you would like made, please let me know.
GNSO Council Teleconference on 17 April 2003 - minutes
18 April 2003.
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, apologies proxy to Bruce Tonkin
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies
proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. absent
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C.
Charles Shaban - Commercial and Business Users Constituency representative
replacing Philip Sheppard during the voting for ICANN Board seat 14
15 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Audri Mukhopdhyay - GAC Liaison
Lisa Jacobson - Assistant to GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler- Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC)
Linda Wilson - Nominating Committee Chair
Pindar Wong - Nominating Committee member
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting Alix Guillard - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summertime in the northern hemisphere).
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
· Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Item 9 placed first on agenda
9. Report from gtld committee - Philip Sheppard [10 mins]
- progress to provide a recommendation "on whether to structure the
evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if so, how to do so."
· Agenda Item 9. Report from gtld committee - Philip Sheppard
- progress to provide a recommendation "on whether to structure the
evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if so, how to do so."
Philip Sheppard reporting on the process and timing of the gTLD committee
comprised of all the Council members, said there had been 3 teleconferences,
probably the last being on May 8, each followed by a summary. Members were
urged to direct the version 3 summary to the constituencies for comments.
Milton Mueller commented that the Board asked the task force whether the
namespace should be structured and as the answer seemed to be no, it was
proposed that paragraph 7 could be taken as the response to the Board.
Bruce Tonkin commented, on the process for providing a response to a
question from the ICANN Board compared to the formal policy development
process that includes public comment processes as documented in the ICANN
bylaws. Bruce Tonkin recommended that the committee should not aim to
create new policy without using the formal policy development process. The
committee may consider dividing its response to the question from the ICANN
Board into two components. The first component could provide a direct
response to the question (e.g that the namespace should not be structured),
and the second component could identify issues (e.g avoiding names that are
confusingly similar) that arise from this advice that should be subject to
future policy development using the formal policy development process.
Item : Summary of last meeting
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Jeff Neuman.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
· Agenda Item 3. Ratify e-mail vote on ICANN Board seat #14
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting:
To ratify that the e-mail vote was recorded correctly. If the vote is
ratified, Michael Palage will be elected to the ICANN Board seat 14.
Vote: 12 Council members (including Charles Shaban) voted.
18 votes in favour, 2 of which were proxy votes in favour, Thomas Keller,
Registrar constituency and J. Scott Evans Intellectual Property Interests
constituency, no votes against, and no abstentions.
Decision 2: Declare vote ratified and Michael Palage appointed to seat 14
· Agenda Item 4. Discuss any adjustments to process for Board seat
Bruce Tonkin proposed that before calling for nominations, confirmation
should be sought from the candidates nominated for seat 14 whether they
wished to continue their nomination for consideration for seat 13.
Jeff Neuman reminded the Council that Barbara Simons, from North America,
was ineligible as the council may not appoint two ICANN Board members that
are citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same
Geographic Region [see Article VI, Section 2(3)].
Bruce Tonkin proposed:
· Confirming whether the current candidates wished to stand for seat
· Nomination period one week starting on Tuesday, April 22 to
Tuesday April 29, 2003
· Some days for ICANN and GNSO secretaries to check administrative
details before the ballots are sent out.
· The ballots will be run the same way as for seat 14.
An option for the Council to consider:
Under the ICANN bylaws [Article X, Section 3(7)] a vote for the ICANN Board
members can be carried out by written ballot (which includes e-mail) and in
the strict legal definition there no requirement to follow with the vote
ratified at a meeting.
Bruce Tonkin supported by Marilyn Cade suggested that the ratification at a
formal meeting was valuable.
Bruce Tonkin's proposal of ratification at a formal meeting was supported by
· Agenda Item 6. Vote to approve the Deletes Task Force
recommendations and report for submission to the ICANN Board
Bruce Tonkin stated that it was the intention to vote on the recommendations
at the meeting, but following the issuing of the agenda, input received from
ICANN General Counsel and staff indicated that some of the wording may
unduly restrict Registrar operations and there could be extenuating
circumstances where Registrars may wish not to delete a name to protect the
Bruce Tonkin proposed not to vote on the recommendations.
Discussion highlighted the value of an implementation group being formed,
composed of Registrars, Registries, task force members and ICANN Staff which
would provide feedback to the task force. Taking into account the critical
nature of deleting a domain name, the process should be correct and the
possible timeframe considered for the report to be voted on by Council was
the June 2003 meeting in Montreal.
Bruce Tonkin seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed:
· That the Chair of the GNSO Council would liaise with the Chair of
the Deletes Task Force for the creation of an implementation group and the
implementation group would provide input to the Deletes Task Force.
· The Deletes task force would have 2 weeks to assimilate the input
received and present the revised Final Report to be voted on by the Council.
Vote: Unanimous support of voting Council members
Decision 3: The Chair of the GNSO Council will liaise with the Chair of the
Deletes Task Force for the creation of an implementation group which will
provide input to the Deletes Task Force which will assimilate the input and
present a revised Final Report to be voted on by Council.
· Agenda Item 5. Presentation by Nominating Committee and discussion
regarding filling three seats on the GNSO Council
Linda Wilson introduced the presentation with a description of the general
functions of the committee.
The new process, the Nominating Committee (NomCom) was designed as a result
of the At Large Study Committee and the subsequent Evolution and Reform
committee discussions with the Internet community bringing forth the Final
report which met with the Board's approval.
The Nominating Committee is not an election process, but a broadly based
opportunity for the Internet community to participate, composed of delegates
chosen by the various bodies in ICANN according to specific criteria such as
integrity, intelligence, wide contacts and commitment to the success of
The Committee though not yet fully composed, as there are no representatives
from an Academic Consumer organization and Root Server Advisory committee,
The selection it makes is final and needs no ratification.
There are 16 positions to be filled with 19 terms of duty. The aim is to
conclude the selection in time to seat all by the Montreal 2003 ICANN
All the positions use the same 4 criteria stated in the Bylaws for the
selection of Directors with some
variations in the eligibility requirements and added considerations for the
GNSO Council and the At Large committee.
Balance in the fields of experience is important in all three groups, Domain
names, Internet protocol and Protocol port and parameter numbers, for which
the Nominating Committee is making a selection.
Extensive outreach is being undertaken by the Nominating Committee members
in all the constituencies and in other groups in ICANN. Members of the
Internet community will have the opportunity to recommend individuals and
volunteer to be considered for the positions to be filled but each
recommendation requires a statement of interest before it will be reviewed.
All the Nominating Committee Members have committed themselves to a code of
Pindar Wong added that it was a quality in, quality out process, meaning
that the quality of the output is dependent on the quality of the candidates
submitting statements of interest.
Grant Forsyth supported the previous speakers and reiterated the call to
take up the challenge.
Linda Wilson expressed appreciation to the GNSO for the opportunity of
addressing the Council.
Bruce Tonkin asked for clarification on:
- the intent to fill the 3 GNSO Council seats by the June ICANN meetings
Yes, it was hoped to get all work done by the June meeting in Montreal.
- request for information on the activities the GNSO will be examining over
the next years to come.
- information on what skills the current Council had in house.
Linda Wilson explained that the latter requests were important to assist the
Nominating Committee in considering, faced with multiple candidates who
could meet all the requirements, which people should be added and who could
best complement those currently on the Council, keeping in mind the
necessary balance that is sought. The Nominating Committee will finally
decide independently of specific requests.
The objective is to fill in a matrix of skills and experiences.
Pindar Wong added that:
- skills should be seen in the context of the challenges that the GNSO will
- Geographic Diversity as provided for in the Bylaws - there being no one
from the Africa region currently on the GNSO Council.
The bylaws state citizenship.
Linda Wilson added that no more than one officer, director or employee of
any particular corporation or other organization shall serve on the GNSO
Council at any given time.
Confidentiality of all disclosed material will be assured and no posting on
the website will be done without permission from the source.
Antonio Harris asked what the Geographic diversity criteria would be for the
8 Board seats?
Linda Wilson explained that at no time would the NomCom select a director to
fill any vacancy or expired term whose selection would cause the total
number of directors who are citizens of countries in any one Geographic
Region to exceed five and the NomCom shall ensure through its selections
that at all times the Board includes at least one director who is a citizen
of a country in each ICANN Geographic Region.
The requirement on Geographic Diversity only applies to Board directors.
Linda Wilson raised the issue of cultural and gender diversity and
emphasized the need to bear in mind that men and women have expertise.
Milton Mueller asked whether the NomCom would be able to put NomCom members
on the Board, to which the answer was no.
Bruce Tonkin thanked Linda Wilson and Pindar Wong for their participation.
Grant Forsyth dropped off the call giving his proxy to Philip Sheppard and
then Marilyn Cade.
· Agenda Item 7. Discussion on WIPO recommendations regarding names
and acronyms of International Intergovernmental Organizations
Bruce Tonkin introduced the subject having copied to Council from the
Governmental Advisory Committee communiqué in Rio
-that Board hereby requests the President to inform the Governmental
Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the other Advisory
Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) ; to provide those bodies with a copy of the
text of the letter; and to invite them to provide, no later than 12 May
2003, any comments they may formulate, according to their processes,
concerning the matters discussed in the WIPO letter.
Note the Government Advisory Committee has responded and endorsed the
Marilyn Cade suggested that the existing UDRP be maintained for the purposes
for which it was developed and that separate discussions be undertaken about
the appropriateness of developing, and the necessary criteria needed for, a
Dispute Resolution process for names and acronymns referred to in the WIPO
Milton Mueller commented that the NCUC constituency did not support
extending the existing UDRP and expressed concern about the freedom of
expression rights for websites that criticised Inter-Governmental
Philip Sheppard expressed the importance of assessing whether WIPO's
perception was right in terms of the scale of the problem.
Laurence Djolakian said that the Intellectual Property Interests
Constituency was still discussing the issue, and would have formal comments
in May. It is commonly felt that the UDRP works well and that an extended
mechanism should not undercut the existing trademark protection. There are
different views in the constituency on the extension to Inter-Governmental
Organization names. There is a risk of creating International law which is
not the purpose of the UDRP, however good arguments should be brought
forward if extension is not favoured.
Thomas Roessler, stated that the ALAC would submit separate comments to the
Board but mentioned the limits of ICANN's mission which does not include the
creation of new international law, contrasted with the WIPO2 report's
finding that there is insufficient international law in the areas concerned
by the recommendations. He cautioned about limiting future
policy-development, and expressed concern that some of the recommendations
actually seemed to focus on the content of domain names, which is outside
Bruce Tonkin resolved, with regard to the WIPO recommendations, that Council
responds back to the Board with the following advice:
· To consider the WIPO recommendations separately from the review of
the existing Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) which is aimed at
· That the WIPO recommendations associated with Names and Acronyms
of International Intergovernmental Organisations and Country Names be
subject to a policy development process to look at how it can be implemented
taking into account a thorough examination of the issues surrounding the
Proposed by Philip Sheppard, seconded by Ken Stubbs.
Motion carried unanimously
Decision 4: That Council responds back to the Board with the following
To consider the WIPO recommendations separately from the review of the
existing Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) which is aimed at
That the WIPO recommendations associated with Names and Acronymns of
International Intergovernmental Organisations and Country Names should be
subject to a policy development process to look at how they can be
implemented taking into account a thorough examination of the issues
surrounding the recommendations.
· Agenda Item 8: UDRP Task Force
- propose closing down the current task force and re-initiating the policy
development process under the new GNSO Policy development process
- UDRP review needs to take into account experience with new tlds, and the
recommendations from WIPO on names and acronyms of International
- Council to vote to initiate a new policy development process and seek an
issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager on current UDRP issues taking
into account of the work done so far by the UDRP task force and recent
- allow staff 45 days for this report to be completed.
Bruce Tonkin explained that the UDRP task force had been created some time
ago under the old DNSO Names Council and proposed closing it down and
re-initiating the policy development process under the new GNSO Policy
The date and the context of the UDRP survey done in 2001 should be
considered in further use.
Marilyn Cade proposed, seconded by Laurence Djolakian
· To thank the current UDRP task force for the work done
· To close down the current UDRP task force that was created under
the Names Council
· To initiate the policy development process
· To seek an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager and that one
of the inputs to the issues report is the existing material and analysis
from the current UDRP task force.
· That the issues report be done in a 45 day period
Motion carried unanimously.
To thank the current UDRP task force for the work done
To close down the current UDRP task force that was created under the Names
To initiate the policy development process
To seek an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager and that one of the
inputs to the issues report is the existing material and analysis from the
current UDRP task force.
That the issues report be done in a 45 day period
Agenda Item 10. Any other business
Bruce Tonkin commented on the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison
on the GNSO Council and given that new policy is involved, requested the GAC
to examine the Deletes task force report.
Audri Mukhopdhyay the GAC Liaison, commented that there were two GAC working
groups, on gTLDs and WHOIS relevant to the GNSO Council
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked all the participants
for being on the call.
Call ended: 15:50 CET, 23:50 Melbourne, 13:50 UTC, Thursday 17, April, 2003.
Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday May 22, 2003
Information from:© GNSO Council