The meeting started at 15:03 UTC.
List of attendees:
Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz
Adrian Kinderis - absent, apologies,
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Caroline Greer, Edmon Chung
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, William Drake, Rosemary Sinclair; Debra Hughes joined late
Wendy Seltzer - absent, apologies
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer - absent, apologies
ICANN Staff
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Policy Director
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 the following meeting topics:
- GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies Review Teams
- Whois studies
- Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG
Rob Hoggarth noted that declarations of interest are written statements and the goal over-time, is for the Councillors to develop a list of statements and declarations of interest on specific issues that are available on the Website.
Stéphane van Gelder noted that the Council should review this issue.
1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
Updates of Interest were received from:
1 3 Review/amend the agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures
26 August 2010 meeting – Scheduled for Approval on 16 September 2010.
Item 2: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS and Whois Policies Review Teams
Some Councillors noted that their constituencies and stakeholder groups had not had the opportunity to fully discuss the issue and expressed concern about adding George Asare Sakyi to the Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR) Review Team slate of applicants. They were of the view that a motion should indicate the Council's positive support of the slate being sent to the selectors and this would not be the case if George's name was on the slate.
1. An amendment to the motion to endorse volunteers to serve on the Affirmation of Commitments review Teams was proposed by Kristina Rosette and seconded by Zahid Jamil and accepted as friendly by Olga Cavalli and Terry Davis:
In the light of the fact that it sounds as if numerous constituencies and stakeholder groups may not have had the opportunity to fully discuss adding George Asare Sakyi, I move that his name be deleted from the list of candidates put forth to the selectors for the SSR review Team.
The amendment carried in both the Contracted Parties House and the Non Contracted Parties House by voice vote
Analysis of voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
5 votes in favour:
1 abstention: Chuck Gomes: I abstain based on our ( Registries Stakeholder Group) charter requirements
1 Absent: Adrian Kinderis
Contracted Parties House:
7 votes in favour:
4 votes against: Bill Drake, Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak.
2 Absent: Wendy seltzer, Debbie Hughes
Mary Wong drew attention to Wendy Seltzer's email on the Council list
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09623.html
and noted that as the assigned proxy for Wendy, she votes against the motion and requests that this be included in the minutes. Chuck Gomes ruled that the new proxy voting procedures were not properly followed so Mary cannot vote on behalf of Wendy. Stéphane Van Gelder also stated that Tim Ruiz, who warned he would be unable to attend the complete meeting, had asked to have him named as his proxy. Chuck Gomes ruled against this as well.
The new procedures for proxy voting, which include sending a form to the Secretariat before the meeting, were noted.
The Non Commercial Stakeholder Group indicated that they were not in favour of an alternate option of substituting George Asare Sakyi for David Cake.
Olga Cavalli, seconded by Terry Davis as amended by Kristina Rosette, proposed a motion to endorse volunteers to serve on the AOC Review Teams.
WHEREAS, in furtherance of ICANN’s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments, applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS and Whois Policy;
WHEREAS, these AOC review teams will include members endorsed by the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to endorse applicants to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR) and Whois Policy;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that pursuant to the approved Endorsement Process, the following applicants are hereby endorsed by the GNSO Council to serve on the AOC review teams listed below:
SSR Review Team:
Jeff Brueggeman
David Cake
Rick Wilhelm
Ken Silva
RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Secretariat is requested to forward, as appropriate, the names of the endorsed applicants to serve on the “WHOIS Policy” and “Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS” review teams to the RT Selectors.
WHOIS Policy:
Susan Kawaguchi
Kim G. Von Arx
James Bladel
Kathy Kleiman
The motion carried in both the Contracted parties house and in the Non Contracted parties house by voice vote.
The new procedures for proxy voting, which include sending a form to the Secretariat before the meeting, were noted.
Mary Wong requested that the issue of proxy voting in the new Council Operating Procedures be placed on the agenda for the next Council meeting. Chuck Gomes suggestedthat Mary send a message to the GNSO Council Operations Work Team scheduled to meet on 15 September 2010.
Mary Wong drew attention to Wendy Seltzer's email sent to the Council list and noted that as the assigned proxy for Wendy, she votes against the motion and requests that this be included in the minutes.
Kristina Rosette raised a point of order regarding a comment in the Adobe chat room suggesting that the George Asare Sakyi candidacy was not supported because some councillors may object to diversity or his national or geographic origin. Kristina noted that such an allegation is inappropriate and unacceptable.
Item 3: Whois Studies
Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Terry Davis as amended by the Registries Stakeholder Group proposed the following GNSO Council motion to pursue the Whois Misuse Study.
Whereas:
In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council
(http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).
The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.
On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council.
(See Motion 3 at 04 mar 2009 motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies.
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf)
This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose.
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:
• the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
• the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).
Amendment on behalf of the Registries Stakeholder Group
Further resolved that ICANN staff is requested to ensure the study reaches out to a global set of consumer and data protection, regulatory and law enforcement organizations, including the range of government organizations who would have reason to compile and keep records of Whois misuse,
Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to protect the confidentiality and privacy of Registrant Whois data collected for this study, according to best practices including encryption, and Registrants and all groups contacted be informed of this protection.
Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to include in the study analysis all individual elements in the Whois data which descriptive study surveyed sources identify as having been misused; data elements identified by these surveyed sources will not be discarded or otherwise eliminated on the grounds that the actual data source is unclear or that online search verification discloses multiple possible sources of the data.
Further resolved that ICANN staff will extend the time of the Experimental Study from 90 days to a minimum of 6 months to better track the results of the data harvesting.
Stéphane van Gelder voted against and noted for the record that if Tim Ruiz had been on the call he would have voted against the motion and his instructions were to vote against if his proxy was accepted.
Mary Wong voted in favour and although proxy voting is not allowed, Mary requested that Wendy Seltzer would like it noted for the record that she would have voted in favour as well.
Voting record analysis:
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/gnso-council-vote-recording-whois-08sep10-en.pdf
Item 4: Vertical Integration (VI) Policy development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG)
Tim Ruiz proposed the following amendment to the Vertical Integration motion
Caroline Greer accepted it as a friendly amendment, but Mary Wong did not, thus the Council voted on the amendment below:
Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;
Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-report-18aug10-en.pdf ;
and,
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus
within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group;
AMEND
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;
TO READ
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis;
AMEND
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group;
TO READ
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to communicate the Status of the Working Group as described in this resolution to the ICANN Board;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.
The amendment did not carry in the Contracted Parties House, nor in the Non Contracted Parties House.
Contracted Parties House: 2 votes in favour, I vote against, 2 abstentions 2 absent
2 Votes in favour: Terry Davis, Stéphane van Gelder who noted that Tim Ruiz would also have been in favour
I vote against: Chuck Gomes
2 abstentions:
- Caroline Greer: I did accept it as a friendly amendment, but given that we have not discussed this in the Registries stakeholder group, I prefer to abstain
- Edmon Chung: I abstain for the same reason that Caroline has abstained; we have not discussed this in the Registries stakeholder group
2 Absent: Adrian Kinderis and Tim Ruiz
Non Contracted Parties House: 5 votes in favour, 6 votes against, 2 absent
5 Votes in favour: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor.
6 Votes against: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Rosemary Sinclair.
2 absent: Wendy seltzer, Debbie Hughes
Voting record analysis:
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/gnso-council-vote-recording-amendment-vi-motion-26aug10-en.pdf
Caroline Greer, seconded by Mary Wong, proposed a motion to forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board.
Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;
Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group;
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.
Kristina Rosette voted in favour and noted for the record that she would have strongly preferred Tim Ruiz"s proposed friendly amendments that were not approved.
Stéphane van Gelder - reason for abstaining
There is a diversity of views on my group about this and as the other councillors are not in attendance, I don't feel my vote alone can adequately represent those diverse views.
Voting record analysis:
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/gnso-council-vote-recording-vi-08sep10-en.pdf
Item 5: Suggested Improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings
The secretariat was requested to remind Wendy Seltzer that the group's input is needed by 15 September 2010.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben mentioned that he had been away for a month with poor connectivity and unable to contribute.
Item 6: Suggestions for GNSO Council Interaction with the Board
Stéphane van Gelder gave a brief overview of the suggestions and proposed that the group be disbanded and the email list closed.
The suggestions will be sent to the Meeting Staff.
Bill Drake commented that several stakeholder groups were of the view that the Council dinner with the Board should be minuted for transparency.
The question was posed during the Council meeting and there was no response.
Item 7: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community WG
Chuck Gomes, seconded by Olga Cavalli proposed a motion to support a Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Recommendation 6
WHEREAS, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program contains appropriate safeguards to address culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings, while protecting internationally recognized freedom of expression rights;
*WHEREAS, numerous stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the GNSO Council’s Recommendation 6 regarding procedures for addressing culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings;
NCSG amended clause:
WHEREAS, *various stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the GNSO Council’s Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to participate in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO’s) and Advisory Committee (AC’s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a cross-community working group to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that Stéphane Van Gelder shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this cross-community working group until 13 September 2010;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the Terms of Reference to guide the activities of this cross-community working group;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that ICANN Staff shall identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed.
The motion carried in both the Contracted Parties House and in the Non Contracted Parties House.
There was one vote against from Mike Rodenbaugh in the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the Non Contracted Parties House.
Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items
8.1 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan
Marika Konings informed the Council that the group's first meeting is scheduled on Monday 13 September 2010.
8.2 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter
Chuck Gomes informed the Council that he had a meeting scheduled later in the day with the ccNSO and ALAC chairs.
8.3 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation
Glen de saint Géry informed the Council that Philip Sheppard, (CBUC) OSC chair, had been added to the list of volunteers which to date includes: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG) .
Liz Gasster shared with the Council some of the Staff's concerns regarding a standing committee. Although the genesis was part of the Communications and Co-ordination (CCT) Work Team’s Report recommendations to ensure a formal follow-up and/or tracking mechanism for the implementation of the recommendations, the Staff's view is that it is premature to launch a Standing Committee and any overlap or replacement of the existing Steering Committee structure created for this purpose should be avoided.
Chuck Gomes suggested that Staff request specific feedback from each of the Steering Committees whether they would prefer the Steering Committees to continue in the capacity of reviewing the implementation or whether they would prefer a Standing Committee to undertake this task.
The topic will be discussed at the next meeting on 7 October 2010.
8.4 Prioritization of GNSO Projects
Chuck Gomes reported that this topic would be revisited at the next Council meeting on 7 October 2010.
Item 9: Other Business
9.1 Pending GNSO Projects List
Chuck Gomes thanked the Staff for the revised format of the Pending GNSO Projects List, and encouraged Councillors to review it. Chuck further noted that there will be no status reports on the different projects going forward, unless they are particularly relevant to the meeting at hand.
9.2 Charter Correction for JAS WG (SO/AC gTLD Applicant Support)
The Secretariat informed the Council that the links have been corrected, and both the relevant Council minutes and the Council resolutions display the correct version of the charter that contains 5 objectives.
There was no further business.
Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 16:50 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 7 October 2010 at 15:00 UTC.
See: Calendar