[pdp-pcceg-feb06] Revised draft minutes pdp-pcceg-feb06 teleconference 29 March 2006
Please find the revised draft minutes of the first task force meeting held in Wellington on 29 March 2006. If you would like any further changes made, please let me know.
The next proposed meeting date is Tuesday 6 June 2006 at 11:00 LA, 14:00 EST, 18:00 UTC, 20:00 CET. Dail-in details will be sent later.
All Council members who are not task force members are on the pdp-pcceg-feb06 mailing list as observers.
Thank you. Kind regards, Glen .....................................................................
PDP-Feb06 Taskforce on Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs
29 March 2006
Proposed agenda and documents
Task force members Maureen Cubberley - Task Force Chair - Nominating Committee appointee Philip Sheppard - CBUC -appointed by constituency 13 March 2006 Marilyn Cade - CBUC- appointed by constituency 13 March 2006 Grant Forsyth - CBUC - appointed by constituency 13 March 2006 Mike Roberts - remote participation - CBUC - appointed by constituency 13 March 2006 Greg Ruth - ISCPC - appointed by constituency 10 March 2006 (lead person) Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Jon Nevett - Registrars (Network Solutions) Jeff Eckhaus - Registrars (Registrar .com) Ross Rader - Registrars Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries David Maher - gTLD registries (PIR) Cary Karp - remote participation - gTLD registries Ute Decker - remote participation - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. Milton Mueller - remote participation - NCUC Mawaki Chango - remote participation - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
Bruce Tonkin - GNSO Council member, observer
Issues Report Terms of Reference
Taskforce Guidelines which will guide the work of the group.
1. Introduction of Taskforce Members and Statements of Interest http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/statements-of-interest-pdp-feb06-apr.html.
Jon Nevett and Marilyn Cade withdrew their nominations.
Maureen Cubberley, nominated by Lucy Nichols and seconded by Cary Karp was unanimously elected by all present including the votes of Ute Decker, Mawaki Chango and Milton Mueller who participated remotely.
Decision 1: Maureen Cubberley elected as task force chair
Maureen Cubberley asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
Marilyn Cade requested that item 4 be discussed in detail and items that arose should be added to AOB
Philip Sheppard, seconded by Jon Nevett moved for the adoption of the agenda. Agenda unanimously adopted
Decision 2: Agenda adopted
3. Confirmation of Task Force Charter (please refer to the Terms of Reference)
If, at the end of the public comment period on 30 April 2006, there were substantive comments, they would be discussed, incorporated into the report and would be brought back to the task force.
Ken Stubbs seconded by Ross Rader moved that the Terms of Reference, as previously posted, be adopted as the Task Force Charter.
The GNSO initiated a policy development process in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] to develop policy around whether to introduce new gTLDs, and if so, determine the selection criteria, allocation methods, and contractual conditions.
During 2005, ICANN commenced a process of revising the .net and .com agreements. There has been substantial discussion amongst members of the GNSO community around both the recently signed .net agreement (dated 29 June 2005), and the proposed .com agreements (dated 24 October 2005 and 29 January 2006). As a result, the GNSO Council recognized that issues such as renewal could be considered as part of the broader issue of contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and that it may be more appropriate to have policies that apply to gTLDs generally on some of the matters raised by GNSO members, rather than be treated as matters to negotiate on a contract by contract basis.
Subsequently on the 17 January 2006, GNSO Council requested that the ICANN staff produce an issues report "related to the dot COM proposed agreement in relation to the various views that have been expressed by the constituencies." This issues report is available at:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01951.html . Section D of this issues report provides a discussion of many of the issues that had been raised by the GNSO community in response to the proposed revisions to the .com agreement. In the issues report the ICANN General Counsel advised that it would not be appropriate to consider a policy development process that specifically targets the .com registry agreement.
At its meeting on 6 February 2006, members of the GNSO Council clarified that the intention of the request for the issues report was to seek an issues report on the topic of the broader policy issues that relate to the contractual conditions of gTLD agreements, which have been identified from the various views expressed by the GNSO constituencies on the proposed .com agreement.
At its meeting on 6 February 2006 the GNSO Council recognised that while the PDP initiated in December 2005 [PDP-Dec05] included within its terms of reference the topic of contractual conditions, a possible outcome of that PDP would be that there should be no additional gTLDs, and thus the Council could not depend on this PDP to address the issues raised by the GNSO community.
Thus at its meeting on 6 February 2006, the GNSO Council, by a super-majority decision, decided to initiate a separate PDP [PDP-Feb06] to look at specific areas of contractual conditions of existing gTLDs.
The work of PDP-Feb06 will naturally be conducted within the context of the work on PDP-Dec05, and if it is decided that new gTLDS should be introduced, the policy work of PDP-Feb06 will be incorporated into a single gTLD policy.
The overall goal of this PDP therefore is to determine what policies are appropriate, for the long term future of gTLDs within the context of ICANN's mission and core values, that relate to the issues identified in the specific terms of reference below.
1. Registry agreement renewal
1a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding renewal, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
1b. Recognizing that not all existing registry agreements share the same Rights of Renewal, use the findings from above to determine whether or not these conditions should be standardized across all future agreements.
2a. Examine whether consensus policy limitations in registry agreements are appropriate and how these limitations should be determined.
2b. Examine whether the delegation of certain policy making responsibility to sponsored TLD operators is appropriate, and if so, what if any changes are needed.
3a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding price controls, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be. (note examples of price controls include price caps, and the same pricing for all registrars)
3b. Examine objective measures (cost calculation method, cost elements, reasonable profit margin) for approving an application for a price increase when a price cap exists.
4a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding registry fees to ICANN, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
4b. Determine how ICANN's public budgeting process should relate to the negotiation of ICANN fees.
5. Uses of registry data
Registry data is available to the registry as a consequence of registry operation. Examples of registry data could include information on domain name registrants, information in domain name records, and traffic data associated with providing the DNS resolution services associated with the registry.
5a Examine whether or not there should be a policy regarding the use of registry data for purposes other than for which it was collected, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
5b. Determine whether any policy is necessary to ensure non-discriminatory access to registry data that is made available to third parties.
6. Investments in development and infrastructure
6a. Examine whether or not there should be a policy guiding investments in development and infrastructure, and if so, what the elements of that policy should be.
The Task Force Charter was unanimously adopted.
Decision 3: The Terms of Reference, as previously posted, be adopted as the Task Force Charter.
After discussion at the initial meeting, the following timeline was agreed.
10 March 2006 - Appointment of Task force Representatives and notification of representatives to Secretariat
7 March 2006 – 30 April 2006 -- Public comment period
29 March 2006 – Task force Charter confirmed
29 March 2006 – Task force timeline agreed
30 April 2006 – Constituency statements due, public comment period closes.
26 May 2006 – Preliminary Initial Report released
9 June 2006 – Task force meeting to discuss Initial Report
16 June 2006 – Updated Initial Report released to GNSO Council for discussion at Marrakech meeting
(24-30 June 2006) – ICANN meeting Marrakech – TF meeting within ICANN meeting schedule
mid July – release Task Force Report for public comment
Further dates need to be agreed.
John Jeffrey, General Counsel remarked that there were different considerations with regard to the policy development process (pdp) timelines not being met. One was that all previous pdps, including successful ones, had not followed the timelines and had been accepted as policy direction from the GNSO and ccNSO.thus creating a precedent for accepting policy that had been created outside the stipulated timelines.The board was considering how to deal with activities that were not in compliance with the bylaws.
A formal request was made for input on better technology to support task force meetings.
2. Outside Advisors. The task force, should it deem it appropriate or helpful, may solicit the opinions of outside advisors, experts, or other members of the public, in addition to those of constituency members. Such opinions should be set forth in a report prepared by such outside advisors, and (i) clearly labeled as coming from outside advisors; (ii) accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (A) qualifications and relevant experience; and (B) potential conflicts of interest. These reports should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
There was general agreement that expert advice be solicited through a "call for papers" similar to the process that was implemented in Call for Papers -- Policy Development for Introduction of New gTLDs and that the Staff Manager would draft the invitation to submit papers.
A three part consultation process to solicit input was agreed upon: - Constituency statements - Public input through the open public comment period - Expert input through written submissions from the "call for papers".
There was general agreement that there should be broader discussion on prioritisation.
5. Next meeting
Friday 9 June 2006 new PDP-Feb06 task force call (time to be decided)
Avri Doria proposed a motion of adjournment
Maureen Cubberley adjourned the meeting and thanked present and remote participants.
Meeting adjourned at 9.45 local time.
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org