GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 7 April 2011

Last Updated: 21 April 2011
Date: 
7 April 2011

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 20:04 UTC.

List of attendees:

NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group:Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Andrei Kolesnikov - absent, apologies proxy vote to Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Debra Hughes, Rafik Dammak, William Drake, Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong joined the call late and assigned a proxy vote to Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer - absent, apologies - proxy vote to Rafik Dammak.
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer

ICANN Staff

Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Kurt Pritz - SVP Stakeholder Relations
Samanta Eisner - Senior Counsel
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development - apologies

Guest:
Edmon Chung

For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest

Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, Councilors were polled regarding
disclosures of interest regarding the following meeting topics:

  •  
    • The main issues for this meeting are:

      • GNSO Project Decision Making
      • GNSO Improvements
      • Registration Abuse Policies
      • Whois
      • IDN's

1.2 Statements of Interest
Statement of Interest updates were received from:

1 3 Review/amend the agenda

1.4.The GNSO Council 16 March 2011 minutes approved on 9 April 2011.

Item 2: Pending Projects - GNSO Toolkit of services

Rob Hoggarth provided an update that was deferred from the San Francisco meeting, on the GNSO Toolkit of services.
It is foreseen that after the FY 2012 Budget has been approved by the Board, the 'Toolkit' is likely to come off the Pending Projects list. The new GNSO website, of critical importance to the GNSO, is scheduled for the Singapore meeting. However it should be noted that the GNSO website is not part of the Toolkit.

Item 3: WHOIS studies

Motion 1, on request of the Intellectual Property Constituency and with Council's agreement was deferred again until the next Council meeting.
It was suggested that the dollar amounts refer to United States of America dollars.

Questions on the Whois motion should be directed to the small group made up of, Liz Gasster, Chuck Gomes, Kathy Kleiman, Don Blumenthal, Steve Delbianco.

3.3 Update on Whois Requirements by Liz Gasster moved to end of meeting.

Item 4: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)

Discussion highlighted the criticism the Registrars industry has undergone by not supporting the motion, and it was noted that there was not a similar criticism of the ICM contract negotiations for the .XXX gTLD.

Jeff Neuman, reiterated the Contracted Parties House statement made in San Francisco and requested that it be placed in the record for this meeting.

Kristina Rosette, seconded by Zahid Jamil, proposed a motion to approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement which was deferred from GNSO Council meeting 16 March 2011.

Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN;

Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable;

Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;

Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;

Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails:

1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution.

2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.

3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).

4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group.

5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012.

6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments.

7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA.

8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.

9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

The motion failed

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
6 votes against: Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Jeff Neuman, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson
1 vote in favour: Andrei Kolesnikov's proxy vote cast by Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Non Contracted Parties House:
13 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Debra Hughes, Rafik Dammak, William Drake, Rosemary Sinclair, Olga Cavalli, Mary Wong's proxy vote cast by Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer's proxy vote cast by Rafik Dammak.

Kristina Rosette, on behalf of the Non Contracted Parties House, made the following statement:

The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) is disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the process for proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding proposed further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report. That report documented strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion to adopt that recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote by the CPH. Today's motion was based on the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted by Registrar members of the Working Group. The failure of this alternative, compromise motion due to the CPH voting as a bloc signals that CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's ability to gridlock the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly.
We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the constituencies making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in 2009 only after the Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps" in developing a process for considering further RAA amendments. The wholesale rejection by the Registrar Stakeholder Group of two potential ways forward, one of which is modeled on a proposal by registrar personnel, and the refusal to propose other alternatives is wholly inconsistent with the stated commitment to participate on a good faith basis. While we hope that the Registrar Constituency did not intentionally mislead us in 2009, we are left with no other explanation.

Jeff Neuman took issue with the implication that the contracted parties were not acting in good faith and reiterated concerns expressed in San Francisco regarding (i) the motion allowing the GNSO Council to determine what fell within the “picket fence” and what did not, (ii) the inflexible timelines presented, and (iii) the implication thatt if the registrars disagreed with a recommendation made by the community, that the registrars would be forced to make compromises which may not be warranted.

Item 5: Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SC-DT)

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, seconded by Mary Wong and Jonathan Robinson, proposed a motion to adopt the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI)

Whereas the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 8 December 2010 to establish a drafting team to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010;

Whereas a Drafting Team has formed and its members have developed a Charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation as proposed (see hereunder);

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to send a request for volunteers to those entities identified in the Charter as eligible for member and observer status of the Standing Committee;

The GNSO Council appoints Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as the interim Chair of the Standing Committee, who will serve as the interim Chair until the Standing Committee has selected its own Chair.

Charter - Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI)

General

The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council:

  • On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
  • On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)
  • The immediate goal of the OSC and PPSC is to develop:
    Recommendations to implement operational changes, and recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements contained in the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements" which are to be implemented with approval and under the guidance of the Council.

It should be acknowledged that OSC and PPSC still have tasks to finish, possibly on different timescales. Expiry of their charters has therefore to be taken carefully into consideration by the GNSO Council. Nevertheless, since several OSC and PPSC recommendations have already been adopted and implemented and the practicability of some of them has raised concerns, it is advisable to kick off the SCI work immediately. Following the implementation of further OSC/PPSC recommendations the SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of these new recommendations. This in consequence might mean that the OSC/PPSC and SCI will be coexistence for a certain period of time.

Working method

It is recommended that the SCI follows the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

(Approved by the GNSO Council on 16 March 2011)", as deemed appropriate

The SCI is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the SCI may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract volunteers that are not members or observers of the SCI. However, the SCI remains responsible for reviewing and approving any recommendations, which are to be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration.

For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information.

For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. In order to have comprehensive information on the issue available this group is requested to provide the following information, if applicable:

1. Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.) 2. To which rules or processes implemented by the OSC or PPSC do you refer?

3. Please outline the problems

4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems?

5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer?

One member of the group which submitted the request should - if not already represented on the SCI - be nominated as an observer to the SCI until the review of the issue in question has been completed.

At its kick-off meeting the SCI should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise for example as a result of exercising another function or role within ICANN.

Members of the Standing Committee (Primary and Alternate members)

  • 1 representative from each constituency/SG
  • 1 NomCom appointee

Members of the Standing Committee may designate an alternate who can participate in the SCI deliberations in case of absence of the primary member. Only one of the two, primary or alternate, may take part in a consensus call.

Observers of the Standing Committee

  • .1 representative from each constituency in formation
  • Liaison or an appointed representative from other ICANN Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees (as determined by the SCI as appropriate)
  • 1 observer representing the group that has submitted a request for review during the time that the request for review is being dealt with (provided that the group is not yet represented on the SCI)

Staff Support

The ICANN Staff assigned to the SCI will fully support the work of the committee as directed by the Chair including meeting support, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate.

Staff assignments to the SCI:

  • . GNSO secretariat
  • 1 ICANN policy staff member

Decision making

Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6).

Reporting

At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning:

  • The issues dealt with and related status
  • Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council
  • An activity timeline

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben abstained on the part of the motion that related to the appointment of the interim Chair of the Standing Committee.

Item 6: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG)

Edmon Chung provided a brief overview of the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG)

Ching Chiao seconded by Rafik Dammak and Adrian Kinderis proposed a motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLD's as amended:

WHEREAS,
The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907);

The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; The JIG has issued an Initial Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm), and thereupon a Draft Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm), and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs;

The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and, The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook as it pertains to the new gTLDs.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ccNSO Chair.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs".

The motion carried by voice vote.
Kristina Rosette and David Taylor abstained for the following reason.
"Ordinarily we would request that action on this motion be deferred to allow the members of the IPC to fully consider it, but in light of the timing considerations and the desire to try and have the recommendations added to the next iteration of the Applicant Guidebook we absolutely do not want to stand in the way of that. So as opposed to requesting the deferral we will simply abstain".

Item 7: GNSO Working Group Guidelines

7.1 Update from Staff on when the new version of the Operating Procedures will be ready. (Marika Konings)
Deferred to the next Council meeting

The new Working Group Guidelines are complete and posted on the GNSO website.

Item 8: Revision to GNSO Council Operating Procedures Section 5.0: Statements of Interest

Stéphane Van Gelder, seconded by Adrian Kinderis proposed a motion re the revision of Section 5.0 Statements of Interest of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf that would simplify and clarify the procedures;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a proposed revision of Section 5 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the proposed revision of Section 5.0 at its 24 February 2011 meeting and initiated a 30-day public comment period http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-5 on the document;

WHEREAS, there were no comments on the proposed revision of Section 5.0 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf in the public forum and the final version http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf is submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the revision of Section 5.0 as proposed by the OSC and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revised Section 5.0 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb11-en.pdf into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the procedures in the revised Section 5.0.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote of all present at the Council meeting and by absentee ballot.
Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
6 votes in favour: Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Jeff Neuman, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson
1 absentee ballot: Andrei Kolesnikov

Non Contracted Parties House:
11 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Debra Hughes, Rafik Dammak, William Drake, Rosemary Sinclair, Olga Cavalli, Mary Wong,
2 absentee ballots: Zahid Jamil, Wendy Seltzer.

Absentee voting applicable: 4.4.1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures
Three absentee ballots, with a 72 hour turn around, to be sent to the absent councillors: Andrei Kolesnikov, Zahid Jamil, Wendy Seltzer.

Note: Absentee ballot results: 3 votes in favour.

Item 3.3 Update on Whois Requirements (Liz Gasster)
Liz Gasster reminded the Council that the Whois Service Requirements Report was completed in July 2010, there has been no discussion on the mailing list nor in pervious meetings the question still remains "What are the next steps that should be done with this report?"
Three options were suggested:

  • Consult with Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes, the two proponents of the initial motion in May of 2009 what they think next steps might be appropriate.
  • Ask the ICANN staff to go ahead with the next steps they consider appropriate.
  • Solicit suggestions from the Council as to the appropriate next steps.

Council agreed that Liz Gasster contact Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes and arrange the appropriate consultations.

Action Item:
Liz Gasster contact Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes and arrange the appropriate consultations on the next steps regarding the Whois Service Requirements Report.

Item 9. Any Other Business

9.1 Future role of PPSC with specific regards to the PDP-WT.

Jeff Neuman informed the Council that the Policy Development Process (PDP) work team is finalizing its Final Report, which under the current charter, should be submitted to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC). This is viewed as an added layer of bureaucracy and the plan is to introduce a motion at the next Council meeting to revise the charter so that Report can be submitted directly to the Council

9.2 Discussion of draft for community change process.
Deferred to the next Council meeting

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 22:02 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 28 April 2011 at 11:00 UTC.
See: Calendar