- Council Activities
- Group Activities
- Quick Info
Date:13 September 2012
The meeting started at 15:02 UTC.
List of attendees:
NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Contracted Parties House Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Yoav Keren, Mason Cole
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao,
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert
Non-Contracted Parties House Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Zahid Jamil absent proxy to John Berard, John Berard, David Taylor, Brian Winterfeldt, Osvaldo Novoa, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Mary Wong absent, proxy to Joy Liddicoat, Joy Liddicoat, Wendy Seltzer absent proxy to Rafik Dammak, Wolfgang Kleinwächter absent, proxy to Bill Drake, Rafik Dammak.
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer
David Olive- VP Policy Development,
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director,
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director,
Brian Peck - Senior Policy Director,
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Nathalie Peregrine – GNSO Secretariat assistant
Alexander Kulik – Systems Engineer
Mikey O'Connor – Fake Renewal Working Group chair
Jennifer Wolfe – New Nominating Committee appointee
Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
No updates noted
Ching Chiao paid tribute to the Staff's work on the Internationalization Registration Data (IRD) issue and said that more information would follow at the Toronto meeting.
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 July 2012 approved on 22 August 2012.
1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
Stéphane van Gelder reminded the Council to review the main changes and comment on the Council mailing list.
The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben provided the Council with an update on the revised GNSO Operating Procedures.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed a motion to adopt the revised GNSO Operating Procedures incorporating a consent agenda provision and updated voting results table and to adopt a technical change in proxy notification
Whereas, the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 20 February to formalize the process for a consent agenda with a view to including the consent agenda in the GNSO rules and procedures;
Whereas the SCI deliberated on a process for a consent agenda and reached unanimous consensus on a proposed consent agenda provision for inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures;
Whereas the voting results table included in the GNSO Operating Procedures required updating following the adoption of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process;
Whereas the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed consent agenda provision as well as the updated voting results table were put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 9 July 2012 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-operating-procedures-2012-09jul12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;
Whereas as a result of the public comment period, no further changes were deemed necessary by the SCI;
Whereas the GNSO Council also requested the SCI to review the current procedures in place for proxy voting;
Whereas the SCI reviewed the current procedures in place and recommends that no changes are made to the proxy notification procedures in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures but instead requests that staff makes a technical change so that the proxy notification is sent to the GNSO Council list at the same time as it is sent to the Secretariat, which occurs when the form is submitted.
The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the new consent agenda provision and the updated voting results table (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-en.pdf).
The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.
The GNSO Council requests staff to make a technical change so that the proxy notification is sent to the GNSO Council list at the same time as it is sent to the Secretariat, which occurs when the form is submitted.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Item 3: Consent agenda
Council resolved sending the IRD-WG letter from the GNSO Council to ICANN Board.
To: ICANN Board
From: Chair of the GNSO Council and Chair of the SSAC
Via: SSAC and GNSO Liaisons to the ICANN Board
We hereby forward to you the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). The SSAC has approved the report. At its meeting on 27 June 2012 in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion by which it approved the delivery of the report to the Board. In its motion the Council also agreed to review the recommendations in the Report and to provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications.
As you may recall, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board of Directors approved a resolution (2009.06.26.18) requesting that the GNSO and the SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an IRD-WG to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. In November 2010 the IRD-WG produced an Interim Report requesting community input on several questions relating to possible models for internationalizing Domain Name Registration Data. On 03 October the IRD-WG posted a draft Final Report in the Public Forum for comment for 45 days. After considering the comments received, the Final Report is the IRD-WG's response to the Board request regarding the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalized registration data. The Report contains the following recommendations:
- To introduce submission and display specifications, ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model should specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a formal data schema that incorporates the standards that the working group has agreed on for internationalizing various registration data elements. This data model should also include tagging information for language/scripts.
- The GNSO Council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information. The Issue Report should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. It should also consider who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues. The Issue Report should consider policy questions raised in the IRD-WG Final Report and should also recommend whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.
- ICANN staff should work with the community to identify a Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol that meets the needs of internationalization, including 2 but not limited to the work products resulting from recommendations 1 and 2, and the requirements enumerated in the IRD-WG Final Report.
- ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD registries and registrars and persuade ccTLD registries and registrars to support the following standards:
- Domain Names - both A-label and U-label forms during both submission and display for all domain names except nameservers; nameserver Names- require A-label form, and optionally U-label form;
- Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email-RFC 6531; Registration Status- Exact EPP status where applicable; Date and time - in UTC as specified in [RFC3339], with no offset from the zero meridian.
The GNSO Council and the SSAC welcome comments from the Board concerning this report.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council
Chair, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee
Inform the SSAC chair that the Council approved the letter and that it should be sent to the ICANN Board.
Item 4: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting
Mikey O'Connor provided Council with an update of the comments on the
Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) “Uniformity of Reporting” recommendation
A motion at the next Council meeting to initiate this work and request an Issue Report with the intent of launching a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address this issue within the scope boundaries of the GNSO.
Item 5: Whois Review Team Final Report
Brian Winterfeldt reported that a group was created to work on a response to the ICANN Board. The team included Brian Winterfeldt, Thomas Rickert, Jeff Neuman, Wendy Seltzer, and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben with Margie Milam and Stéphane van Gelder who participated in an oversight capacity.
The initial draft of a letter only identified Recommendation 10 on Whois data access and regulation oversight of privacy and proxy service as potentially requiring a Policy Development Process (PDP). However, the NCSG and the Registrar Stakeholder Group had divergent views and their position was that all 16 recommendations required a PDP. The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) which also submitted a letter directly to the Board stating their position flagged several recommendations where clarification or a PDP was necessary including Recommendation 2 on single Whois policy and Recommendation 6 on data accuracy and reduction of inaccurate Whois data.
Based on the Council's inability to agree upon a single letter, and the divergent points of view the group welcomes suggestions and feedback on how to proceed.
Highlights from the discussion:
- The Board should be informed of the Constituency and Stakeholder Group input and weigh this accordingly.
- There is a view that Whois is a matter of public policy, distinguished from GNSO policy, thus much of the Whois recommendation's content can be decided on between the Governments and the ICANN Board.
- The Registries believe that matters such as the development of a proxy or privacy registration accreditation process need full community input and need a Policy Development Process (PDP).
- Disappointment was expressed that the Council did not submit input for the Board workshop which took place in the same time period as the Council meeting.
- Different perspectives on Whois issue are not necessarily a lack of clear advice to the Board and a failure of the Council's processes and are to be expected in a heterogeneous group.
- It was suggested that the Council submit a table for all 16 recommendations clearly stating each constituency and stakeholder group position and rationale.
- Going forward, consideration should be given to a procedure for Constituencies/Stakeholder Groups to provide explanations for their views.
- A distinction was made between the accepted approach of requesting the Policy Staff's help in creating a table which would clearly set out the different Constituency/Stakeholder Group responses and the unaccepted approach of having the Policy Staff summarise the responses for the Board.
Brian Winterfeldt is asked to reconvene the group and examine the two options discussed at the Council meeting and report back to the Council chair with the time frame so as to update the ICANN Board.
A response to the Board advising them to consider what each individual GNSO constituency and stakeholder group has to say on the Whois Review team Final Report recommendations.
Tabulate the 16 recommendations, and explain for each one why there should or should not be policy development. Transmit the detailed response to the Board.
Provide Council with a time frame for this option which the Council chair can communicate to the ICANN Board.
Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices
Mason Cole provided Council with an update following his consultations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group.
- The narrow scope of the working group charter resulted in finding that fake renewal notices were a problem and in exceeding its mandate, the group came up with ideas on how to handle the issue, but the suggestions Mason Cole has made should be considered first.
- Whatever the efforts employed to resolve this problem, they need to be effective and enforceable by the the Compliance department. Whether this is done through a Policy Development Process (PDP) or an amendment to the Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has to be discussed.
- Fraudulent, deceptive and deliberately misleading marketing should be prevented and perhaps the Council has a duty to eradicate such behavior which could discredit the domain name industry.
David Taylor volunteered to assist Mason Cole draft appropriate language.
Mason Cole to ask the Registrars to continue with the steps suggested below:
1. Discuss the issue with ICANN Compliance to make SG and GNSO concerns known, as previous legal actions may impact renewal of offenders' accreditation agreements.
2. Communicate to jurisdictional authorities as a SG to make our concerns known and to assess renewed enforcement – especially authorities like the FTC and the Canadian consumer agency that have already brought cases and may have stronger enforcement tools (e.g., civil penalties for violations of settlement agreements, etc.) that can be used. In particular, it may make sense to schedule a discussion with interested consumer protection authorities in Toronto.
3. Report findings to the GNSO Council.
4. Investigate whether or not enforceable contract language can be crafted, and the extent to which it could be equally or more effective than enforcement actions to date. For example, rather than requiring ICANN to make a determination about the behavior, a contractual provision that says accreditation can be revoked where a registrar has been found to be in violation of a court order or regulatory cease and desist order.
Item 7: Final Issue Report on Protection of International Organizations
Brian Peck proved an Overview of the Pending Final Issue Report on Protection of International Organization Names in new gTLDs
Highlights of the discussion:
- Defensive registrations are not unique to international organizations, and including them in the Final Issues Report, especially since they were not part of the Preliminary Issues Report, would create an expectation within the community that the issue is going to be addressed and will thus reflect badly on the Council if it is not.
- An Issues Report on defensive registrations should be a separate discussion.
- The drafting team's recommendations are being submitted for public comment and the aim is to have them considered at the Toronto Council meeting or shortly thereafter.
- There is strong support for a PDP on the second level protection and some support for the Red Cross IOC names to be put in quarantine until the PDP is resolved.
- The NCSG does not support that view and believes that the names should be registerable until and unless a PDP comes out as the default situation.
- Staff pointed out that Council does not necessarily have to vote for a drafting team/working group to submit recommendations for public comment. This can be done and has been done at their own initiative.
Members are urged to attend the GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group meetings scheduled every Wednesday at 1800 UTC.
Item 8: Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure
Thomas Rickert provided Council with an update on the draft response
An increase in the budget should not be recommended, but greater efficiency in work methods.
There were a couple of divergent views as to whether the Council structure was resilient enough to stand up to the possible changes that will be brought about by a larger number of players entering the GNSO.
Send updated draft response to the Council list for further comments. All comments should be submitted by Friday 21 September. The chair will then ask whether there is agreement that the draft response be sent to Bertrand de la Chapelle.
Item 9: Overview of schedule for Toronto
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben highlighted the following points in the GNSO weekend agenda.
- The Meeting on Sunday, 14 October 2012 with the Board and the GNSO was the only confirmed time slot.
- The GAC have asked to meet with the GNSO on Saturday afternoon.
- The ccNSO lunch meeting has been moved to a Monday afternoon slot to accommodate a SO/AC lunch with the GAC
- The brainstorming session on Saturday morning needs some structure
- Councillors are encouraged to provide comments as to whether topics like the GNSO review and Council workload should have specific slots on the agenda.
- A possible visit from the CEO and points that should be discussed with him. Staff to help with his schedule.
Stéphane van Gelder gave a brief overview of the GNSO Council Public meeting explaining that the meeting will be divided in two parts, the first part dealing with usual Council business and in the second part, the existing Council will be disbanded and the new Council will reconvene for one item, the election of the new chair. Stéphane van Gelder will be leading that meeting. His position as chair officially expires at the end of the Toronto meetings.
Topics for discussion with the GAC, Board and ccNSO are requested. Please provide your input to the Council mailing list.
Item 10: Toronto GAC High Level Meeting
Stéphane Van Gelder reported that he will be participating as GNSO Council chair in the GAC high-level meeting, a GAC initiative and a new item on the Toronto ICANN meeting agenda. The GAC has indicated that they would like to suggest different discussion topics from the ones that would be discussed in the regular joint GAC /GNSO meeting which is currently planned for Saturday.
It should be clarified that these discussions with the GAC are not a substitute for policy development.
The Academy group will have an initial meeting in Toronto and Bill Drake is also a participant
Provide input on the Council list with regard to:
"I would recommend preparation of Qs and lining up speakers in advance. I trust that the GNSO leadership will work with the GAC, as well as my Canadian colleagues, to find a balance between the differing cultures of the GNSO, and senior officials and politicians unfamiliar with the ICANN environment, to have a positive and productive exchange to reinforce and improve the multi-stakeholder model."
Item 11: Consumer Metrics Advice Letter to the ICANN Board
John Berard, Council liaison to the Working Group provided a brief description of the work reminding Council that one of the key elements of the Affirmation of Commitments was that within a year after the first new gTLDs were in the root, there would be a review of their effect on measures of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.
The result of the group's work has been vetted by public comments; those comments have been reviewed and the Final Report has been forwarded to the Council.
Berry Cobb mentioned that supplement material was provided to the Council in the advice letter which consisted of a possible next step that the Council may want to consider when deliberating on the topic and a high-level timeline , that if the advice were adopted by the ICANN Board, what the implementation of the consumer metrics platform might look like.
A motion will be forthcoming for the GNSO Council Public meeting in Toronto.
Item 12: Management of work
Suggested as a lead-in topic for the GNSO unofficial discussion session on Saturday morning, 13 October 2012 in Toronto.
Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:00 UTC.