<div id="confocus">
<div id="doctitle">
<p class="title">Preliminary Report for Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors</p>
<p class="docdate">[Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] </p>
<p class="docdate">11 September 2007</p>
</div>
<p> A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference
on 11 September 2007. Chairman Vinton Cerf called the meeting to order at 8.00
P.M. U.S. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). </p>
<p> The following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Raimundo
Beca, Chairman Vinton G. Cerf, Susan Crawford, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Vice Chairman
Roberto Gaetano, Demi Getschko, Steven Goldstein, Joichi Ito, Rajasekhar Ramaraj,
Njeri Rionge, Vanda Scartezini, President and CEO Paul Twomey, Bruce Tonkin,
and, David Wodelet. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part
of the meeting: Steve Crocker, SSAC Liaison; Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Thomas
Narten, IETF Liaison and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. The following Board
Members and Liaisons were not present on the call: Vittorio Bertola, Francisco
da Silva, and Rita Rodin </p>
<p> The following staff participated in part or all of the meeting: John Jeffrey,
General Counsel and Secretary; Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer; Paul Levins,
Executive Officer and Vice President, Corporate Affairs; Kevin Wilson, Chief
Financial Officer; Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Business Operations;
Barbara Roseman, Operations Manager, IANA; Denise Michel, Vice President, Policy
Development; Liz Gasster, GNSO Policy Support; David Conrad, General Manager,
IANA Donna Austin, Manager, Governmental Relations; and Kim Davies, IANA Technical
Liaison. </p>
<p> The Board discussed and took action on the following matters: </p>
<p><strong> Approval of Board Minutes from Special Meeting of the ICANN Board,
14 August 2007 </strong></p>
<p> The Chair introduced the Board minutes from the meeting of 14 August, which
had been circulated to the Board earlier. </p>
<p> Steve Goldstein moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded to adopt the Board minutes
of 14 august 2007 without correction. </p>
<p> Resolved (07.69), the minutes of the Board Meeting of 14 August 2007 are
approved.<strong></strong></p>
<p><a name="OLE_LINK2"></a><a name="OLE_LINK1"> A voice vote was taken of all
Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of
14-0. </a><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong> Approval for public comment posting of the ICANN Board Review Terms
of Reference </strong></p>
<p> Vint Cerf introduced the topic and Paul Levins provided background on the
Board Governance Committee and full Board's involvement and comments on the
proposed draft. Steve Goldstein noted that most of the issues that he had raised
previously have been included. Steve Goldstein further asked if the accountability
of the ICANN Corporation itself is to be rated or evaluated differently from
the accountability of the Board and are the two issues severable? </p>
<p> The Chair felt that the performance/accountability of the Board and the organization
are not identical. It's an open question of whether we have in our bylaws to
review the organization itself. John Jeffrey advised that the bylaws-mandated
reviews did not include the board itself or a review of the entire organization
but that there was nothing to preclude the Board from taking a broad scope
approach. Steve Goldstein considered that if the Board is ultimately responsible
for the organization of ICANN then the performance/accountability of ICANN
as an organization is not severable from performance/accountability of Board.
The Chair agreed that we might want to take into account more than the Board
performance/accountability and this is a worthwhile issue to be discussed.
The performance/accountability of the organization as a whole should be looked
into and the issue should come back to the Board for discussion at another
meeting. </p>
<p> Peter Dengate Thrush moved to approve the publication of the Board Review
Terms of Reference for public comment and Bruce Tonkin seconded this motion. </p>
<p> Resolved, (07.70) that the proposed Terms of Reference for a review of the
Board of Directors should be posted for public review and comment, and that
those comments should be reviewed and considered before adopting those Terms
of Reference. </p>
<p> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved
unanimously by a vote of 14-0. </p>
<p><strong> Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding Nominating
Committee Chairman </strong></p>
<p> Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the Board Governance Committee, advised that seven
candidates have been evaluated for the position of the Chair of the Nominating
Committee. As part of the process this year, potential candidates were asked
to provide a CV and respond to a number of criteria associated with the role.
Some applicants withdrew from the process for various reasons. A short list
of four candidates emerged and the Committee discussed these via email and
ranked people. The Committee's unanimous recommendation is to propose a resolution
that Hagen Hultzsch be appointed as the Chair of the Nominating Committee. </p>
<p> The Chair accepted this as a motion to approve Hagen Hultzsch as the Nominating
Committee Chair as a recommendation of the Board Governance Committee. Peter
Dengate Thrush seconded this motion. </p>
<p> Resolved (07.71), that Hagen Hultzsch is appointed as Chair of the 2008 Nominating
Committee, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2008,
or until his earlier resignation, removal, or other disqualification from service. </p>
<p> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved
unanimously by a vote of 14-0. </p>
<p> Peter Dengate Thrush added that he felt the BGC had done very much better
than had been done in the past by setting out a job specification for the first
time and sending this to potential candidates. He felt they have a very good
candidate with a good understanding about what is required. </p>
<p> Steve Goldstein noted that it is a very onerous job and it reflects well
on our status that so many people were interested. </p>
<p> It was agreed that Roberto would inform Hagen of the Board's decision, and
there should be a formal communication as well. </p>
<p><strong> Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding the Academic
Representative to the next Nominating Committee </strong></p>
<p> Robert Gaetano advised that the Board Governance Committee is recommending
the return of Jose Luiz Ribeiro Filho as the academic and research representative
to the Nominating Committee. George Sadowsky's views were sought and excellent
feedback was received about Jose's contribution to the Nominating Committee
so no further research was undertaken to find alternative candidates. Jose
Luiz has agreed to serve a second term. </p>
<p> The Chair moved a motion to approve the recommended candidate to serve as
the academic representative and Vanda Scartezini seconded the motion. </p>
<p> Resolved (07.72) that the Board the appointment, for a second term, of Jose
Luiz Ribeiro Filho as the 2008 Nominating Committee Academic Representative. </p>
<p> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved
unanimously by a vote of 14-0. </p>
<p><strong> Board Governance Committee's Update on Corporate Governance Guidelines
and Code of Ethics </strong></p>
<p> Roberto Gaetano advised that the BGC has only recently started the discussions
on this issue and not a lot of progress has been made. He is personally collecting
all the material from previous discussions that have been undertaken by the
BGC, including prior to his tenure on this committee. It is hoped that the
BGC will be able to make a proposal by the LA meeting, at least a draft and
will discuss with General Counsel the extent to which the document should be
posted for public comment </p>
<p> The Chair felt it is a matter of public interest and there should be the
opportunity for discussion and listening to what people have to say and adoption
at a later time. </p>
<p><strong> Board Meetings Committee's Recommendations regarding ICANN Meeting
Site </strong></p>
<p> Susan Crawford advised that four proposals had been received for ICANN's
meeting in Asia Pacific in February 2008: Dubai, Delhi, Sydney and Hong Kong
and the meetings committee is recommending Delhi. The Delhi proposal has a
high level of government support and this bid has addressed hotel availability
that was a concern in a bid received previously from India and meets ICANN's
needs. The other proposals had venue issues including in one instance, an inability
to reserve a venue, but was on a wait list. There will be disappointed bidders
and a process for managing multiple bids is being looked into. Susan suggested
that Dubai should be considered for a regional event in 2008. The meetings
committee is also having discussions about the next Asia Pacific meeting in
2009 and considering whether they should take a special approach given the
three unsuccessful bids in this round. </p>
<p> Susan proposed the Board acknowledge the Committee's choice of Delhi for
February 2008, and that there be a major regional meeting in Dubai in 2008. </p>
<p> The Chair moved the motion to adopt the Meetings Committee recommendation
of Delhi and Steve Goldstein seconded this resolution. </p>
<p> Resolved (07.73), the Board accepts the recommendation of the Meeting's Committee
and approves Delhi as the venue for the ICANN Meeting in February 2008, and
directs staff to move forward with negotiations and plans for that ICANN Meeting. </p>
<p> A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved
unanimously by a vote of 14-0. </p>
<p> Raimundo Beca abstained. Raimundo Beca explained his abstention by raising
concerns that the Delhi meeting will be during holiday time in his country
and many Southern Hemisphere/Latin American countries. He was concerned that
the Board approves the place but not the timing. Susan Crawford advised that
the timing was a result of avoiding other major meetings scheduled for that
time, including the IETF. </p>
<p> The Chair asked that the Meetings Committee again consider the balancing
of these considerations in future decisions. </p>
<p> With regard to the second issue, to approve the motion of a regional meeting
in Dubai, the Chair was unsure what kind of commitment was being sought. </p>
<p> Susan Crawford advised that the motion was no more than an acknowledgment
from the Board; such meetings have progressed without Board approval previously. </p>
<p> Peter Dengate Thrush noted that he didn't understand what the concept of
an ICANN regional meeting. Susan Crawford advised that the model talked about
is that used in Eastern Europe and Latin America where there is an occasion
to get together registrars, GAC representatives or meeting to discuss ICANN
topics, with a level of ICANN support. </p>
<p> The Chair suggested that the Board should focus attention on the regional
meeting concept, the definition of which is unsettled. He asked the Meetings
Committee to review the idea and bring back to the Board more information.
Susan Crawford agreed and noted that these meetings have taken place in the
past on a somewhat ad-hoc basis. </p>
<p> Paul Twomey advised that there is a regional meeting taking place in Taipei
and is a meeting that has similarities to the Dubai concept. There is a keenness
to host what will be a technical workshop on IDNs, with one of the differences
being there is no formal meeting of GAC. The Strategic Plan consultations has
bought the concept of regional meetings up in feedback and this is reflected
in the Issues Paper on the Strategic Plan which was posted within the 24 hours
prior to this board meeting. </p>
<p> The Chair considered that some form of formalization, structure and planning
would be appropriate for such meetings and the Meetings Committee should review
this issue. </p>
<p> Raimundo Beca supported the regional meeting idea, noting that the LACNIC/LACTLD
meetings are a very popular event. The Chair suggested that perhaps the regional
meetings could be done in conjunction with another regional activity such as
RIRs or other bodies. </p>
<p> Paul Levins advised that the unsuccessful applicants would be contacted prior
to the posting of the Board minutes. <strong></strong></p>
<p><strong> Delegation of the .KP ( North Korea) Domain</strong></p>
<p> Kim Davies updated the board on the delegation request and presented the
staff report and recommendation. The evaluation concluded that the delegation
met the basic criteria to support a delegation request to the Korea Computer
Center. </p>
<p>Steve Goldstein moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded the following resolution: </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the delegation of .KP to Korea Computer
Center, </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that
the proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and
global Internet communities. </p>
<p>It is hereby resolved (07.74), that the proposed
delegation of the .KP domain to Korea Computer Center is approved, </p>
<p>A voice
vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously
by a vote of 14-0. </p>
<p><strong>Delegation of the .ME ( Montenegro) Domain <br>
</strong><strong>Delegation of the .RS ( Serbia) Domain <br>
</strong><strong> Redelegation of the .YU (former Yugoslavia) Domain </strong></p>
<p>Kim Davies advised that the delegation of .ME ( Montenegro) and .RS ( Serbia)
and the redelegation of .YU ( Yugoslavia) were interrelated. At the time that
Serbia and Montenegro became new countries, the ISO 3166-1list was altered
to give the two countries individual codes .RS and .ME respectively. To date,
the countries covered have been using the .YU domain. The YU code is no longer
in the ISO 3166-1 list and has been replaced with .ME and .RS and as such should
be decommissioned in a responsible way. The transition plan from .YU to .RS
and .ME involves an MOU between the two entities and would see that .YU is
assigned to the proposed .RS sponsoring organization, which is effectively
the same operator as today. They would act as caretaker for .YU for two years
to allow for a stable transition. ICANN's proposed resolution language is consistent
with this plan however a three-year transition period is proposed to allow
for contingencies. The proposed resolutions support the two new delegations
and acknowledge the two parties involved in de-commissioning of the .YU domain,
and state it is to be retired in three years time. </p>
<p>In addition to explaining the ICANN evaluation of the delegation applications,
the board was also advised of last-minute correspondence IANA had received
in relation to the delegation of the .ME domain. </p>
<p>Steve Goldstein asked if there is any provision in the agreement to restrict
new registrations in .YU. Kim Davies advised that he would have to check to
be certain, but as soon as new registrations are allowed in .RS and .ME it
was his understanding that it would not be possible to register new domains
in .YU. </p>
<p>Steve Goldstein asked why the preference for a three-year transition rather
than two. Kim Davies advised they didn't want to propose something that was
too aggressive. The applicants had proposed a two-year transition period, but
the Board could consider a different length. </p>
<p>The Chair proposed that the language in the resolution could be changed to
be up to and no more than three years. </p>
<p>Steve Crocker acknowledged that some transitions have taken a long time.
An additional suggestion would be to ask for regular reports with metrics measuring
progress towards the outcome. </p>
<p>Kim Davies noted that the resolution proposed does suggest that the .YU registry
report every 6 months to ICANN Staff on progress. The proposed resolution also
makes it clear the domain must be removed no later than 2010, which was considered
a responsible timeframe that was neither too aggressive, nor unnecessarily
prolonged. If the community felt it could transition quicker there is nothing
to stop that from happening. </p>
<p>Paul Twomey suggested that the wording be slightly amended asking that they
report progress against appropriate metrics. </p>
<p>There were no objections to the suggested amendments. </p>
<p>Dave Wodelet asked if it mattered if they take till 2008, 2009 or even 2010
and the Chair responded that we do want a certain end date. </p>
<p>Kim Davies advised that there is no strong precedent for how long transition
will take from one to the other. There have only been a small number of transitions
of country codes in the history of ccTLDs. In trying to determine what they
considered a reasonable timeframe for transition the closest comparable situation
that IANA was aware of is when telephone-numbering systems change. These transitions
generally take place in one-to-two years. </p>
<p>The Chair noted that the language proposed by Paul Twomey seems acceptable,
an alternative to an extra year would be to stick with two years to 2009 and
if the party needs more time they could come back and explain why, which may
be the best option. Putting in a two-year timeframe provides them with leverage
to help their community to promptly perform the transition. The Chair recommended
the alternative on the basis it was made clear to them that if they have a
problem with two years they can come back with an explanation to ICANN as to
why they need more time. </p>
<p>Susan Crawford noted that she understands the direction and appreciates the
conservative approach, but asked what mechanism should be used if the transition
moves too slowly. </p>
<p>The Chair reflected that if they come back and have a reasonable explanation,
then this should be okay. He believed you would help them with a shorter deadline
as they can point to that as a mandate to move ahead and transition to other
the domain. </p>
<p>Janis Karklins noted that human nature suggests they will take as much time
as they are given for transitioning. He suggested that the resolution should
include a point that ICANN Staff should keep the Board informed of the progress
of the transition. </p>
<p>In summation, the Chair suggested that the Board approves all three requests,
and that ICANN Staff is expected to keep the Board informed on the retirement
of .YU domain. Paul Twomey added that they communicate according to appropriate
metrics. </p>
<p>Steve Goldstein moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded the following resolution: </p>
<p>Delegation of .ME </p>
<p>Whereas, the .ME top-level domain is the designated country-code for </p>
<p> Montenegro , </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .ME to the Government
of Montenegro, </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed
delegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities, </p>
<p>Resolved (07.75), that the proposed delegation of the .ME domain to the Government
of Montenegro is approved. </p>
<p>Delegation of .RS </p>
<p>Whereas, the .RS top-level domain is the designated country-code for Serbia, </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .RS to the Serbian
National Register of Internet Domain Names, </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed
delegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities, </p>
<p>Resolved (07.76), that the proposed delegation of the .RS domain to the Serbian
National Register of Internet Domain Names is approved. </p>
<p>Redelegation of .YU </p>
<p>Whereas, the .YU top-level domain is currently used by the citizens of both
Serbia and Montenegro, </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has delegated the .RS domain for use in Serbia, and the .ME
domain for use in Montenegro, </p>
<p>Whereas, the ISO 3166-1 standard has removed the "YU" code, and the ISO 3166
Maintenance Agency recommends its use be discontinued, </p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN is not responsible for deciding what is or is not a country,
and adheres to the ISO 3166-1 standard for guidance on when to add, modify
and remove country-code top-level domains, </p>
<p>Whereas, there is a transition plan to move registrations in .YU to the new
domains .RS and .ME, with the operator of .RS acting as the temporary caretaker
of .YU until the transition is complete, </p>
<p>Resolved (07.77), that the .YU domain be redelegated to the Serbian National
Registry of Internet Domain Names in a temporary caretaker capacity. </p>
<p>Resolved (07.78), that the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain Names
be instructed to report their progress on decommissioning the .YU domain every
six months to ICANN against a relevant set of metrics. </p>
<p>Resolved (07.79), that the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain Names,
and the Government of Montenegro, work to complete the transition from the
.YU domain to the .RS and .ME domains, so that it may be removed from the DNS
root zone no later than 30 September 2009. </p>
<p>A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and all three motions
were approved by a vote of all members present 13-0, with one abstention from
Peter Dengate Thrush. </p>
<p>Peter Dengate Thrush explained that his reservation was associated with his
belief that such policy decisions concerning delegation should rest with the
ccNSO as specifically provided under the bylaws. He noted that he has raised
this issue on a number of occasions suggesting that this matter should be referred
to the ccNSO but to no avail. </p>
<p>The Chair noted that these practices have been in existence prior to the
formation of the ccNSO, and that if policy is required in this area that the
ccNSO work on a policy proposal, that might be properly considered. </p>
<p><strong> Status Report on discussions with the UPU regarding .POST and renewal
agreements for .AERO and .MUSEUM </strong></p>
<p> Kurt Pritz advised that there are issues in common with all the ongoing sTLD
negotiations (.MUSEUM, .AERO, and .POST). In some cases negotiations are close
to conclusion and in other cases, additional negotiation is required. These
issues have come up in other recent registry negotiations and these issues
have been themes for discussion across the gTLD community. </p>
<p> First, registries are seeking limitations to the requirement to comply with
ICANN consensus policies and have to follow and comply with consensus policies.
The second issue is the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars to register
names in gTLD registries. The third issue is the request for a clause in the
agreement requiring indemnification by ICANN to registries for costs associated
with compliance to consensus policies. This last clause was included in old
gTLD agreements but was eliminated in all new gTLD (including sTLD) agreements.
Indemnification was seen as necessary in early days of gTLD development but
as the market and registries have matured, it has become apparent that this
form of indemnification is not necessary or desirable in the future development
of the DNS. </p>
<p> Steve Goldstein asked what it means to comply with consensus policies? Kurt
Pritz advised that the ccNSO, GNSO or ASO are designated to recommend consensus
policy to Board. When the Board approves the consensus policy, it is incorporated
by reference into the gTLD agreements. </p>
<p> Steve Goldstein clarified that after a contract is signed these can be amended
because there are new consensus policies. Kurt Pritz responded that registry
agreements include a clause that requires compliance with consensus policy
even when the policy is approved after the contract is executed. </p>
<p> Sponsored TLDs, by their definition, have significant policy making authority.
So certain policy-making authority is reserved to the sponsoring organization
in sTLDs. Recent sTLD agreements include requirement for compliance with consensus
policy, including the process for considering new registry services – a stability
and security threshold review. </p>
<p> As these contractual issues were raised, ICANN facilitated public discussion
on each and requested public explanations of the sTLDs as to why these contract
changes are important to them. It is important for the Board to understand
that the public discussion will not necessarily lead to agreement across constituency
groups and the Board may be left to decide whether certain agreement terms
should be approved in the face of criticism. </p>
<p> Kurt then reviewed the negotiating status on each of the registries, as follows: </p>
<p> Negotiation status – .MUSEUM: This negotiation is complete, a second version
of the agreement is posted for public comment. The controversial issue was
that .MUSEUM asked to "self-register" 5000 names. The reason was that .MUSEUM
wished to replace the functionality of their "wildcard" that .MUSEUM was giving
up in this negotiation. After registrar constituency criticism, Cary Karp met
with the registrar constituency in Lisbon. Through that discussion, the contract
language evolved to what is posted, including a reduction in the number of
names to 4000. The proposed new language was posted on 31 August 2007 and thus
far, there has been no comment from the registrar community, which has been
primary in its opposition. ICANN Staff anticipates asking the Board to approve
the agreement at the 16 October 2007 Board Meeting. </p>
<p> Negotiation status – .AERO: Many contractual issues have been resolved, however,
some core issues remain uncompleted. The sponsor SITA states that, in the proposed
agreement, the language does not adequately protect the sponsor's delegated
policy making authority. They have requested a significant exemption from consensus
policy compliance. SITA also requested that the old indemnification clause
remain in their contract even thought the clause in other agreements has been
eliminated. They claim they should not be responsible for costs arising from
ICANN actions. Finally, they wish to eliminate the clause present in other
agreements that prohibits registries from owning a 15% interest in a gTLD registrar.
Their reason is, that in their large organization, a registrar may be acquired
without notice to the sponsoring organization. </p>
<p> While negotiations are amicable, ICANN Staff and SITA disagree on the approach
to these three core issues. Staff continues to work for a conclusion that SITA
and ICANN Staff can mutually recommend. </p>
<p> Negotiation status – .POST: UPU, the sponsor, has in recent months invigorated
the negotiation. The issues here are similar. The UPU seeks exemption from
consensus policy and to include indemnification by ICANN for certain costs
to the registry. Additionally, their scheme does not plan to utilize ICANN
registrars for their 300-400 primary registrations of their member states (uk.POST,
for example). These requests have been based on the UPU's special status as
a U.N. organization. ICANN has posted a UPU position paper describing their
business plan and model to the gTLD constituency group, which has been offered
to the community for input. The UPU would like to complete negotiations before
the Los Angeles ICANN Meeting, but time is running short for appropriate comment
periods and the issues remain controversial. </p>
<p> Susan Crawford considered that in relation to the consensus policy structure,
it will be important for ICANN to stick with the consensus policy model as
it gives ICANN legitimacy and consistency in dealing with registries so long
as the right process has been used to achieve the policy. Susan acknowledged
the difficulty but concluded that it is essential that the consensus policy
clause remain in the agreement. With regard to business models, she hoped it
would not always be the case that ICANN-accredited registrars were to be used. </p>
<p> Bruce Tonkin noted that in the context of the new gTLD process where the
aim is to get consistency in agreements, he is wary of considering agreements
on a case-by-case basis. The requirements to adhere to Consensus policy
and use ICANN accredited registrars are covered in the proposed new gTLDs policy. His
view is that given how hard it is to develop consensus policies these should
be adhered to by registries and registrars noting for example that the new
gTLD process has taken two years of intensive negotiation and has been through
rigorous process. The use of registrars has been part of new gTLD discussion
between registries and registrars and the general principle is that the registrar
should be accredited by ICANN and should be treated equally. There
have been some discussions over whether there should continue to be restrictions
on the level of ownership by a registry of a registrar, and whether a registry
may also be accredited as a registrar for its TLD. With regard
to .POST and the three to four hundred names, there should be a separation
between domain name allocation and domain name records maintenance. The .POST
application may pre-allocate names as part of the TLD proposal; but maintenance of
records could still be done by registrars . It is likely that
registrars are already maintaining other domain name records for potential
.POST registrants. </p>
<p> Kurt Pritz advised that the clean division between registrar and registry
is based upon policy and practice and it dates from the beginning the gTLD
model structure. The agreements state that a registry cannot own 15% of registrar.
The discussion between the roles of registries and registrars is ongoing about
how distinction can be kept and business models accommodated. </p>
<p> Raimundo Beca asked if the date of November 2 is definite or if it can be
moved. Raimundo reflected that we should be careful not to give the UPU any
favors, as they are an organization that has a history of monopoly and now
there is competition. They should have to comply with the consensus policies.
He noted that the UPU and the ITU have a similar history and that the ITU does
not have it's own TLD, but is registered under <a href="http://ITU.INT">ITU.INT</a> </p>
<p> Kurt Pritz advised regarding the November 2 date, the UPU requested ICANN
Board approvals by that date so the UPU Congress can consider approving the
agreement. We will make every effort to resolve all issues in time for that
but have indicated that the deadline might be problematic because of the public
debate around this agreement. Question was raised regarding whether the UPU
could possibly consider the proposed agreement before Board approval. </p>
<p> Steve Goldstein noted that he was against giving special consideration on
consensus, indemnity, and registrar with exception of .MUSEUM. If you look
ahead to 10,000 TLDs it will be difficult to go forward without common agreement.
Steve Goldstein does not want to alienate the registry community, and he does
not want ICANN to indemnify the TLD sponsors against consensus policies, so
if such clauses were included in these agreements, he would vote "no". </p>
<p> Steve Crocker noted that he had previously reviewed this issue and that with
regard to .MUSEUM and other special registries using registrars, there is not
enough business for those registrars to participate. He noted that .MUSEUM
has problems getting the attention of registrars. The idea was to create competition
but when registrations fall below a threshold it makes the business model difficult.
Its nice to have a one size fits all but this does not fit the facts of the
matter. Steve indicated that if we're going to encourage or have a system in
place favorable to registries 100,000 minimum business model then we have to
have the ability to use a mechanism other than a competitive registrars system. </p>
<p> Bruce Tonkin advised that what Steve explained registrars understand, but
the concern about considering on a case by case is the use of a series of precedents
and trying to look at the issue as a whole and come up with something workable
and in recognition of the points made. </p>
<p> Steve Crocker noted that he had no problem with the framework developed to
deal with those issues but considered that what we have now does not work. </p>
<p><strong> Information Update on GNSO's WHOIS Policy Development </strong></p>
<p> Denise Michel advised that the GNSO has an ongoing PDP on WHOIS and at a
recent GSNO Council meeting a schedule was laid out for WHOIS reports. Council
will have a final vote on task force and working group reports that staff are
finalizing. Staff was asked to engage in some studies on registrars and misuses,
the study is also expected to review processes available today, and other studies
staff is working on. An implementation assessment is being prepared on issues
involved on what is referred to as the operational point of contact (OPOC)
proposal. The working group report completed in March intended a point of contact
in lieu of a registrant. More recently the GNSO Council established a short
term working group to look at the OPOC issue, and the working group examined
the roles and responsibilities of OPOC not fulfilled, legitimate interest,
third party contact information should be based on registered name holder,
registrants use of domain name. The working group report has some points of
agreement and some of points of significant disagreement. Staff is compiling
all this information for Council consideration. </p>
<p> Susan Crawford asked the timing for when board will get the report from the
GNSO. Denise Michel advised that it is very fluid at this point in that with
regard to OPOC, at one point there was strong agreement on the ability to consider
OPOC proposal and the support for that proposal decreased as we got further
into the detail of implementation and effects on registry and registrars became
apparent. So there are many open issues and the important step is the staff
development of implementation notes. The timing is unknown. </p>
<p> Janis Karklins recognized that the GNSO council has used words in GAC WHOIS
principles recommendations for action for study on use and misuses of WHOIS
data, which is appreciated by the GAC. He is happy that staff has started compiling
the data and will prepare a report. He asked about the timeline for the completion
of the work and what sources will be used in compiling report. </p>
<p> Liz Gasser confirmed that recommendations made by the GAC have been incorporated
into the GNSO discussion. Staff is undertaking work to obtain information regarding
the uses and potential misuses of information, the use of proxy services as
it affects Whois accuracy, and Whois contractual compliance. Staff will provide
additional updates on activities. There are some preparatory activities that
will guide staff about additional work. Staff will be giving an update to GNSO
on 4 October. </p>
<p> Bruce Tonkin advised that conflicting draft resolutions have been circulating
on the Council list regarding next steps on the WHOIS proposals, however as
registries and registrars appear to be withdrawing their support for the taskforce
proposal on OPAC, as modified by proposals from the WHOIS working group, he
expects Council will say they can't reach an agreement. </p>
<p> The Chair asked if the parties in debate agreed accurate information is available,
was who has access to the information the primary issue. </p>
<p> Bruce Tonkin advised that the work had stopped on accuracy until improvements
were made on access control, and that many in the GNSO believe that
registrants would be more willing to provide accurate information if it
was not publicly available. The Chair suggested that maybe there is a
kernel of agreement for drawing together the different sides. </p>
<p><strong> Adjournment</strong></p>
<p> Steve Goldstein moved a motion to adjourn and Roberto Gaetano seconded this
motion. </p>
<p>Affirmed </p>
<p>Meeting closed at 10.00pm US PDT </p>
</div>