No Such Weblog

All constituencies except IPC participate; IPC proxy to Philip Sheppard. John Jeffreys and Paul Twomey attend.

Draft of letter from Twomey to Bruce Tonkin is read: Formal request to initiate GNSO policy-development process to produce recommendation to board on timely, transparent, predictable process for review of actions taken by gTLD operators, including registry services.

Twomey: PDP to develop process between ICANN staff and registries. Not get policy-making part ofICANN involved with staff functions. Individual additions not policy questions. Important that independent third party make decisions, not competitors. ICANN staff is such a party. Core structure of registry agreements. Competition issues. Confidentiality issues with individual requests. Have independent outside expert advice on these.

Rationale for request for PDP comes from dialogues between president, registries. Need for greater clarity on what steps to be taken. On agenda for some time. Not related to sitefinder. More generic need.

Discussion. Ken Stubbs wants to have closer look at text of letter. Twomey: Final letter within 12 hours. Milton Mueller: No PDP whenever new service introduced. Determination by staff and board? Twomey: That's what happens now. "Registry service" defined in contract, requires approval by ICANN. Present process: Feedback from community. Handing this over to staff is not change to present process. Question from Milton: Assuming advance ruling by staff/board under rules determined by GNSO. Can GNSO tell board not to have advance process, but better define registry's functions in contract. Twomey: Not so much advance process. ... (Hard to understand.) Predictability. Milton again: Reason for accelerated time table? Asking for rapid decision on fundamental issue, as opposed to new TLD process that's sitting around for more than a year. Justification for priority, rather than sitefinder where horse is out of the barn. Twomey: Sitefinder and other recent requests for service changes (.name; .pro request for new services). Have highlighted to board and stuff that this is important issue.

Amadeu: Motion to request staff manager to do something. Do we have staff manager? Twomey: General Counsel. Tonkin: Staff manager is generic term. Have had issues reports in past. Not seen as individual, more function. "IANA needs to do ..." Amadeu: Human resources available? Twomey: You have the resources.

Philip Sheppard: Motion for call; have now heared letter and discussion. Is motion that has been tabled compatible, or need to be amended? Bruce: Motion compatible. Letter sets out details, reasons. Reads motion.

Jordyn Buchanan: Expedited process, Jan 15. Chaired one of first new PDP instantiations. Based on experience, little reason to believe that it's actually possible to complete PDP in this amount of time. Consequences if not? Twomey: Bylaws, 90 days. Tonkin: Past experience difficult. Skeptical that this is achievable. Marilyn on time frames: Sympathetic to need to move expeditiously. Paul is right that PDP calls for 90 days. Assistance group that drafted PDP pointed out challenges in time frame. This particular time frame particularly challenged, not just by goodwill, but also by holidays. How much time will people lose around end of year holiday period. ...

Jeff Neuman: Likes the date. Ambitious to get there. Regardless of what date is set, will ask for extension. Rather set early date, ask for extension then. Further out date will just extend things even longer. Nothing wrong with setting date, trying, asking for more time. Back in queue.

Jordyn: Echo what Marilyn said. Experience of deletes task force that ran under new PDP. Kicked off in Shanghai, work got under way mid-January. After that, moved along quickly. New PDP can be accomplished more rapidly than what we've seen in past. Staff support throughout process critical, not just for issues report.

Twomey: There will be staff support.

Marilyn on consequences: If commit to time frame, but don't deliver -- what consequences for introduction of service by someone?

Twomey: Three services before ICANN under registry agreement. .pro, three reqs from Verisign on IDN, WLS, Sitefinder. Those are active now. Not part of this process. Process being designed for future requests.

Neumann: The way letter was structured was for all TLDs services. Need to step in for Cary. Should only be for unsponsored registries, not sponsored. Ability to chose r'y services for sponsored TLDs delegated to sponsors. Twomey: Key point, will make sure letter is accurate.

Tonkin: Move on to motion before council. Request issues report from staff manager for PDP on new services. Marilyn seconds. Queue.

Jordyn (.pro): Not hugely troubled by specific motion. gTLD constituency has identified some concerns. Possible that some of these addressed. Broader comment. Recent events with sitefinder and others highlights that gTLD registry contracts (maybe less for sponsored TLDs than for unsponsored) fundamentally flawed. Huge amount of ink devoted to issues that have little to do with security, stability of Internet. Small portion of ink (maybe not enough, see sitefinder) dedicated to making sure that ICANN can preserve stability through contract enforcement. Contracts need to be revisited, rethought. This should maybe first step in this process. Broader rethinking. General meta-thought. Don't get bogged down in details.

Bruce: Milton raised new TLD issue earlier. Current structure of contracts might be looked at by Council. Jordyn: Ideally, ICANN wouldn't need to go in and review registry service. Ideally, contract would spell out minimum level of stability, rapid reaction to circumstances where this is in danger. Going through looking at whether good idea or not points to flaw in contract design. Bruce on process: Issues report commissioned now. Then decide again. Will need to define terms of reference; can be quite specific about what's in/out of scope for process. That's what's tried with WHOIS.

Marilyn: Support motion. Comment: Has observed discussion which is not appropriate at this time without understanding that users have perspective on security and stability etc. Prefer to focus on work at hand. There may be wide set of perspective re contracts. Stay positive, focused. Support motion.

Milton: Could support motion. Proposed amendment to council list, hasn't shown up. Bruce has just seen it: dominant/non-dominant players. Suggests to first have motion on issues report. Then ask John Jeffreys to take issue into account. Milton: Would, after Jordyn's comments, add that improvement of contracts may be better way to address problem. Not sure what Paul is asking, haven't seen letter. Everybody in outrage on sitefinder. Close barn door after horse is out. Danger: ICANN as regulator of individual services, like public utility situation. Prefer to get contracts right. Give players liberty to do what's right with contracts. Legal remedies when they break it. Technical: Might not be clear what causes problems on Internet. But not sure whether centralized regulation is way to address. Central issue, goes to the core of ICANN as regulatory body.

Jeff Neuman: One, please not use "regulation", "regulatory body." ICANN is not such a body. Major difference. Get out of mind-set of thinking about ICANN as "regulator." Not its role. Contracts! ICANN not a body that regulates over registries, registrars, users. Agree with Marilyn that this should stay out of conversations; broader issue. Two, if issues report, and GNSO council is engaged in council, would ask on behalf of smaller registry that process needs to be done without emotion re monopoly. Whatever attitude towards Verisign is, needs to be put aside. Rules will affect all registries. Inadvertently trying to get back at dominant player could kill smaller registries.

Philip: Convergence towards motion that is proposed. Echo suggestion that Milton's question be covered in issues report.

Motion read; vote. Registries and non-commercials abstain, all others in favor.

Tonkin suggests public comments while issues report is created. Marilyn: Comments after issues report under PDP. Tonkin: Concern -- previous issues reports working from public input. Question to Twomey: Enough data for issues report, or useful to ask for input from public? Twomey: Come back later. Tonkin: Make sure enough input. Input from Milton, others. Twomey: Certainly get input from council members. Other input gathered in the past. Tonkin: Queue to raise issues.

Milton: Reason for abstention -- unconvinced that have to do this. If, focus on salient issues. Make sure that issues report addresses those. Interesting that reason quoted by Twomey was pending requests, but registries not enthusiastic. Problem: Registry contracts too much focused on regulation, not enough on technical stability. Proposal: One, consider advantages or disadvantages of ex post / ex ante. What he meant: When someone introduces process that endagers stability, harms users, sue them, don't go through review process. Two, rules different for dominant or non-dominant providers? Recursive loop "it's registry service" v. "it's not." Who makes initial determination? Better focus gTLD contracts on coordination, stability? Tonkin: Send material for minutes. Will forward to staff.

Marilyn: Discussion. Bruce: Understanding of process -- staff manager will create issues report. "Has been raised, in scope, out scope." Don't think council is endorsing anything by saying issue is council issue. Marilyn: Priority to some issues? Bruce: Not intent. Queue to raise things now or on list. Marilyn: Wonderful to take more input from variety of councillors. Bruce: That's what he's asking for. Please go to queue.

Ken Stubbs: Need reasonable time period to go back. Very accelerated consultation with constituents. ... Proposal: Constituency input prior to next Monday. At least a little bit of consulting. Tonkin: Concerned that staff report produced purely on their experience on recent services. Need opportunity for consultation. Staff manager report due in 15 days. Rather do good job than rush. Read letter, circulate input on council list that can be passed on to ICANN as individual submissions. 15 days from now is last day of Carthage. Tonkin: Comments before writing report.

Jeff Neumann: Make sure that date of issues report is before terms end. Would be shame if council was in transition and have issues report stuck in middle. Tonkin: Expects issues report won't be complete then. Jeff: Sorry, meant input to issues report. Issue: Technically, if registry service comes without price, ICANN has no rights under agreements. Wants to have ICANN's role under contracts clarified; some of this might be in letter. Tonkin: Please submit in writing to council list.

Marilyn: Practically impossible to do Carthage (including travel) and issues report in time for October 31 (date of board meeting). Pursue quick outreach to constituencies. Meeting with GC in Carthage? Make sure there is opportunity to have broader input into issues report. Time frame should be shortly after Carthage meeting.

Tonkin: Some discussion on list re Carthage re constituency meeting. Suggests constituencies meet together, talk about some of issues. Correct that such meeting is being organized? Marilyn: Proposal for open information meeting on Monday afternoon. Information on wildcards. Tonkin suggests inviting GC to meeting. Marilyn: GC on contracts is on agenda. But should not replace public forum. Tonkin: Cross constituency meeting and separate general discussion? Marilyn: Cross constituency meeting, BC, ISP, IPC for information. Have invited guests. ... Neumann: Constituencies might hold closed meeting. Some discussions must be performed very careful. Anti-trust implications? Tonkin: What meetings? Monday afternoon? Marilyn: Registries welcome to participate in planning that meeting. Still have to hear.

Agenda for council in Carthage: UDRP was deferred, must pick up; possible terms of reference; WHOIS steering group working on terms of reference; one set is stable, one less stable, one just in beginning. Could consider most stable one in Carthage. Marilyn: 3 council seats? Tonkin: Meant to raise with Twomey, Jeffreys. Ups. Marilyn: Formal request, cc council, on the record?

Elections? Registries have announced results. Others? BC had election, will have return of existing reps. Non-comm not able to start until 20 October. Should have finished in time to announce results (ununderstandable). ISPs haven't started election. Will start after Carthage, conclude quickly after that. IPC absent. Probably no point in holding informal meeting with new council in Carthage. Set date for November for new council. First thing, elect chair, take on issues report on registry services.

Jeff Neumann: Elections conducted for two reps, in case board decides that way. Milton: NCUC -- two reps, special election for third if needed. BC -- have elected three, will devise approach for dealing with different outcome.

Marilyn: Committee of present council to focus on new registry service issue? Concerned that if there is significant change in membership, time line might be hard to fulfill. Jeff Neumann: By time issues report is voted on, new council will be in place. That council should decide.

Call ended.