Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 16 February 2012

Last Updated: 5 March 2012
Date: 
16 February 2012

Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 16 February 2012

Agenda and Documents

The meeting started at 15:05 UTC.

List of attendees:

NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Yoav Keren, Mason Cole – absent, proxy to Stéphane van Gelder
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

Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Mary Wong, Joy Liddicoat – absent, apologies, proxy to Mary Wong, Bill Drake – absent, temporary alternate Konstantinos Komaitis
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi

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

ICANN Staff
David Olive – VP Policy Development
Rob Hoggarth – Senior Policy Director
Liz Gasster – Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Margie Milam – Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings – Senior Policy Director

Brian Peck – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Glen de Saint Géry – GNSO Secretariat
Alexander Kulik – System Administrator

Guest:
Edmon Chung – co-chair JIG

MP3 Recording
Transcript

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1 Roll Call

Stephane van Gelder requested that Council members try to be on the line and in the Adobe Connect Room a few minutes before so that call can start promptly on the hour.

1.2 Statement of interest updates
No Updates noted.

1.3 Review/amend agenda
No changes noted.

1.4. The GNSO Council minutes for the meeting on 19 January 2012 were approved on16 February 2012 per the GNSO Operating Procedures.

1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf

Stéphane van Gelder noted that the Pending Projects list would now become a regular informational item under the administration section in light of the new Consent Agenda item

Margie Milam noted that the public comment period on the preliminary Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Amendments Issues Report closed on 13 January 2012, the comments have been summarized, and the final Issues Report will soon be provided to the Council.

Item 2: Consent agenda

Stéphane van Gelder explained that a Consent Agenda is being added as a standard agenda item to provide a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks.

The Council agreed on a 3-step process, when faced with a consent agenda item:

1. The Chair or meeting leader calls for any opposition to said item being in the consent agenda. If any opposition is voiced, then that item is dropped from the consent agenda (and can be re-introduced at any time in the main agenda).

2. If no opposition is voiced to the item being on the consent agenda, the Chair or meeting leader calls for any opposition to the item itself. If any opposition is voiced, then no action is taken (and the item can be re-introduced at any time in the main agenda).

3. If no opposition, the consent agenda item is deemed approved by the GNSO Council.

It was suggested that each consent agenda item be referenced with a hyperlink.

The following items were approved on the consent agenda:

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben requested that the proposal to end the work on Whois access should be removed from the consent agenda and should remain an item on the main GNSO agenda. He suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings.

Action Item:

Stéphane van Gelder GNSO Council Chair, will submit the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board.

Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report

Marika Konings provided Council with a brief presentation of the Final Whois Issue Report.
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/thick-whois-final-issue-report-14feb12-en.pdf

Jeff Neuman made a statement on behalf of VeriSign that they would be supportive of a Policy Development Process (PDP) if that is what the GNSO Council and the community desire.

Jeff further commented that the Registry stakeholder group has not changed its view with regard to conducting a full PDP that is directed at the activities of one registry and would abstain on the motion if it came to the vote.

The was motion deferred, at the request of the NCSG, to the Council meeting in San José, Costa Rica on 14 March 2012.

Item 4: IRTP B Rec 8

Yoav Keren, seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed a motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);

b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;

c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;

d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);

e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request 'ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation';

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);

WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html);

WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html);

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf).

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Item 5: JIG letter to the Board

Edmon Chung recommended that the Council approve sending the proposed joint ccNSO/GNSO letter to the Board, explaining that JIG working group drafted the original letter which was subsequently redrafted by the ccNSO Council essentially encapsulating the same issues and concerns but in a different tone.

Council approved sending the joint ccNSO/GNSO letter to the ICANN Board:

Joint letter from the ccNSO and GNSO to the Board

To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors

Cc: Rod Beckstrom

Dear Steve

In December 2011 both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils discussed the current status of the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs. Noting the ICANN Board resolution on this topic (1), the discussions were initiated by concerns raised by the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG).

Following their discussion, both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils reiterate their support for the introduction of Single Character IDN TLD's. However, the Councils also request further clarification from the Board on three matters.

Firstly, one of the issues raised by the JIG was the ambiguity on the timing of the delegation of Single Character IDN TLDs. According to the August 2011 resolution, the Board: 'Directs staff to publish a timetable for this work, clearly indicating 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.'

The ccNSO Council would appreciate clarification on the meaning of the word "and" in the final part of the sentence, in particular whether it should be interpreted as a condition i.e. that both the IDN ccTLD policy development process and new gTLD processes need to have been concluded to allow the introduction of singe character IDN TLDs.

Secondly, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils note that the Board envisioned further consultations with the SSAC, GAC and ALAC, following the submission of ccNSO and GNSO recommendations. It is our understanding that the SSAC has already been consulted and its advice published on 31 January 2012 (2). With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines. We would also appreciate an indication of the steps, when the aforementioned consultations have been completed.

Finally, it is our understanding that concerns have been raised regarding the kind of script that will be used for the Single Character IDN TLDs. In particular, whether a pictographic or alphabetic script makes a difference, and these concerns are an additional factor. We would appreciate if the Board could indicate whether or not this understanding is correct.

Looking forward to your response, Kind regards,

Lesley Cowley OBE Chair of the ccNSO

Stephane van Gelder, Chair of the GNSO
(1). http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5 (2). http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac052.pdf

Action Item:

Stéphane van Gelder, Council Chair, will work with Lesley Cowley, ccNSO Council Chair, to sign the letter and send it to the ICANN Board.

Item 6: Costa Rica Weekend agenda (20 minutes)

Council adopted the Costa Rica GNSO working session schedule
Costa Rica Weekend Schedule

Suggested topics for discussion with the Board and the GAC:

  • RAA (Registration Accreditation Agreement)
  • Red Cross and Olympic Committee names
  • WHOIS Review Team Final Report recommendations implementation

Action Item:

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will inform the Board and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of the suggested discussion topics.

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will liaise with the ccNSO on possible discussion topics for the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting on Monday 12 March at 12:30.

Item 7: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names

Jeff Neuman provided Council with a brief update of the GNSO Drafting Team that is working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of Red Cross (RC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names under the new gTLD program. The group had a slow start until it decided to concentrate on the top level protection recommendations for Olympic and Red Cross names, the rationale being that for any proposal at the top level to be affective, it should be approved by the Board before the application period closes.

The group's time line is aggressive and the aim is:

  • to consult with and prepare for discussions with representatives of the GAC before the Costa Rica meetings;
  • to propose a motion to approve the Drafting Team Recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider in Costa Rica
  • if the Council approves the motion, submit the Recommendations to the Board in Costa Rica.

Item 8: GNSO liaison to the ccNSO

The Council approved Rafik Dammak as the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council.

Action Item:

Stéphane van Gelder to inform the ccNSO Council Chair, Lesley Cowley that Rafik Dammak is the new liaison.

As there was no other business, Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 16:38 UTC.

The next GNSO Public Council meeting will be in San José on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 at 14:00 local time (20:00 UTC).
See: Calendar