Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Meetings in São Paulo, Brazil

Captioning GNSO Council Meeting

6 December 2006

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Council Meeting held on 6 December 2006 in São Paulo, Brazil. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Let's get started again and see what motions we can pass before the rest of the council joins us.

So the agenda for this council meeting, for those in the audience that -- this council meeting generally conducts administrative discussion and decisions. We don't have any policy decisions before us in this particular meeting, so the agenda consists of an opportunity for any council members to update their standing statements of interest, approval of GNSO Council minutes, correspondence we've received since our last meeting, and then we'll just basically be going through each of the policy development activities and identifying what status they're up to, and getting some understanding of when we're expecting to see the next iteration of reports and hopefully when we'll get to land those policy development works.

Then there's a brief discussion on what some of the next steps are with respect to the GNSO structure, a brief update from the GNSO secretariat on the process for election of the GNSO Council chair, and then finally any other business.

So firstly, perhaps if each of the council members can introduce themselves for the purpose of the record.

So my name is Bruce Tonkin. I'm a representative of the registrar constituency, and I'm currently chair of the GNSO Council.

>>MARILYN CADE: Certainly. I'm Marilyn Cade. I'm a member of the business constituency. While I don't have an update in my interest statement, it occurs to me that not everyone in the community is familiar with interest statements, so I'll just quickly say that I advise AT&T, I advise TTPC, which is a -- the parent of one of the new registries and provide an external appeals process, and I advise that is interested in registering a single-letter second-letter name. Those are the three clients that I have that some people may think may have an interest in ICANN's policy work, so I'd like to just make sure that that's, again, restated for the record.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Kristina Rosette. I represent the intellectual property constituency.

>>AVRI DORIA: Avri Doria, a NomCom appointee to the council.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: Norbert Klein, the noncommercial constituency.

>>ROSS RADER: I'm Ross Rader. I'm the elected registrar representative for North America.

>>ROBIN GROSS: I'm Robin Gross. I represent the noncommercial users constituency for North America.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Philip Sheppard with the business constituency.

>>ALISTAIR DIXON: Alistair Dixon with the business constituency and I'm the Asia-Pacific representative.

>>GREG RUTH: Greg Ruth, ISPCP.

>>TONY HOLMES: Tony Holmes, ISPCP.

>>TONY HARRIS: Tony Harris, ISPCP.

>>JUNE SEO: June Seo, registry constituency.

>>BRET FAUSETT: Bret Fausett from the At-Large Advisory Committee, the soccer champions of the ICANN world.

I should also say that this will be my last council meeting, as on Thursday we're going to find a new liaison for the council, so this will be it for me.

>>KEN STUBBS: Ken Stubbs, registry constituency, with one foot out the door as well.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. It's just occurred to me that officially my term as chair finished, I think, on Sunday, the 3rd, so I probably need a procedural motion just to elect a chair for the moment. So Philip, you want to --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'd like to make a procedural motion to elect Bruce Tonkin as chair for this meeting.

>> I'll second that.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Can we have a show of hands on that topic.

>>MARILYN CADE: Actually, I'd like to -- I'd like to ask a question. I would like to see if Philip would accept a friendly amendment or advice on how I make a friendly amendment to note that the extension should be extended until the conclusion of the election that is now underway.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Do you accept that amendment, Philip?





>>KEN STUBBS: Call for the question, please.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Call for the question. Please raise your hand if you support that motion as amended.

[Show of hands]

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Thank you.

>>KEN STUBBS: Bruce. Point of order. I'm sorry. I've just received a communication from Cary indicating the line's dead and he's trying to get into the council call.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Perhaps if you can send a note to Cary indicating that it's being worked on.

>>STEVE CONTE: Yeah, we just realized that and we're making the call right now and we're bringing it up in just one second.

>>KEN STUBBS: I have some extra hamster food, if you need it.

>>STEVE CONTE: Thanks.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. So the next item is the approval of the GNSO Council minutes from the last meeting would someone like to that they be accepted?

>>KEN STUBBS: Yes. For the last time, I'd like to move that the minutes be accepted.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'm not sure what we're going to do without you, Ken, on relying on you to do that each meeting. Do we have someone to second that? Ross? All those in favor of accepting those minutes, please say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Are there any against?

[No response]

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Are there any abstentions?

[No response]

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you. We'll note those minutes as passed. I will be formally conveying the outcome of two of those decisions at this meeting to the board. One of those decisions was relating to a proposed change to the bylaws to allow for public comment when changes to major contracts are posted, and the second one was relating to the topic of term limits for council members. I've held off until now, because I felt that we needed to convey the minutes as approved, as well. That went along with those motions, so for the council's information, I shall do that at the conclusion of the session today.

With respect to correspondence, the GNSO Council wrote to the board and asked that the board write at least until -- or -- I think it was until this meeting with respect to biz and info agreements. The board chair did respond in writing on that topic, and we have also formally written to the GAC chair requesting input on the work we are doing with new gTLDs, with a specific interest in advice they may have regarding string criteria. And the GAC chair has also responded to that, and we do expect to meet with the GAC later this week -- in fact, tomorrow -- to discuss the current status of their work on some principles with respect to new gTLDs.

Finally, there was a welcome letter received from the board chair, Vint Cerf, and the CEO of ICANN, welcoming the GNSO members to this meeting in Sao Paulo.

Are there any comments or questions on the correspondence?

Okay. We'll note that correspondence is received. So the next item then is the next steps on the new gTLD work.

I might perhaps just refer to Liz Williams. Perhaps if you could come up and just give an update on where that work is currently at.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Thanks, Bruce. My name is Liz Williams. I've been the lead staff member on the new TLDs process. As everyone is aware, we've had a very good week of meetings here about the new TLDs process, and there has been significant staff work going on in the background to facilitate the implementation of whatever we come up with from a policy side.

What's going to happen from now is that all of the inputs that we have received from the community in a number of different sessions and then, of course, taking into account the work that the GAC are doing on the public policy principles. That's all going to be taken back and I suspect that the largest piece of work is the refinement of the draft final report, which has been posted as a draft report on ICANN's GNSO Web site, and that will take place over the next couple of weeks.

I would expect that the staff will continue to do their weekly deployment calls that we do internally, to make sure that we have as much input from members of staff as possible into the process. I would expect that prior to the Lisbon meeting, we will have a draft final report ready for public comment, and that draft final report will take into account all the inputs that we've received at this meeting, plus formal correspondence between the supporting organizations and ACs.

I'm happy to take further questions, but -- and what I'll do also is I will resubmit a work time line for that particular piece of work to the committee, and then of course many of those that's the same as the council, in many cases, and I'll submit that time line when I've just done a bit more work about what's going to be available and what times we have to have things ready by. I'm certainly happy to take further questions, if anyone wants any clarification.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So Liz, in terms of, I guess, synchronization with physical ICANN meetings, what do you think our expectation is, is by Lisbon? I'll give you what my thoughts are. And I suspect that's probably likely to be a council decision-making meeting and that the board decision-making will no doubt follow that. But I think we've probably got at least three months of work to take into account staff implementation feedback.

We do need to do some further refinement of the recommendations, once the constituencies and public comment occur on the -- on that draft.

Probably the main change, as I see, in the structure is between separating the core recommendation from guidance or advice that the council would give with respect to how that recommendation could be implemented, so we'll probably restructure those recommendations a bit more, so that we provide some clear guidance for -- or advice to the staff with respect to implementation, but we keep the policy itself relatively crisp, I guess, or succinct in its policy objectives.

So would that concur with your expectations of a time line.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: That absolutely concurs with what I think we should be doing. I'd also urge members of the community to submit comments at any time. Please don't wait for formal public comment periods to come around. Please do send questions directly to me or to any of the committee members and have them forwarded, if you wish, to the committee's working list so that they can be considered. It's been a very open process so far and I would expect that to continue.

The other thing that I had thought about that perhaps the committee might want to consider is the necessity for another face-to-face meeting to finalize the draft report which would take into account all the inputs from the SOs and ACs, and I have to say that from my side, face-to-face working has been very, very successful, particularly on highly complex work like this that has very, very different points of view from a wide range of people.

But that requires a very solid document to be ready for that to happen, so that you have solid material to work from. So I'd just flag that as a potential opportunity, and I suspect that that might happen in between now and the Lisbon meeting. Sorry. Can I just do a quick post-Lisbon thing?

And I think that also the end of that sentence was I think that also synchronizes what the board and the -- and Paul thinks that would be a good thing to be doing. Not necessarily the face-to-face meeting, but certainly the timing that we have.

>>KEN STUBBS: Bruce, I'm sorry, I have a point of order real quick. Cary has indicated he's on. It might be a good idea to find out who is on the call.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Ken. Can I just ask, can Cary Karp hear us at this point in time? Because we certainly can't hear you. Ken, can you confirm whether Cary can hear us?

>>KEN STUBBS: He indicated he can hear us.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. So we just need to be able to find a way a way for us to hear him. Okay. Well, we're still working on that.

>>KEN STUBBS: I'm sorry for the distraction. I just wanted to let you know.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: That's okay, Ken. Can I do I guess a bit of a poll of the people around this table on whether -- (a) whether they think it is appropriate to have a face-to-face meeting between now and Lisbon and (b), if so, you know, the timing and possible location of that, just to get a rough feel? Perhaps starting with Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE: I think I might need just a little bit more information in order to say that, but I would say generally the answer is yes. It is going to need financial support from ICANN.

My preference would be to minimize the travel for as many people as possible and do it either in Europe or in Washington, D.C., which is, I think on the east coast, generally easier for people, except for Bruce, to travel to. That was not purposeful.

But I think the question I had before we go on with this is: How long before -- how many weeks before the Lisbon meeting would we need to do it? In order to make sure we...

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I suspect that what I should do is rather than get into a detailed discussion about that possibility, when I have -- I've put together the time line of work for the PDP for '06 work and I'm in the middle of putting together the time line between now and the Puerto Rico meeting for this group to have you discuss it. So perhaps, Bruce, it would be useful to take that discussion on the mailing list, if you wish.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Well, I think the-logically, it's probably going to be mid-February. Yeah. Otherwise, it's -- you know, if it's any earlier than that, we won't have enough material; if it's any later than that, it will be too close to the other meeting.

>>MARILYN CADE: That's all I was looking for.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, yeah.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Liz I, wanted to ask a point of clarification. The time line that you'll be circulating, will that include the deadline for comments on this most recent draft report by the constituencies or do you know now generally what that date might be?

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: I have to put it all into a proper format for you. I don't want to give you just dates off the top of my head because I work with Glen in determining where there's clashes, where there's existing task force work, when it's possible to do conference calls. It's not just actually me making it up. And there's also then of course the PDP guidelines that we try to stick to as much as possible to give people reasonable notice that, for example, public comment periods need to be a certain length and that means it has a direct impact on when we need to produce material. If I send the material a draft report, it's very sensible to give it to you seven days in advance, so at least you have the capacity to read it, so I have to build those times in. Especially also there's a parallel track that's continuing. The ICANN discussion point document took quite a lot of time to develop, and so that we could be very respectful of the committees work but at the same time!

recognize that we need to do things from the staff side, and I also need to build in appropriate discussion, internal discussion times, so it's -- it's not just a case of making a list. It's making seriously thinking about how we do it and when it's best to do it, and I just flag that as a -- we might have too short a time frame to do it.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: The other thing to consider, perhaps, and perhaps I'll just do another voice check to see if we can hear Cary. Cary Karp are you able to hear us and are you able to respond?

>>CARY KARP: I'm responding as best I can. I don't know if you can hear it, though.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes, we just heard you, so it's not very clear, but it is possible to hear you.

>>CARY KARP: Clearer.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Cary. Just a couple of other comments in terms of place and time, just thinking on the fly here, so I think it would probably have to be mid-February. I think in terms of location, it should either be close to an ICANN staff office or perhaps somewhere in between two staff offices, so the major offices affected here is probably Los Angeles, where most of the implementation of the policy would occur, and Brussels, where the development of the policy is being undertaken.

In between those two locations is probably Washington, but I think there is some value, as we're getting into the final phases, that we engage more of the operational staff in terms of discussing implementation issues.

So it may be Los Angeles is better.

>>MARILYN CADE: Can I just ask a you a question about that.

>> If you do choose Los Angeles, I'd be happy to help coordinate that and maybe provide space.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Avri, just doing a bit of a poll as to whether people think it's reasonable and any particular objections on places.

>>AVRI DORIA: No objections. I mean it's hard to know without specific times where -- where one can get to. And how one can get to a place.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Just very quickly around the table then. Norbert?

>>NORBERT KLEIN: Well, I mean, I would just repeat what you said. Without having a specific time, it's very difficult to say it.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So maybe the easiest way of doing this is just by showing of hands if people feel that it would be useful to have another face-to-face meeting before Lisbon, and with a date and location to be confirmed, but possibly Los Angeles, possibly mid-February, but would all those just put their hand -- show of hands if a face-to-face meeting would be useful.

>>MARILYN CADE: Bruce can I just -- before you do that, can I just note that I'll vote but that -- the middle of February, I have a commitment in Geneva that I have to go to. If it's the -- if the meeting is in Europe, then I would be able to say, working around that. If it's in L.A., you know -- and so maybe we could take the vote and then we could ask Liz --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I'm just trying to put some rough time frames here.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Bruce, before you go to that, can I just have some clarification as to what exactly we'll be doing? I mean to my understanding, we're pretty clear in terms of core recommendations so the areas of uncertainty or further work are ideas of implementation options, guidance, and factoring in perhaps GAC principles. Is that right? And maybe that -- the latter is the more challenging.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: And also some of the implementation issues, particularly relating to dispute resolution and panels that might be --


>>BRUCE TONKIN: -- looking at things. We may need to refine the recommendations slightly. So I see there's a refinement exercise, but I think the issue is that that may be better done face-to-face than trying to do it over the phone in one hit.

So what we would be taking as inputs would be an updated report, updated constituency statements, because we'll go back to the constituencies and formally get them to update their statements themselves, so this is not so much constituents -- I know you've submitted some comments on the constituency on, you know, various parts of the report, but the report itself needs to have a section saying: How does this impact your constituency? And we've moved a long way from the initial issues report, so the feel is we should go back and make sure the constituency impact statements are consistent with the -- the current recommendations. That's the GAC input, and then there's the staff input. So I guess those are the inputs, and then we would just refine the recommendations at that point.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Bruce, if I could just help with that, I think that it's quite difficult for everyone to get a handle immediately, and so quickly after the last couple of days. What I'll do is I'll send round a draft work plan that will identify the outstanding elements that need to be done. For example, the drafting of formal correspondence to the ACs and SOs, the input of the GAC on the public policy principles, the input from the staff, and I'll put that into a -- into a nice plan for you, with a suggestion about proposed time line for you, rather than try to hold it all in your head at this meeting.

I'll do that in the next day or so, so that everyone has that.

And then from that, it will be quite obvious what's necessary to be done in order.

>>AVRI DORIA: I know we're only talking about the '05, but if we're going to a lot of effort to bring people together in a location and find that, do we want to consider that we might have other face-to-face things that would be -- that would be doable at the same time? For example, if we look at '06, okay, while we're hoping to do everything on a phone conference, certainly a half day or day of face-to-face to iron out things would be as useful in '06 as it would be in '05. There may be other council things. Many -- much of the membership of these groups, there is overlap, though it does extend somewhat.

So, I mean if we're doing something, I suggest that we need to think in terms of more than just one objective for a face-to-face, but sort of saying while we're traveling for one day, be there 2 1/2 and actually get several things done.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: There's probably a couple of elements to that. One is probably a budgetary consideration as to just how much resource in terms of travel support and ICANN staff support. But it's something to think about further, yeah.

>>AVRI DORIA: Right. Certainly, I mean, one of the problems we have is, indeed, budget and while it costs a couple more dollars to stay there 3 days, that's certainly less than two or three different trips.

>>KEN STUBBS: Bruce? I do have one concern. It relates, to some extent, to what Marilyn said. I think it's extremely important for us to look at where the meeting would be most effective. Then we look at the timing for the meeting. Because I'm inclined to think, as we get closer to implementation, I have to agree with the comments that were made earlier. I think it's extremely important that the people who are going to be involved in the implementation be available during that time period, with resources that they may need at hand for them as well. You know, if we decide that we think that most of the implementation is going to be managed in Los Angeles, it would seem to me that we should be looking at Los Angeles, then we need to look at a time period that makes it possible for people like Marilyn and myself -- I'll be in Europe the second week of February as well. But you need to find a time that makes participation most practical for the members.

So I think it's not just a matter of finding a time slot, but a matter of being -- making sure -- I appreciate the fact that Kurt or Dan can get on a plane and go to Brussels, but if we're going to be needing other people and if they're already working on a plan to start providing resources, then it's easier to have people who may be involved in that implementation right there at hand, to be able to ask questions that may be necessary.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. And they don't need to be there the whole time, I think, is the other thing, so -- but having it in Los Angeles, you can bring people in as you need to. Whereas if you bring the entire -- I think it's inefficient that we have 40 ICANN staff flown in here. That seems to be crazy. Williams Williams just a point of clarification. Then I'll come back to the group with a time line and a work plan, yeah? So you don't need to worry about it right now.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: All right. So I'll ask again, just at a sort of straw poll level but is there a sense that a face-to-face meeting would be useful before Lisbon to further the work? Just by show of hands?

[Show of hands].

>>BRUCE TONKIN: That looks like it's the majority. So I think we'll investigate that further, Liz, in terms of dates and you'll need to talk to the other ICANN staff regarding dates as well.

I think that is done. Yes, thank you.

The next one is -- discussion is where we are time line-wise with the Feb '06 policy development process on contractual conditions. Avri, do you want to perhaps reiterate the comments you made earlier this morning on what you said the time line is.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So the time line is, we're hoping to get all of the constituency statements on the various proposals in by the end of December, by 20 December, and that the goal is to complete the proposed recommendations on everything by that -- by the 1st of February. And that -- and that's why, you know, talking about a meeting in January and February, mid-February becomes very, very timely, if slightly off.

By mid-February was when the task force was going to meet to confirm the report for distribution to the council, and that's why -- you know, that was 15 February, so when we're talking about possibly meeting mid-February, that becomes a perfect time to sort of take that report face-to-face, talk it through, make sure everything's clear and clean, and then submit it to the council for discussion hopefully at the meeting of 22 February. Obviously, we still have to request for placement on the agenda for 22 February.

Then it goes out for public comment, the 3-week -- I think it's 21-day, whatever -- public comment ending 18 March. We have to meet then, incorporate any final comments in, and then at the Lisbon meeting would be when it would be finalized and sent off by the council.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Any questions on that time line?

Okay. Good. Thanks, Avri.

Who is policy development process? Is Jordyn still around? Probably not. Who can update us on WHOIS? In terms of what -- what the next steps are. Do you want to have a go at that, Ross, perhaps? As far as I know, there's two proposals on the table. There's an OPoC proposal and a special circumstances proposal. There will be further discussion with this from the GAC on Thursday, and I also believe that the OPoC proposal needs some further refinement on the topic of what happens to the data that's no longer accessible. Is that a fair representation? I'm particularly interested in what you think, Ross, that the next steps are with respect to the data that's no longer accessible, whether there will be further work on that in the near term.

>>ROSS RADER: Might I recommend, Bruce, I think it is important to get an update on this task force. Might I recommend that we ask Maria to give us a quick update. I have also got some questions.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Maria, if you can get an update. Maria Farrell is the ICANN staff member who is supporting the work of the WHOIS task force. If you can give an update on what the next steps are, please.

>>MARIA FARRELL: Sure, thanks Bruce. We at the policy development process on the WHOIS services that is looking at the outstanding terms of reference that were given to the task force by this GNSO council in June 2005, that stage it's at now a couple of the terms of reference have been worked through to a great extent and we are now looking mostly at the remaining ones for purposes of the contact data and also an access to data.

As Bruce has said, there is a preliminary task force report which has actually just been published for public comment and deals with largely with two proposals, the OPoC proposal and the Special Circumstances Proposal. There is still work that remains to be done, what we have done for this public comments period is that we are running it consecutively with the work that the constituencies are doing to compile their constituency statements and have them ultimately put into the final task force report.

The public comments period and the deadline for constituency statements both close on January 15th, so at that point, the task force should be concluding its work and starting to look at doing the final task force report and slightly less formally along the work that the task force is proposing to do between now and mid February, I believe, and we are looking at having approximately six more meetings running either every week or every two weeks between -- for the next couple of months actually, that would be every week, every Monday. And I think the main items of work to be done are, in fact, this work on the access to data.

So the task force hasn't really managed to do a lot of comprehensive work on that so far, and that's going to be one of the main points of work to be done.

Ultimately this task force is looking to wrap up its work by, I think, it is about mid to end February and to submit its final task force report to the council. And at that stage, I imagine we are all hoping that there will be a fairly clear -- a clearer picture of exactly what are the points of consensus, points of agreement of the task force and what, if any, points outstanding remain on which the task force has not been able to achieve any consensus. Thank you.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Any questions for Maria on that time frame?

>>MARILYN CADE: I think my question may be for you, Bruce, but it is relevant to the time line that Maria reported. The council passed a number of resolutions related to the work of the task force and, I believe, they are documented actually as links in the report and one of the resolutions which I won't paraphrase, I will just try to summarize, says that work of the task force will then be taken into account by the council and there will be consultation with other Supporting Organizations and the GAC and then we will determine what additional work.

Looking at what we have just reported in terms of the time line and where we may be in the council's then taking that into account and then recognizing based on the informal feedback that is available in the halls, it is unlikely to impossible, that we will get WHOIS policy principles from the GAC today -- sorry, tomorrow, before the end of this meeting.

Can we just kind of theoretically look at the calendar for ourselves and see how this feeds into the next steps for council?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: My feeling is probably we still don't have a complete report on all the terms of reference yet. So as mentioned, there's work that needs to be done on access. I am not quite -- having seen the presentation earlier this week, I am not clear on what's happening on accuracy either.

And I think we need to, perhaps, take into what I think the task force as opposed to the council, that the task force needs to take into account any feedback the GAC is able to provide us on Thursday.

I think we need to get to a form where we have a complete report and that may include looking at the purpose again and making sure that the wording of that purpose is consistent with the rest of the report.

And so we have -- if you like, a new complete report would be the target for Lisbon with the expectation we meet again with the GAC and the other -- and the public forum and hopefully try and finalize it, perhaps, after Lisbon.

I don't see the council voting it on Lisbon just based on the progress I am seeing so far.

>>MARILYN CADE: I would also note that we actually do need to have some kind of at least interaction with the other Supporting Organizations relative to their being aware of our WHOIS work. We are focused on WHOIS and the gTLDs, but WHOIS is, of course, a larger issue and there is also a WHOIS in the IP addressing area. I am not suggesting we need to do anything more than to alert them of our work but we probably ought to think about whether -- about how we do that.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Certainly the ccNSO view on this is that it is a matter for them individually to deal so they didn't see themselves -- in any way this being a ccNSO topic, I don't think. Their view is that is individual work for an individual cc. I am not sure where the address registries would be with respect to it. The domain names is obviously not what they deal with. They deal with I.P. addresses. They could look at the approach we are taking and perhaps consider whether that applies to them. In any case, this has been a subject of public forums for the last four years. I don't think they could claim they don't know about it.

>>MARILYN CADE: I understand. I am referencing this merely because our resolution says we are going to do something, so we should either say, ah, we have reconsidered and we are not going to do it because we don't see the need or here is what we have done.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: The context is probably drafting a formal letter to -- when we have a final report that addresses all terms of reference similar to the letter we drafted with respect to the GAC, which would be customized depending on the situation. We would formally write to the Security and Stability Committee and perhaps are there any security issues with what we have proposed.

And with respect to the ccNSO, we might simply advise them this work is underway and this is the current draft and probably the same with the ASO. So we could customize the letters depending on the application.

I'm not sure whether we have formally written to the GAC on WHOIS. I think -- we probably haven't done that either.


>>ROSS RADER: Just a point of clarification for those following along at home, that this discussion is about gTLD WHOIS, just to be clear.

To a more substantive point, though, you mentioned earlier, Bruce, we spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 million studying this issue. And I'm hearing from -- I should disclose I am a member of this task force so this isn't exactly a surprise to me.

But we are hearing today that we have a very loose, undefined schedule and that we might conclude on this some time in March. I think it's incumbent upon this council to actually create some incentive for that task force to finish its work so that we can move on and look at more substantive issues.

And I don't know if that is -- I would like to have some discussion at this meeting about creating those incentives for that task force.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Incentives are interesting. Maybe we agree to fund people's travel, provided the work is completed and they have reached consensus. [laughter].

>>AVRI DORIA: In other words, we don't get reimbursed until the work is completed.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I mean, the point is valid, Ross. I think -- I would certainly like to have a bit more clarity on the time line before we meet with the GAC tomorrow and perhaps if Maria could work with the chair and the task force members just to sort of clearly identify what the time line is. Is there any other incentives that you were expecting?

>>ROSS RADER: Not expecting, but certainly I could propose that we draw a line in the sand for this task force such that if their work isn't complete by the Lisbon meeting that we disband the task force.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I think that's probably more to the point that it can't keep going on forever because it is costing the organization an enormous amount by staff resources and the resources of the GNSO community which we could redeploy to other things. So I think that's a fair comment.

So what you are suggesting is a deadline is set and if work hasn't been complete then we disbanded. What would you set that deadline to be?

>>ROSS RADER: I think the Lisbon meeting would be a fair deadline for that.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: In terms of --

>>ROSS RADER: I would like to take feedback on that.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I am not proposing we vote on that now. I would table it for a vote at a later council meeting. But setting a date for which the task force could be closed otherwise it will keep on going forever.

>>MARILYN CADE: Bruce, might I comment on -- I think actually as the staff might help us by doing just a quick bit of feedback, not necessarily right now, but about the remaining work that needs to be done including the consultation with the GAC on principles so that we can make an informed decision and I will give you an example. The Lisbon meeting may, indeed, be the right date or it may be that the meeting after the Lisbon meeting is the right date because the GAC cannot have a face-to-face with us on the principles until Lisbon.

And an informed decision may be a decision we don't have to amend.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I agree. I think the concept is right because I think the PDP does have some time lines of it and obviously while we are not adhering to those, I think the general sense is that perhaps we need more flexibility in time lines.

But the minute we add flexibility to time lines, we do need to identify when we are getting diminishing returns. In other words, a particular task group on any policy matter isn't able to reach consensus, I think it should be closed down rather than burning resources. As Marilyn said, as to choosing the date, that needs to be informed.

>>KEN STUBBS: Yeah. Having been a member of the WHOIS task force now for well over four years, I would be very, very embarrassed and I think ICANN should be embarrassed if we ended up getting into a situation where we had to disband a task force. I think it is a matter of staying focused and getting this done. I think what we need to do is we need to notify all of the parties who are interested that we intend on getting this done by a specific date. If they want to participate and if they want to make the contributions that they feel is necessary, if they have to go the extra mile, then they are going to have to go the extra mile.

If not, then there will be a nice page in the report that indicates that all attempts at outreach were made to these various bodies and that the bodies indicated that they were not able to comply with this in spite of the fact that they have been aware of this process for years now.

This is just something that we just cannot allow to happen here, you know. Thank you.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Any other thoughts on that? Cary? (inaudible).

Can you restate that, Cary, please?

>>CARY KARP: Excuse me?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:Perhaps, speak very slowly. It is pretty hard to hear you.

>>CARY KARP: I have not asked for the word.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Thanks, Cary. Go ahead, Maria.

>>MARIA FARRELL: If we are looking at a Lisbon end point in the time line, we might think from the task force's point of view to encourage it to produce its final task force report by that date in whatever form it is, recording whatever level of agreement there is at that point. Just to allow us to satisfy the requirements of the PDP. And at that stage, in any case, it is up to the council to take the report and do with it what it will.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Maria.

Okay. So the next item then is discussion on next steps for improving the GNSO structure and processes. I did ask the board this question yesterday and I believe the feedback is that it is still in their court in the sense that they will come back to us with their proposed approach to the LSE review recommendations.

They did say there is two alternative approaches that they are considering at the board. One approach is that there is some form of joint working group formed between the board and some members of the GNSO and potentially other members from outside the GNSO. Or another approach is simply that the board considers it as purely board members and they identify what the next steps the board wishes us to take. So I think at that level, we need to hear back from the board.

The board, however, has asked for the constituencies to respond to the LSE report itself and there is a public comment forum that has been set up for the LSE report.

And I looked at it a couple of days ago and it had zero comments, so I think the board certainly welcomes at this point of time comments from, I guess, members of the GNSO community as individual members. But, also, I think they are looking for feedback from constituencies. And I know the registry constituency has prepared a submission. I believe the registrars will bear a submission. And I'm not clear on the status of other constituencies. Is that an indication that the business constituency will do so?

Yes. I think what I would recommend the council do is advise constituencies to formally respond to the LSE report itself and other than that, we will wait to hear back from the board before we initiate any further activity on our side. Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE: I think I said on the record earlier and I think Philip or Alistair probably just acknowledged that the business constituency is working on comments but I think we should be realistic for ourselves and for the board and suggest that we have a reasonable amount of time and I am not talking about a lengthy amount of time but a reasonable amount of time in order for the constituencies to get comments back in. Are we talking two weeks? Or are we talking the Monday after I get back from the ICANN meeting? Do we have any idea?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: The board wasn't clear on that but certainly I think I can report back to the board in the public forum the discussion that's ensued here. So let me ask you, how long do you think you need to respond to the LSE report?

>>MARILYN CADE:Me for doing a consultation at the table. But I would think most constituencies need two weeks. Does any other constituency want to comment on that?

>>TONY HOLMES: The ISP constituency considered this in their constituency meeting yesterday, and we are a fair way down the road now. But probably a two-week period would be a fine just to get input from members who are not able to attend this meeting.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I am not sure what the board timetable is because it probably relates a bit there.

>>KEN STUBBS: Bruce?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. Go ahead, Ken.

>>KEN STUBBS: I would like to make an informal proposal if I could and that is we consider extending the period for comments for two weeks following the conclusion of this meeting here. I think that would give us an adequate time and I believe it would also give the board an opportunity to review and take a look at these comments between now and --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I will recommend that to the board then and say the GNSO constituencies will commit to give something back to them two weeks following this meeting so they have an expectation of when we will get back to them and then they can hopefully set some expectations as to when they will get back to us.

>>KEN STUBBS: In those constituencies that are further down the road. In as quickly as possible so that they can be posted right away. This is not a deadline that we have to all wait for, for last minute contributions.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. Thank you, Ken, and I think the registrars are planning to pretty much take some of the work that the registry constituency has done and either build on it or suggest changes, rather than trying to recreate it from scratch, so we'd certainly want to fast-track that.

Okay. The next item then is an update on the process for the election of the GNSO Council chair. Glen, as GNSO secretariat, can you just update us on where we're up to on that?

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes, Bruce. The nomination period closes on the 11th of December. It has been open now for nearly 2 weeks, and we have had one nomination, a nomination for Mawaki Chango from Bruce, seconded by Ken Stubbs, and Bruce has accepted his nomination.

So I think that's where we are. And after that period, if there are more nominations, then we will go into the voting from the 19th of December to the 2nd of January.

If there would only be one nomination, then we would probably confirm the election of the person at a council meeting. The next council meeting is on the 21st of December, so if we do end up with only one candidate, please be ready to be at that council meeting on the 21st of December to confirm the election.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Glen.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:Are there any questions for Glen on that process?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Should, for any reason, the 21st of December meeting not be quorumed, which I would float as a possibility, we nevertheless have already passed a resolution today, I think, which would carry your chairmanship over until such time as we have a quorum meeting, is that correct? Okay. Yeah. So we're covered if that is the case.


>>GREG RUTH: I just wanted to clarify what the term of service would be for this election.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: The term of the election will be from the date of the election, the end of it, which will be the confirmation at the council meeting, to one year from that, to the end of the annual general meeting in 2007.

>>MARILYN CADE: Actually, though, the end of the annual meeting is not one year. It's -- the annual meeting is earlier.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Is earlier. And the council chair is for one year, so we would be --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Let me just clarify that.

The -- the bylaws allow a maximum of a one-year term, but I think the election is from, I guess, the point of appointment to the end of the AGM in 2007.

I think we made the mistake last time when we set the date is we actually picked a date, and the council -- and the -- which was the date of the ICANN meeting at that time, I think. The ICANN meeting moved around, and then we got stuck with the thing with the -- date being the 3rd, and we shifted by a week, so the intent is to align it to, in general terms, the AGM of 2007, whenever that ends up being.

>>MARILYN CADE: Let me ask a question about that, for practicality, and ask fellow councillors maybe to think about this.

I noted in many organizations there's a period after the AGM when the change takes place. Because it's important to run the business of the organization through the AGM and then to have a transition period.

Is it actually feasible for us to have an election right before the AGM and then have -- it seems very bizarre to me. Normally I would think that the term of office should be a reasonable number of days or weeks till after an AGM, so that there can be an election and a handover.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Practicality. I'll just mention at a personal level, in that my term on council will also be ending at that AGM, so if you're referring to me just at a specific level, it won't work, but I agree with your general principle.

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. The other part of it is, in terms of voting before or after, you've got councillors who are ending their term with the AGM, and then you've got the new ones who don't start until right after. Theoretically, you're electing the chair for the new year's council, so it's really the new councillors that should be voting, not the departing ones. So we may end up in a situation where we'd have to have an interim chair if one happens to end their term before an election could be held.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: It's really a circumstance of what does the council want to do, so I'm conscious of conflicts of interest in chairing this discussion, but the council needs to decide what the council wishes to appoint.

>>KEN STUBBS: I would propose that we discuss this over the next few weeks on the mailing list, because we may end up in a situation where we may make a recommendation that we modify the articles of operation for the GNSO to take this into consideration, Bruce.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Any other comments on that? Ross?

>>ROSS RADER: I just wanted to also bring to the attention of council that at the end of that next meeting that we're discussing here, the council will be -- likely be in the position that we will not have a past chair as a member of council, given the departure of Ken and departure of Bruce. So succession in mentoring that we may wish to discuss over the next year.

>>MARILYN CADE: Except that as far as I know, Philip, are you going -- Philip's term extends through that period of time or doesn't?

>>KEN STUBBS: Our European colleague.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: They forget so easily, don't they.


>>ROSS RADER: I'm sorry, Philip, I -- that's correct. I'm sorry. Nevertheless, the issue of succession mentoring should be something that we should pay attention to over the next year.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. I think that's right, Ross, and we did discuss this in the registrar meeting, that with Ross and I leaving next year, you know, the registrars themselves need to think about mentoring new people as potential councillors, and I think the council itself needs to think about if they do choose to elect me, I will have been the chair since 2002, I think, but we do need to think about who's going to be the next and appropriate mentoring.

>>MARILYN CADE: Bruce, can I -- I'm sorry.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: Can I add a comment on that? I just want to express, you know, when I first joined GNSO, I think I made a mention of that from corporate governance point of view, I guess, I had asked, you know, why Bruce has been there for a while and, you know, what is the structure and over all that. But as I have been here for almost one year or so, I think I'm recognizing that you can't always get the talent you want in this kind of situation. I think it takes a lot of hard work, and ICANN know-how as well as, you know, the fairness and objectivity in a person to lead a position like this. And I recall when actually Mawaki called me the night before he nominated Bruce and said, "What do you think, Sophia," and stuff and, you know, him being new as well, he probably had thought Bruce -- and I just said, you know, "I think having been here for a while, I think he's the right candidate." Sometimes we put people in places that probably are not qualified to do it, and!

I think Bruce has led the group very well and it takes a lot of time and dedication to do that, and if I had thought, you know, otherwise before, it's because I don't know Bruce, so you've done an excellent job and thank you for -- for that.

>>MARILYN CADE: Bruce, I'd like to reference for fellow councillors information that is in the strategic plan that -- not that we debate it here or discuss it here, but we have previously raised in the public forums and the operational plan and the strategic plan -- and there is reference in the strategic plan -- to what I would call leadership training or development. Perhaps we might, on the list and in conjunction with Denise Michel, talk about what kind of leadership training we think could benefit the constituencies, as well as the council, because all of us know that when we take on chairing a task force or some other role in a task force or -- or as chair, there are both procedures within the organization but other kinds of professional development that may be helpful as well.

And it would certainly be helpful for us, I think, since ICANN is -- it's in the plan to do leadership development, let's make sure that we're also enhancing the development of the policy -- the GNSO and the policy council, given that we contribute 80% of the policy.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Marilyn. Any other comments? Philip?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Bruce, just in terms of clarification, I don't want to -- to be overly bureaucratic, but the wording of the e-mail requesting nominations did specify the period of office. Which was ending the end of the ICANN annual general meeting 2007.

And so if anybody has been nominated, they have, of course, been nominated under those conditions, which might answer our question for us, unless you wanted to change that again.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I think that's the current status and I think Ken's probably thinking more in future, how do we sort of structure the terms of the chair to take into account the concepts that Avri was espousing. I must admit I was kind of thinking along those lines as well, that you have a new -- potentially new council at the end of an AGM, and you should elect -- the new council should elect the new chair, essentially. Alistair?

>>ALISTAIR DIXON: Sorry. Can I just ask a question? Is there an issue that, were we not to elect a chair that was not able to be on -- if we were -- if we were to make the election period to beyond the end of that next annual general meeting, but we had a chair who was actually only available to be a chair until the end of the annual meeting, would that disqualify that person or would they -- you know, would they still be able to be present? I mean, it seems to me we'd have a potential --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I think now we're getting into iterations that are getting increasingly complicated because there's a lot of what-if's going on here.

>>MARILYN CADE: Except that I will -- Alistair, having researched that, I'll tell you what my interpretation is.

I believe the bylaws actually do not require that the chair of a task force or the chair of the council actually be a member of a constituency, but we have to appoint that person to be -- and right now, we would have to appoint that person as an expert, and decide whether to give that person voting rights or nonvoting rights, and we, for instance, did that with Jordyn Buchanan in asking him to continue -- he was a member of the registrar constituency, changed jobs, and it -- you know, it was my question about that is I'm not sure it doesn't but I'm not sure we have to explore it right now.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Is there any -- is there any other business anyone wants to raise?

I'd just like at this point to thank the outgoing council members, who I believe their terms conclude at the end of the AGM this year.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Ken Stubbs, who has been probably involved in the GNSO Council and, prior to that, the Names Council. Do you want to nominate a year when you first started, Ken?

>>KEN STUBBS: Yes. The very beginning.

Thank you, Bruce. I appreciate it. It's been a very interesting ride, I guess you'd say.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Ken. And June Seo also is outgoing at the end of this meeting. Would you like to say any comments, June?

>>JUNE SEO: Yes. I have been serving for only one year because I took over someone else's seat as he left the registry, so it has been a great experience. I feel very privileged to serve in the council, and I hope I can continue to contribute to other parts of council work, especially in IDN working group. Thank you.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. That's great news to hear, that we won't lose you from the wider process of GNSO contributions. So that's great.

And Bret, I think you -- you've also announced that you'll be departing. Did you want to say any further on that?

>>BRET FAUSETT: Oh, you're not losing me completely. I'll still be around. But, yes, there will be someone else sitting in my seat.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Thank you, Bret.

And the other two members that I think, Lucy Nichols has recently resigned as a member of the IP constituency and Maureen Cubberley finishes her term at the conclusion of this meeting. So I would like to thank all five of these council members and perhaps call for a round of applause for their contributions.


>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. At that point then, I will close the meeting.

>>KEN STUBBS: Bruce?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Sorry, Ken.

>>KEN STUBBS: Beforehand, I'd like -- I noticed in the audience Jon Bing, who is -- maybe you could briefly give the council and the members here the opportunity to meet him.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, that would be appropriate.

Jon, would you like to stand in front of the mic there?

Jon Bing has been appointed as the Nominating Committee's replacement for Maureen Cubberley, and I guess, Jon, if you want to perhaps say a few words about yourself and hopefully we'll both hear from you on teleconferences and so you -- as a member of the council after this meeting.

>>JON BING: Yes. Thank you. It may be premature, of course but my name is Jon Bing. I'm a professor of law, or rather computers and law, at the University of Oslo and have been working that for the past 30 years or so. And I take a keen interest in both the ICANN area and in data protection and intellectual property and in information systems for lawyers. I also cultivate a small interest in fiction and the arts, and have, therefore, a broad perspective to the task before me, if I'm allowed to get to it, and I have a great deal of enthusiasm and a great deal of -- well, I think it is a very serious responsibility, and I hope that I will be, to some extent, able to fill it, though I understand I have much to learn so far. Thank you.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Jon. And I'm sure an interest in fiction and the arts will serve you well in the ICANN policy development process.


>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. At that point, then, I will close the meeting and thank everybody. Kristina, you are a member currently, though, that's correct?


>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. Would you like to say a few words of -- about yourself, as the newest member of the GNSO Council?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just that I'm very, very delighted to have the opportunity to do this, to not only represent the members of my constituency, but to work with all the other constituencies on some of these incredibly important issues that I -- although I have been following them from a professional interest, I'm now very excited to have the opportunity to really focus on them and I look forward to working with all of you over the next two years.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Thank you, Kristina. And Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE: I have an administrative update for the councillors.

There's a -- would you just watch your e-mail for an e-mail from Glen about the schedule for tomorrow related to the councillors' activities. There may be some adjustments that need to be worked out, and Glen will be the person, in consultation with Bruce, who sends you that e-mail.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Well, thank you. The meeting is now closed.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy