GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 19 January 2012

Last Updated: 7 February 2012
Date: 
19 January 2012

Agenda and Documents

The meeting started at 11:03 UTC.

List of attendees:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meeting-+19+January+2012

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 Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor, Zahid Jamil,  Osvaldo Novoa, (joined late after the vote) John Berard, - absent, apologies.
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Wendy Seltzer,  Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Joy Liddicoat - absent, apologies, proxy to Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter - absent, apologies, proxy to Wendy Seltzer.
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 – absent, apologies
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Brian Peck - Senior Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Olof Nordling - Director, Services Relations and Branch Manager, Brussels office
Alice Jansen – Assistant to Org Reviews

Guest:
Emily Taylor – Whois Review Team chair

MP3 Recording
Transcript
Adobe chat transcript

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1 Roll Call

1.2 Statement of interest updates

It was noted that all GNSO Councillors have completed statements of interest in the new on line form.
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs

1.3 Review/amend agenda
Add under Item 10: AOB

10.1 Discussion on the draft GNSO San José, Costa Rica schedule.

1.4. The GNSO Council minutes for the meeting on 15 December 2011 were approved on 3 January 2012 per the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List

Stéphane Van Gelder noted no changes to 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: Update Whois Review Team (RT)

Stephane van Gelder addressed the Whois Review Team chair Emily Taylor, and the support staff Olof Nordling, Alice Jansen for updates and questions regarding possible policy development that could come out of the WHOIS Review Team Recommendations.

Olof Nordling, in the absence of Emily Taylor, chair of the Whois Review Team who was experiencing connectivity issues,  provided the Council with an overview of the WHOIS Review Team, Recommendations in the Draft Final Report  published on the 5th December 2011 which is up for an extended public comment period closing on the 18th March:

This is one of the four reviews mandated as part of the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC), including the ICANN community, law enforcement agency representatives and independent experts.

Highlights from the presentation and the discussion:

  • There is no overall clear WHOIS policy (policy regarding privacy and proxy services was mentioned) , progress is slow, communities outside of GNSO are not included, entries sometimes lack accuracy
  • ICANN has not responded in terms of accuracy and response times to the need of the community, the ICANN compliance department needs more resources to do this

Emily Taylor joined the call briefly and thanked the Council for opening this up to the WHOIS Review Team. Stephane thanked Emily for joining the call

Olof Nordling enumerated 20 recommendations.

Stéphane asked, in reference to recommendation 1 and 18, whether or not ccTLDs were to be included in the review's team work.

Stéphane referenced recommendation 2 and asked whether from a registrant's point of view, the data reminder policy was proving useful.

Stéphane, on recommendation 5, asked what kind of measures the group was recommending to reduce unreachable WHOIS registrations.

David Taylor supported by some councilors mentioned that a face to face in Costa Rica would be a good idea.

Jeff Neuman also stated his agreement with this and congratulated the WHOIS review team for their work. He then expressed his concern about the expectation there is within the community that the Board, once findings are published, will adopt them all. The Board does not have the right to implement changes to the contracts with the contracted parties. This can be explained by the Review Team being wrongly perceived as a multistakeholder substitute for GNSO policy development. Jeff then said that some changes do need to go through policy development process and that he would like to discuss this topic with the Board in order to put straight unrealistic expectations.

Further questions from Stéphane van Gelder:

In light of Recommendation 10, Stéphane van Gelder asked how the balance between the wishes of law enforcement and the protection of the individuals' privacy and access to personal data would be measured.

In light of Recommendation11, Stéphane van Gelder  asked  whether, the de-accreditation the Review Team is referring to, is about just registrars or registries as well if registries that have an obligation to provide a WHOIS service breach it?

In light of Recommendation 17, Stéphane van Gelder asked why the Review Team thinks that it should be ICANN's responsibility to do a thick WHOIS instead of the Registries?

Stephane van Gelder reminded everyone that the questions would be collated and sent to the Review Team for consideration and that complete answers at the meeting were not expected.  He thanked Olof Nordling and Alice Jansen for their participation.

Agenda Items 4 and 5 were reversed during the meeting.

Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 8

Mason Cole withdrew the motion.

The Policy Staff encouraged councilors to provide input before any changes are made to the Staff proposal to ensure that the revised proposal, taking into account the Intellectual Property Constituency comments, has the GNSO community's broad support.

Item 5: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 9

Mason Cole, seconded by Jeff Neuman proposed a motion on the adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2

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 #9 part b, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, 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 comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html).

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Item 6: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)

The motion made by Jonathan Robinson and seconded by Jeff Neuman to approve the cross community working group principles was deferred by request of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group to the next Council meeting on 16 February, 2012.

Highlights from the discussion:

  • A single charter may be seen by other AC/ SO's as the GNSO imposing its view.
  • Multiple charters may be possible and practical if there is flexibility.
  • There was support for a single charter –the charter is how the outside world sees the group.

Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 7

 Marika Konings provided the Council with a brief update stating that a call for drafting team volunteers had been launched, there was good response but not all the constituencies/stakeholder groups were represented and that there was still time to join. The first meeting is scheduled for the week 23 January 2012. The drafting team will provide a charter based on the new GNSO working group guidelines which will then be submitted to the Council for its consideration.  The drafting team welcomes any guidance the Council might like to give.

Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)

Liz Gasster provided the Council with an overview and presentation of the background of the Outreach Task Force.

Some of the discussion highlights:

The GNSO should work on outreach, not necessarily the GNSO council. There appears to be no agreement within the Council that Outreach is a Council issue but it does seem as though the GNSO community is engaging in outreach at the constituency level.

The question was asked whether, because the Board Governance Committee made a motion in 2008, the Council needs to repeatedly address the issue or whether the Council could send a message to the constituencies reminding them that the topic is still under discussion and leave it at the constituency level.

If the Council is unable to provide an answer to the Board Governance Committees request then it should be noted that the Council is not able to provide an answer.

The topic needs further discussion and information especially regarding the coordination of other outreach initiatives within ICANN and the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees.

Council was reminded that the Outreach Task Force started work three years ago, worked diligently, provided opportunity for comments during the different phases of the work and that it would create a bad precedent to go back on the work at this late stage.

It was suggested that the Council form a small team with a precise deadline to make recommendations to the Council on how to close the issue.

The GNSO Council is not intended to micromanage the work of the community but to help the community define policy and develop recommendations.

In a bottom-up, consensus-driven process discussions take time.

The role of the Council should be clearly defined.

A probing discussion on Outreach is suggested as a topic for the GNSO working sessions in San José.

Action Item:

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben committed to prepare a discussion paper on Outreach for the GNSO weekend session in San José.

Item 9: Whois Accessibility

Wendy Seltzer provided a brief update to the Council with regard to the GNSO Council's  request that the Whois Survey Drafting Team consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as recommended by the RAP WG as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop.  The WHOIS Survey Working Group has been working on surveying WHOIS technical requirements and in response to the council's request to look at WHOIS accessibility the group concluded that there the focus should be on policy matters rather than technical matters.

Given that the group was chartered to focus on the technical functionality of the service, questions on WHOIS accessibility are not appropriate. WHOIS is currently being discussed in several other fora, including the WHOIS Review Team which has published a draft Report and Recommendations, currently out for public comment and WHOIS in the context of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Item 10: Any Other Business

10.1 Draft GNSO schedule discussion

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben gave an overview of the draft GNSO schedule for the weekend working sessions in San José, Costa Rica.

Highlights of the discussion:

  • Written updates where possible and increase the discussion time on Council topics
  • Shorten the discussion on new gTLDs
  • Increase the time on the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross names because it will be a discussion topic with the GAC
  • Final Issues Report on the Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA) will need more time
  • All topics that will be discussed at the GAC meeting should first be discussed by the Council during the working sessions.
  • Coordinate with the Whois Review Team for a meeting slot during the weekend working sessions.

Action Item:

Jeff Neuman volunteered to  work with Wolf-Ulrich Knoben on revising the draft GNSO schedule for the weekend working sessions in Costa Rica.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 13:05 UTC.

The next GNSO Council meeting will be on Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 15:00 UTC.
See: Calendar