GNSO Open Council Meeting in San Francisco Minutes 16 March 2011

Last Updated: 11 April 2011
Date: 
16 March 2011

GNSO Open Council Meeting in San Francisco Minutes 16 March 2011

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 13:34 local time

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

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

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

ICANN Staff

David Olive – Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster – Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth – Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam – Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings – Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry – GNSO Secretariat

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:

  • GNSO Project Decision Making
  • GNSO Improvements
  • Registration Abuse Policies
  • Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Charter
  • Whois
  • New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
  • Joint New gTLD Applicant Support Recommendations

1.2 Statements of Interest
Updated Statement of Interest were received from:

1.3 Review/amend the agenda

  • move Item 8 to Item 4
  • Item 9 deferred to next meeting

1.4.The GNSO Council 24 February 2011 minutes were approved on 11 March 2011.

Item 2: WHOIS studies

Liz Gasster and Steve Sheng provided the Council with an overview of the Whois studies and the Whois Service Requirements report.
http://svsf40.icann.org/meetings/siliconvalley2011/presentation-whois-update-16mar11-en.pdf

Motion 1. Tim Ruiz withdrew motion 1

Motion 2. The Registry Stakeholder Group requested that motion 2 be deferred to the next Council meeting on 7 April 2011.

It was noted that the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) had requested some of the data coming out of the studies.
Steve DelBianco, a Business Constituency member, speaking from the floor emphasized the importance of the Whois studies in the light of other work being carried out by the Affirmation of Commitments Whois review team, the recent Knujon report suggesting Whois privacy and proxy violations and the GAC requests.

Action Items:

  • Inform the GAC where the process stands.
  • A small group of Registry Stakeholder group members and other volunteers will work with staff to refine the scope of the motion for the next meeting.

Item 3: PPSC Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines

Marika Konings provided Council with an overview of the PPSC Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
http://svsf40.icann.org/meetings/siliconvalley2011/presentation-gnso-wg-guidelines-16mar11-en.pdf

Jeff Neuman, seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed motion 3 to Adopt the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.

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;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council initiated a 21-day public comment period (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201102-en.htm#gnso-wg-guidelines) on the proposed GNSO Working Guidelines and has requested the PPSC to review the comments received and make any changes it deems appropriate;

WHEREAS, the PPSC has made changes it deemed appropriate following review of the public comments and has submitted this updated version include link to the GNSO Council for its consideration;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as proposed by the PPSC include link and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the GNSO Working Group Guidelines into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.

RESOLVED, to the extent practical and feasible, each existing Working Group shall incorporate these Working Group Guidelines into their activities.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the WG-WT and PPSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Item 4: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)

Jeff Neuman read a statement on behalf of the Contracted Parties House.
Lively discussion followed with interventions from the floor by Chuck Gomes, Jim Baskin and Kieren McCarthy.

Mary Wong, seconded by Kristina Rosette proposed motion 4 to approve a proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for Amendments to the RAA

Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy 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: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable;

Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;

Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other recommendations and proposals contained in the Final Report.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN 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. Process A states:

  1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy.
  2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement.
  3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress.
  4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback.
  5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary.
  6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.
  7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form.
  8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
  9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.â
    RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

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:
13 votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; John Berard, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Olga Cavalli and Mary Wong holding Rosemary Sinclair's proxy voted in favour.

Kristina Rosette, seconded by Zahid Jamil proposed motion 5 to approve an amended recommendation in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy 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: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable;

Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;

Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;

Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending 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 did not pass;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B 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.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B 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. As amended herein, Process B entails:

  1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution.
  2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.
  3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).
  4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group.
  5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012.
  6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments.
  7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA.
  8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
  9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

Jeff Neuman reiterated the Contracted Parties House statement.

Motion 5 deferred.

The Non Commercial Stakeholder Group, requested that the alternate motion be deferred based on the Contracted Parties House statement which was not available to the stakeholder group prior to the Council meeting.

Item 5: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation

Deferred to next Council meeting.

Item 6: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG)

Twelve (12) volunteers were selected by the GNSO Council to serve on the Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG).

Scott McCormick – (CBUC)
Mikey O'Connor – (CBUC)
Adam Palmer – (CBUC Symantec)
George Asare-Sakyi – (NCSG)
Rafik Dammak – (NCSG)
Matt Serlin – (MarkMonitor, RrSG)
Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG)
Greg Aaron – (Afilias, RySG)
Keith Drazek– (Verisign, RySG)
Don Blumenthal – (PIR, RySG)
Chris Wright – (RrSG)
Forest Rosen – (RrSG)
Rossella Mattioli – (NCSG)

Zahid Jamil withdrew his name from the original list stating:

  1. that looking forward there should be clear expectations in advance on the limitation in numbers
  2. that according to the Working Group guidelines, clause 3.2, there should be a certain degree of representativeness on every working group.

Action Item:
The Secretariat to communicate the names of the selected 12 volunteers from the GNSO and request the group to select a co-chair.

Item 7: Study Group on Use of Names of Countries and Territories

The ccNSO has agreed to a maximum of 8 volunteers from the GNSO.
It was agreed that there would be two volunteers from each stakeholder group.
The IPC proposed adding a volunteer whose name will be provided to the GNSO Secretariat.

Approved volunteers:

Ching Chiao – RySG – Liaison for GNSO Council
Carlos Aguirre – GNSO Nominating Committee Appointee
George Asare-Sakyi – NCSG
Avri Doria – NCSG
Ilya Bazlyankov – RrSG
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Tony Harris – ISPCP
IPC volunteer – name to be provided

Action Item:

The Secretariat is tasked with finding out the affiliation of Jothan Frakes and Garth Miller, and depending on their affiliation, sending the above list of names to the ccNSO Secretariat.

Item 8: Follow-up on RAP recommendations

Liz Gasster noted that there were two staff action items arising from the Registration Abuse Recommendations.

I. An Issues Report on the Universal Dispute Resolutions Policy (UDRP) assigned to Margie Milam.
2 A discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. assigned to Marika Konings and Steve Sheng.
Due dates are not available.

It was agreed to issue a call for a few Councilor volunteers to provide guidance to Staff in defining the scope of the Issue Report request regarding the UDRP, and in organizing a webinar to be conducted to solicit input from experts and the community on the UDRP. The webinar should be scheduled for late April so that there is sufficient time to complete the Issue Report prior to the Singapore Meeting.

Action Item:

GNSO Secretariat to send out a call for volunteers, create an email list and schedule the first teleconference.

In the absence of any other business and anyone at the open microphone, Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Open Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 16 55 local time (PST).

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 7 April 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
See: Calendar