Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 15 December 2011

Last Updated: 3 January 2012
Date: 
15 December 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, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman,  Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson  – absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Osvaldo Novoa, Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor Zahid Jamil - absent, apologies, proxy to John Berard.
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Mary Wong - absent, apologies, proxy to Bill Drake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi

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

ICANN Staff
David Olive - VP Policy Development
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Stakeholder Relations
Dan Halloran – Deputy General 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 – absent, apologies
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 Recording
Transcript

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1Roll Call

1.2 Statement of interest updates

Mason Cole submitted a statement of interest.

1.3 Review/amend agenda
Move item 4 to Item 3

1.4. The GNSO Council minutes for the meeting on 17 November 2011 were approved on 8 December 2011 per the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List

Stéphane Van Gelder noted the changes to the Pending Projects list.

  • GNSO activities: 9 (9 - no change).
  • Other activities:  10 (10 –no change)
  • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
  • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).

Item 3: UDRP

Jeff Neuman referred to the email communication sent to the Council on 13 December 2011 stating that the Registry Stakeholder group could not consider David Taylor’s amendment friendly. Council voted on the amendment.

RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be prepared with Staff commencing the drafting of this report eighteen (18) months after the publication of at least a 100 UDRP or URS that cover at least 10 new gTLDs. Such report should be delivered to the GNSO Council within four (4) months of that trigger date.

The motion failed.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
Seven (7) votes against
.
Jeff Neuman, Jeff Neuman with proxy for Jonathan Robinson, Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Thomas Rickert.
Non Contracted Parties House:
Six (6) votes in favour:
Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, and Osvaldo Novoa,  John Berard, John Berard for Zahid Jamil,
Seven (7) vote against: Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Lanre Ajayi,  Bill Drake for Mary Wong

Jeff Neuman, seconded by Wolf Ulrich Knoben proposed a motion on the UDRP Policy Development Process

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both

(a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and

(b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and

Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) and

Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/prelim-report-current-state-udrp-27may11-en.pdf) and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and

Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf) in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . to allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.”

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first new gTLD.

Since the motion contained two ‘resolved’ clauses that have different voting thresholds, each resolved clause was voted on separately.

Resolved clause 1 approving the initiation of a PDP  (voting threshold: 33% of both houses or 66% of one house)

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

The motion carried.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
Seven (7)votes in favour

Jeff Neuman, Jeff Neuman with proxy for Jonathan Robinson, Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Thomas Rickert.
Non Contracted Parties House:
Eleven (11) votes in favour:
Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Lanre Ajayi,  Bill Drake for Mary Wong

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Osvaldo Novoa, John Berard, John Berard for Zahid Jamil,
Two (2) vote against: Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor.

Resolved clause 2 requesting a new Issue Report (voting threshold: 25% of both houses or 50% of one house)

RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first new gTLD.

The motion carried.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
Seven (7)votes in favour

Jeff Neuman, Jeff Neuman with proxy for Jonathan Robinson, Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Thomas Rickert.
Non Contracted Parties House:
Twelve (12) votes in favour:
Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Lanre Ajayi,  Bill Drake for Mary Wong

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Osvaldo Novoa, Brian Winterfeldt, John Berard, John Berard for Zahid Jamil,
One (1) vote against: David Taylor.

The complete motion carried.

Item 4: Outreach Task Force Charter

The motion was not seconded so the Council did not consider the motion.

Item 5: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

Ching Chiao, seconded by Rafik Dammak proposed a motion for the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) response to the  August 2011 Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

WHEREAS, the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO;

WHEREAS, the subject of Single Character IDN TLDs was discussed at the GNSO IDN WG, the GNSO Reserved Names WG and incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD Recommendations, and consistently resulted in community consensus to allow the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs;

WHEREAS, the JIG developed and published an Initial Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (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 incorporated the comments (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-initial-report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf) into a draft Final Report (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) for further public comments,

WHEREAS, the JIG conducted a public session during the Cartagena ICANN meetings (http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15395);

WHEREAS, the JIG incorporated comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-draft-final-report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf) and completed a Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf) which was approved by the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-10may11-en.pdf) and GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) councils;

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board made a resolution at their August 25, 2011 meeting regarding the subject: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5; and,

WHEREAS, the JIG considered the resolution and found it to be in contradiction with the community consensus on the matter,

NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that, upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and ccNSO councils on the subject, the Council Chairs would send to the ICANN Board the following letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs:

JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) Response to ICANN Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

Dear ICANN Board,

First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single Character IDN TLDs.  In response to the August 2011 resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5) however, we express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects:

    Both the ccNSO and the GNSO councils have at multiple occasions expressed a consensus principle that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category.  The August 2011 Board resolution (by specifying that “processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.”) perhaps inadvertently conflicted with this community consensus understanding and should be rectified or clarified.

    The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm), the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), and of course the JIG report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf).  Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs.  The August 2011 Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable rationale.

    While the August 2011 Board resolution generally requested input from a collection of ACs, there is a lack of progressive direction towards the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs.  Furthermore, while input from ACs is always welcome, given the multitude of public comment periods already conducted for the subject, including participation from SSAC members, with consistent consensus response, such consultation with ACs should not become an arbitrary hurdle for the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs, especially for the New gTLD process.

Single Character IDN TLDs is not simply a “good to have” feature, but a necessary requirement for some of the IDN communities in order to allow broadly attractive and competitive gTLDs.  As an example, for Chinese IDN TLDs, the prohibition of Single Character IDN TLDs would effectively devoid the community of single-syllable-single-word TLDs, which is otherwise acceptable for English and other alphabetic based language TLDs (e.g. “.word” would be an acceptable ASCII single-syllable-single-word TLD, yet a similar single-syllable-single-word TLD “.字” would not be acceptable for Chinese), creating an unjustified situation of inequity, and significantly hindering the adoption of IDN.

The JIG, through the ccNSO and GNSO councils therefore sincerely urges the Board to:

    Implement the community consensus of allowing Single Character IDN TLDs without restricting such implementation to being after the first round of the new gTLD process, and to decouple the requirement that IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD mechanisms wait for the other;

    If necessary, form an implementation team to assist staff in immediately implementing Single Character IDN TLDs for scripts and languages where the input of a Single Character requires multiple keystrokes (e.g. ideographical scripts, and avoiding the potential technical concern of keyboard layouts identified in the JIG report), and for the team to further guide implementation for other scripts as well as coordinate input from the ACs; and,

    Update or amend the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook for such implementation before the application period for the first round is over.

The JIG and the significantly affected language communities are prepared to support ICANN staff and Board in the swift implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs without compromising the security and stability of the Internet.  The JIG further believes that minor adjustments to the Applicant Guidebook would suffice and is ready to work with staff closely to complete its implementation.

We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.

Sincerely,

ccNSO Council (approval: [LINK])

GNSO Council (approval: [LINK])

JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group

The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Item 6: Update on Congressional Hearings

Kurt Pritz provided an update on the two sets of  hearings in the U.S. CONGRESS on new gTLDS on 8 and 14 December 2011, namely the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation full committee hearing on ICANN’s expansion of top level domains, examining the merits and implications of this new program and ICANN’s continuing efforts to address concerns raised by the Internet community, and the HOUSE Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing on “ICANN’s Top-Level Domain Name Program.”
In summary, the Senate hearing was well balanced, the questions constructive and the senators listened, but advised moving forward cautiously. The primary antagonist was the Association of National Advertisers which was mainly interested in defensive registrations.

In the House hearing the questions put to ICANN were more hostile and they asked ICANN to commit to a delay in the process.
Stéphane asked whether there would be a delay. Kurt responded that the risk is above zero and emphasized the Department of Commerce's positive public statement after the Senate hearing that the process would not be delayed..

Item 7: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)

Kurt Pritz informed the Council that following the Board resolution in Dakar a working group of Board members had been convened to oversee the scoping and implementation of the recommendations arising out of the JAS Report, and resolved that ICANN staff are “expected to commence work immediately and provide a detailed plan for consideration."

The result is two documents that describe a draft ‘Process’ and ‘Criteria’ for evaluating candidates for support and providing support where merited. The work follows the plan outlined in the Board discussion in Dakar and is largely based on the Final Report produced by the JAS Working Group. In summary, support would be provided in the form of fee reductions from $185K to $47K for qualified applicants. Total awards would be limited to the $2MM Board created fund plus whatever else is collected in the interim.

All applicants, including those requesting support will submit gTLD applications by 12 April. Those seeking support will also submit an application for support.

While the first batch of gTLD applications are being evaluated, the financial support applications will be evaluated against the financial support criteria. That is, those seeking support will only be evaluated against the financial support criteria and not against the new gTLD evaluation criteria until later.

Those meeting the financial support threshold criteria will be evaluated against new gTLD evaluation criteria in the last batch.

This timing will provide additional time to raise funds and communicate more fully regarding evaluation criteria.

The primary form of financial support is a fee reduction from 185,000 to $47,000, ($138,000 fee reduction) with a caveat that the number of free reductions will be limited by $2 million that ICANN has committed for the first round of the Applicant Support Program. However, at the time of application when regular applicants are paying $185,000 fee, the applicants for financial support will pay just the $47,000 fee but they would have to pay the full fee if they get the financial support.

Applications will be evaluated and ranked by a Support Application Review Panel (SARP) and those that meet the threshold for financial support but are not ranked high enough to get the free reduction will be available for other types of non-financial support such as staggered fees and translation services. There is flexibility in the type of financial aid awarded and applications that will receive in kind support can decide to go on at the full fee or they can choose to withdraw and get a refund.

Discussion and questions highlighted the following points:

  • All applicants for support will be considered for the non-financial support.
  • The application window closes on 12 April.
  • With regard to 'batching' the applications awarded financial assistance would be moved to the last batch, with the exception that if they are in contention with another application they would get promoted to the batch where the string in which they are in contention with is situated.

Item 8: Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting

The Council approved that discussion continue on the topic of cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting following the SSAC's response (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-chair-to-faltstrom-10oct11-en.pdf) with the ccNSO to discuss whether there are any steps that could be taken or considered jointly. The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council had some initial discussions on this topic at its meeting in Dakar and as this is an issue that also affects ccTLDs there might be common approaches to be explored. As noted, such approaches might involve improved communication / education in relation to this issue as it is not clear at this stage that this issue could be addressed through policy development.

Action Item

Stéphane van Gelder will contact the ccNSO Council chair, Lesley Cowley to get the discussions started.

Item 9: Transitioning existing PDP work to the new PDP procedures

Margie Milam referred to the document outlining the Comparison of old vs new GNSO Policy development Process (PDP)
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-comparison-15dec11-en.pdf which gives a thorough overview of the differences between the new PDP model and the old PDP model. The document highlights where the existing projects are in the process and, assuming that the Council agrees, that these PDPs could be transitioned to the new rules, so that one would not have to go back and follow the process for the past items but could follow on the next steps according to the new process.

Action Item:

Stéphane van Gelder noted that Council was looking to transition all of the current PDP's and suggested that Marika Konings assist in the process by indicating  where the next logical step is  in each of the PDP's, and communicate this  in a short message to Council via the mailing list as well as to each group.

  • IRTP Part C (Working Group)
  • Thick Whois (Preliminary Issue Report out for public comment)
  • RAA (Preliminary Issue Report in preparation)
  • Uniformity of Contracts (Preliminary Issue Report in preparation)
  • UDRP (pending)
  • Law Enforcement recommendations (pending)

Item 10: Any Other Business

10.1

Action Item:

Council approved the response to the Board regarding the GNSO input on Implementation of SAC 051 (SSAC Report on Whois Terminology and Structure) and Stéphane van Gelder, GNSO Chair committed to sending it to the ICANN Board.

10.2

Margie Milam provided the council with an Update on the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA)         

1. Negotiations have been under way since 18 November 2011. A community Wiki

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02dec11-en.htm

is available that provides information on the general status of the negotiations. There is a comment button on each issue page for the community to provide information for the negotiation team to consider.  

2. A Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments:

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/prelim-issue-report-raa-amendments-12dec11-en.pdf has been published on all of the negotiation topics and is open for public comment until January 13, 2012.

It is expected that the final Issues report will be posted prior to the Costa Rica meetings.

It was noted that the preliminary issue report addresses the GNSO Council motion that related to specific law enforcement recommendations and the request for a freedom of expression impact analysis that came from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

10.3

Jeff Neuman provided an update on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names informal group that has had one meeting. The goal is to make progress so that the group can have interim calls with persons from the GAC and the GNSO that want to participate and then have productive discussions in Costa Rica on the topic. Members of the group should seek input from their respective groups on the topic and report back at the next meeting on 11 January 2012. Jeff thanked those participants who were on the call and strongly encouraged all the other participants signed up to the group to participate fully at the next meeting.        

It was noted that a number of other organizations such as UNESCO, IMF and NATO would be requesting similar protection for their names.

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 21:56 UTC.

The next GNSO Council meeting will be on Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 11:00 UTC.

See: Calendar