GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 13 January 2011

Last Updated: 1 February 2011
Date: 
13 January 2011

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, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Andrei Kolesnikov

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; John Berard, Zahid Jamil
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): William Drake, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair, Rafik Dammak
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

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

ICANN Staff

David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Stakeholder Relations
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Michael Salazar - Program Director for the New gTLD Application Process
Alexander Kulik - System Administrator
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor - absent apologies

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:
    • ◦Election Procedures for Council Chair & Vice Chairs
      ◦GNSO recommendation 6 on new gTLDs
      ◦.JOBS reconsideration request
      ◦GNSO Improvements
      ◦The Registrar Accreditation Agreement
      ◦Registration Abuse Policies
      ◦Joint Applicant Support
      ◦Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation

1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
Updates of Interest statements were received from:

1 3 Review/amend the agenda

Agenda items 2 and 6 were requested to be dealt with first to accommodate Rafik Dammak and Bruce Tonkin's schedules

1.4.The GNSO Council 8 December 2010 minutes were approved on 7 January 2011.

Item 2: Joint Applicant Support Working Group

Refer to motion deferred from previous meeting (motion 1)
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions
Action item from previous meeting:
Rafik Dammak reported that the group of volunteers tasked to work on the New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) motion did not reach a conclusion but the discussions resulted in several proposed friendly amendments which tried to accommodate some concerns of the Contracted Party House.

Council discussion highlighted:

  • the necessity to have clear guidelines for cross Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committee working groups to operate effectively.
  • that the group should have a charter to move forward
  • that the work of the JAS group should not be discarded because of a process issue, and those who wished to contribute substantively should join the working group.

Rafik Dammak, seconded by Bill Drake and amended by Rafik proposed a motion for the JAS WG charter extension in response to the ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items.

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.

Resolved:
1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives:

a) Propose the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

b) Propose mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered;

c) Propose mechanism(s) for revenue income and other asset management to support new gTLD applicants who meet the criteria as established in objective (a) of this charter amendment.

d) Discuss with Backend Registry Service Providers the extent of coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers (e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship) and propose methods for coordinating that assistance.

e) Discuss and propose methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship.

f) Propose methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties.

g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts propose policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding

h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to propose a percentage of that fee that could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated.

i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.

The motion failed.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
6 votes against: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Jeff Neuman, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson
1 vote in favour: Andrei Kolesnikov
Non Contracted Parties House:
6 votes against: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; John Berard, Zahid Jamil
7 votes in favour: William Drake, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair, Rafik Dammak, Olga Cavalli

Wolf Ulrich Knoben proposed an amendment to Jeff Neuman's alternate motion seconded by Adrian Kinderis on the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.12.10 which reiterated its 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.

Resolved:

1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following limited objectives:

a) Propose criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should seek out expert advice in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be offered;

c) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from registry service providers.

d) Discuss and propose methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship.

e) Propose methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties.

f) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts propose policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding

g) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to propose a percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated.

hi) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.

3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.

4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.

The motion failed.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
6 votes against: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Jeff Neuman, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson
1 vote in favour: Andrei Kolesnikov
Non Contracted Parties House:
7 votes against: Rafik Dammak, Kristina Rosette, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair,
6 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, David Taylor, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Olga Cavalli

Jeff Neuman seconded by Adrian Kinderis and amended by Zahid Jamil proposed a Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS) motion. (amendment in italics)

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.12.10 which reiterated its 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.

Resolved:

1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following limited objectives:

a) Propose criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should seek out expert advice in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be offered;

c) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from registry service providers.

d) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from other top-level domain consultants, translators, and technicians, in the application for, and administration of, a new top-level domain

e) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.

3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.

4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.

The Motion carried.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
7 votes in favour: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Jeff Neuman, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson, Andrei Kolesnikov
Non Contracted Parties House:
7 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Debra Hughes
6 votes against: William Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair, Rafik Dammak, Olga Cavalli

Action Item:
Discuss the way forward given there are now two different charters for the JAS working group, one approved by the ALAC and one approved by the GNSO Council.

Item 3: Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement

The motion, proposed by Kristina Rosette, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh (retired from the Council in December 2010) and amended by Kristina was deferred from the Council meeting on 8 December 2010.
Zahid Jamil from the Business constituency proposed to stand in on Mike's behalf and second Kristina Rosette's changes to the motion to approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

"WHEREAS, a motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvement to the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement has been submitted and seconded;

(8 December motions https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions)

WHEREAS, that motion called for the GNSO Council to accept the final report to approve the form of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the final report, to recommend that staff commence the consultation process with Registrars to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the Web sites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA, and to recommend 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;

WHEREAS, some GNSO Councillors have expressed the view that further work is necessary on the portion of that motion relating to the process specified as Process A in the final report to develop a new form of RAA;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council does not wish for such work to delay progress on the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter referenced above;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement be amended as set out below:

WHEREAS, on 4 March, 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 registrar accreditation agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a 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 draft a charter identifying Registrant Rights and Responsibilities;

WHEREAS, on 18 October 2010 the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team published its final report describing specific recommendations and proposals for improvements to the RAA;
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en.pdf)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council has reviewed the final report and desires to approve some of the recommendations and proposals contained therein;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the final report for improvements to the RAA;
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en.pdf)

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the final responsibilities charters as described in Annex D of the final report;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that the staff commence the consultation process with registrars in the RAA to finalize the registrant rights and responsibilities charter for posting on the Web sites on specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote

Item 4: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation

Bruce Tonkin encouraged the GNSO to examine the terms, improving competition, consumer trust and consumer choice mentioned in the ICANN Strategic and Operating plans and the new gTLD program that need clear definition and should be measurable.

a. types of competition:
- competition between the operators of particular top-level names
- competition between the back-end providers that provide services to those names.

b. types of consumer trust:
- reliability and consistency so that a domain name works all time and goes to the same place.

c. accountability:
- whoever runs the names is responsible for what the names does, user perceptions, whether they understand what the names do and if the names behave in a consistent way.

d. measures
- explicit measures
- consumer surveys:
- registrants being able to choose a name
- what are Internet end users choosing to access Internet resources.

d. types of Consumer choice:
- choice of registrants
- ability to choose a name yourself
- how are users accessing Internet resources.

e. measures:
short-term, after a year of operating the program what could be meaningfully measured?
long-term changes in perception and changes in how the users use the Internet over a period of three to five-years.

A call was launched for volunteers, not limited to Council members, for the drafting team to provide requested advice on consumer choice, competition and innovation..

Volunteers:
Rosemary Sinclair - leader
Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer (Non Commercial Stakeholder Group),John Berard, Steve Delbianco (Business constituency), Carlos Aguirre (Nominating Committee Appointee), Jonathan Robinson (Registrar Stakeholder Group)

Liz Gasster raised a concern that policy staff was at maximum capacity in terms of workload and that there is a lack of available staff resources to support new work requests, and asked the Council to consider what staff work the Council would like to suspend in order to provide staff support for this work.

Next steps:
The Council agreed that Rosemary Sinclair would liaise with Bruce Tonkin and then the Council would consider whether it should send a letter to the Board saying the GNSO does not have the resources to undertake this work.

Action Item
Rosemary Sinclair
, group leader volunteered to liaise with Bruce Tokin and report back to the Council.
Rosemary Sinclair proposed in terms of deliverables for the ICANN meetings in San Francisco in March a scoping document setting out the concepts, principles, and a policy framework.

Item 5: Recommendations re. Fast-Flux working Group (FFWG)

Stéphane van Gelder, seconded by Jeff Neuman and amended by Jeff Neuman and Kristina Rosette proposed the motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009

Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 13 August 2009;

Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy, but did develop several other recommendations that were adopted by the Council on 3 September 2009 (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm);

Whereas the GNSO Council intended to create a drafting team to develop a plan with a set of priorities and schedule to address the adopted recommendations for review and consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas due to workload and other priorities such a drafting team was never created;

Whereas the Council tasked the Council leadership at the wrap up meeting at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena to put forward proposals to suggest which projects should be continued and discontinued;

Whereas the Council leadership has reviewed the Fast Flux Recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council, also in light of the recent recommendations made by the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group;

Whereas the Council leadership has recommended the approach outlined below to the GNSO Council for consideration as an acceptable way of implementing the adopted recommendations and therewith closing the project;

RESOLVED,

The Council accepts the approach identified below for the adopted recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm) and instructs the ICANN Staff to implement these recommendations as set forth below:

a) Adopted recommendation Fast-Flux Working Group (FFWG) #1: To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux
• Proposed implementation: This recommendation is encompassed by the Registration Abuse Policies WG (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 which recommends the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names.

b) Adopted FFWG recommendation #2: The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux;
• Implementation completed as it was addressed by the RAP WG in its final report (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf)

c) Adopted FFWG recommendation #3: To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions;

• The RAPWG Final Report and the Fast-Flux Working Group Final Report indicated that fast-flux is generally a domain use issue and not a domain registration issue, and as such falls outside the purview of the GNSO and ICANN. Therefore no further action is recommended*.

d) Adopted recommendation #4: To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a “best practices facilitator" within the community;
• Proposed Implementation: Integrate this recommendation into the RAP WG Recommendation on “Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices” which recommends that the “GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices.”

e) Adopted FFWG recommendation 5: To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts;
• Proposed Implementation:

It is assumed that if the Registration Abuse Policies WG’s (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 is adopted by the Council, that the subsequent effort will be open to participation by stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community.

f) Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
• Proposed Implementation: No action needed at this point, but should be included if any future PDPs are initiated on this subject.

g) Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.
• Proposed Implementation: The Council deems this work to be completed in conjunction with the above-proposed implementation proposals.

RESOLVED FURTHER

The Council now considers the work of the Fast Flux WG complete. As such, the "Fast Flux Council Follow-up" action item is deemed closed and will be deleted from the Pending Project List.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote

The motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) final report was deferred to the next Council meeting on 3 February 2011 at the request of the Intellectual Property Constituency.

Item 6: Status of Stakeholder Group and Constituency statements on Recommendation 6

There was no update on the Recommendation 6 Community Working Group (Rec6 CWG) due to Margie Milam's absence.

It was suggested that any discussion on Recommendation 6 take place on the Council mailing list and the stakeholder group feedback be compiled in a document and forwarded to the ICANN Board.

The question that arose as to why the Board directed its comments directly to the working group, as opposed to the GNSO and other communities that participated emphasised the need for operating rules for cross community working groups in the future.

Action Item
Compile the constituency/stakeholder group comments and submit to the Board.

Item 7: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and new Standing Committee

Jeff Neuman seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed a motion to acknowledge the receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);

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 PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;

WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;

WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010
http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf
and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 1 January 2011 ;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.

The motion carried by voice vote;

Jeff Neuman abstained for the following reason: " Some have raised issues in the community because I am the the Chair of the PPSC. I don’t want anything to affect this vote, so I am going to abstain in the hope of it never being challenged.

Council approved starting discussions on cross community working groups, but there was no agreement on the size or composition of the group.
Volunteers: Rosemary Sinclair, Jaime Wagner, Bill Drake, Tim Ruiz, Jonathan Robinson, Jeff Neuman and Wendy Seltzer.

Action Item: . Volunteers are encouraged to contact the Chair and/or the Secretariat if they wish to join the group.

Establish Drafting Team (DT) for new Standing Committee deferred to the Council meeting on 3 February.

Updating OSC Recommendation for Proxies in the GNSO Operating Procedures deferred to the Council meeting on 3 February.
Councillors are encouraged to contact Bill Drake if they wish to work on the topic.

Item 8: Board Response to reconsideration request 10-2 (.jobs reconsideration request)

Kurt Pritz clarified that it was not the .jobs reconsideration request under discussion but rather the Board's resolution asking the GNSO to consider the process how registry agreements might be changed going forward. For sTLDs there is a process in place so changes are delegated to policy-making authorities Given that, in new gTLDs there is a category of community-based TLDs that will have registration restrictions in their registry agreement that will govern how they operate their registry, the question going forward in the new gTLD program, is under which circumstances or what test should there be to determine that that agreement can be modified if a community-based registry seeks to amend its agreement or change its registration or restrictions.

ICANN staff members, working on the new TLD process, have been developing a set of conditions so that new TLD registries can modify their agreements but it is uncertain whether this is a policy decision or not. For example the criteria for a community TLD and how it passed that test was noted in the implementation model. This is the reason why the Board has asked the GNSO to review the question. ICANN staff will shortly provide a briefing document to the GNSO Council. Some of the ways the issue can be dealt with are requesting an Issues report leading to a PDP or the discussion of a staff-generated model.

Jeff Neumann noted the Registries stakeholder group's concern as to how this fits within the picket fence and whether the GNSO had any authority to engage in this activity.

Wendy Seltzer noted that consumer trust should be considered in the discussions.

Item 9: Other Business

9.1 Status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted Party House.

Stéphane van Gelder noted that Olga Cavalli dropped off the call and had provided an update to the Council mailing list on the status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted Party House.

Councilors are asked to contact Olga and Glen with regard to requests for planning the San Francisco meetings.

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 22:09 COT.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 3 February 2011 at 11:00 UTC.
See: Calendar