Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/ Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business 
Marilyn Cade           Business 
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP  
Antonio Harris         ISPCP 
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris   
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD  
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies,
Cary Karp              gTLD  
Ellen Shankman         IP    
Laurence Djolakian     IP  
J. Scott Evans         IP    
Harold Feld            NCDNH  
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH absent, apologies, 
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies,

Glen de Saint G?ry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
 

Recommendation18.
Ph. Sheppard explained that the draft wording had come from Thomas Roessler's input.

Roger Cochetti reminded the group that the gTLD Registry Constituency is on record as not supporting this recommendation.
Advisory bodies, or whatever they are called, dealing with gTLDs should be made up of operators, Registrars and Registries. This was also a recommendation of the AtLarge study group.

Discussion showed that there are similarities and differences with ccTLDs and gTLDs.
Generic ccTLDS that take on the character of gTLDs have a global impact.
Issues are similar but policies are different.
Common interests of ccTLDs and gTLDs should be identified.
ICANN cannot develop policy issues binding on ccTLDs.
Recommendation is defining a minimum not a maximum of constituencies.
Non- commercial organisations should be specified rather than non-commercila interests.
To Internet service providers, connectivity should be added.

Concern was expressed that the Names Council position was not recommending anything beyond the status quo, however, "Who" remains at the table remains broadly the same, but "What" is where things should be changed.

New wording:
The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at minimum the following constituencies: Business users, intellectual property interests, gTLD Registries, Registrars, non-commercial organisations, internet service and connectivity providers.

The recommendation was accepted by all except the gTLD Registrar constituency and the Non-Commercial constituency said that their vote depended on the language in Recommendations 19 - 21.


Recommendation 19
Ph. Sheppard added a concern mentioned earlier by the Non-Commercial constituency,
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders,
A distinction should be made between permanent and temporary constituency/forums.
New constituencies should form according to Names Council criteria.
Temporary constituency could form round a specific issue.
There was support for the idea of restructuring the GA and make it a place for issue fora.

New wording:

Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders.
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added subject to the requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at www.dnso.org.

Recommendation 19: Accepted by all

Recommendation 20
Thomas Roessler suggested being more explicit and adding 3 representatives per stakeholder/ constituency is optimal.

Marilyn Cade felt that the structure of the body should be dealt with first.
Ken Stubbs said that guidelines for electing this body should be considered before a specific number.
Roger Cochetti commented that the recommendations appeared to be a Names Council clone
Structure, function, process should be part of the recommendation and in function and process it will be different.
Tony Harris reminded the group that the ISCPC prefers a model on the curent lines of the current DNSO and supports the creating of Supporting Organisations for the ccTLD and the AtLarge.
Ken Stubbs hoped that the idea, whether called the NC or Policy Council, having groups with common interests and bringing them into contact with groups affected by the policy would be explored.

Recommendation 20: Accepted by all

Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation
Deffered to the end to be discussed with the GA and public fora.

Recommendation 22
Ph. Sheppard addressed this stating that the wording also captured some of the concerns earlier expressed by Ken Stubbs. The present Task Forces have merit, outside expertise could be called upon and the groups would thus vary in size but have to be balanced and make recommendations to the main body.

Marilyn Cade suggested that calling in outside expertise or specific help should be emphasied, which was echoed by Harold Feld who added that there should be a formal consultation process with the constituencies in the early feedback stage.

Further discussion pointed out the following issues:
- staff support,
- a core of drafters
- prior to submitting the report to the NC, the Task Forces should consult with and take input from the individual constituencies.
- Ken Stubbs strongly emphasised that in any deliberating process timelines are very important to efficiency.

New wording:
Recommendation 22 - working practice
The gTLD policy development body should operate by establishing small, specialist working groups with realistic timelines. These working groups may vary in size and composition depending on the issue and could include outside expertise. The working groups would consult with constituencies/stakeholders and then make final recommendations to the Council or similar body of the gTLD policy development body.

Recommendation 22 : Accepted by all.


Recommendation 23 - Board Liaison
Ph. Sheppard said that Board involvement in each of these bodies was an idea that came from the last meeting.
J. Scott Evans who initiated the idea, elaborated by saying that Board Members should be assigned to liaise with the various policy developing bodies, monitor the process and guide the Board in understanding how the policy was developed.

New wording:
Recommendation 23 - Board liaison
To ensure Board level engagement in the policy development process one or more Board members should be assigned as a liaison to each policy development body.

Recommendation 23: Accepted by All

Recommendation 24
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation saying it tried to capture the idea of an interim decision when time is critical, and Thomas Roessler suggested defining "interim" by a maximum of 6 months.

In the discussion the Redemption paper was given as an example of where a quick decision had to be made.
In time critical situations, the Board should be able to direct staff to make a recommendation, test out the recommendation with the Policy Development Body (PDB), rather than expecting the PDB to do the work.
Businesses could not be expected to act on interim decisions so this was acceptable.

New wording:

Recommendation 24 - extremis
Ordinarily all policy development should be via the policy development bodies and subject to recommendation 10 in terms of obligation on the Board. In extremis when externalities dictate, the Board should be able to direct ICANN staff to draft a policy for fast-track consideration (not to exceed 60 days) by the policy development bodies.

Recommendation 24: Accepted by All

Recommendation 21
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation, adding Thomas Roessler's contributions.
In addition to the General Assembly, the idea of fora was added and the distinction was made between genuine stakeholders who should self organise and be part of the process, making the General Assembly a genuine assemblty of all those stakeholders and having in addition an effective means of consultation on proposed policies whereby those individuals not part of the stakeholders can ordinarily participate

Suggested wording

The General Assembly:
The gTLD policy development body should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development body.

Recommendation accepted by all.

Discussion on public consultation pointed out that:
Public consultation should be clearly defined, it is always costly and can be fundamental as it educates people. However care should be taken that values are not created through public consultation as it tends to become a dumping ground for personal issues that minimise the issue at stake.
Ken Stubbs gave the example of public consultation in Domain Name Transfers which should not focus on alternate roots.
A time limit is important without fixing it definitely.

New wording:

Public Consultation:
There should be public consultation on proposed new policy within strict time limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as the channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/ constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be made available for public consultation.