GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 28 April 2011

Last Updated: 20 May 2011
Date: 
28 April 2011

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 11:05 UTC.

List of attendees:

NCA – Non Voting – Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis absent apologies
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, John Berard, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – absent, apologies – proxy vote to Jaime Wagner, Zahid Jamil – absent, apologies – proxy vote to John Berard
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Debra Hughes, Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, – absent, apologies – proxy vote to Bill Drake, – absent, apologies – proxy vote to.
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

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

ICANN Staff
David Olive – Vice President, Policy Development
Kurt Pritz – SVP Stakeholder Relations
Liz Gasster – Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund – Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth – Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam – Senior Policy Counselor
Maguy Serad – Senior Director Compliance
Alexander Kulik – System Administrator
Kristina Nordstrom – ccNSO Secretariat
Glen de Saint Géry – GNSO Secretariat

Marika Konings – Senior Policy Director – apologies

Guest:
Avri Doria

For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.1 Roll call of Council members and update of Statements of Interest

There were no updates to statements of Interest.

1 2 Review/amend the agenda

1.3.The GNSO Council 7 April 2011 minutes approved on 21 April 2011.

Item 2: WHOIS studies

John Berard seconded by Debbie Hughes proposed a motion on WHOIS that was amended by the Registries Stakeholder Group.

Whereas:

In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining study details, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).

On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.
On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903).

On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois "Misuse" and Whois "Registrant Identification" Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 (USD) and take approximately one year to complete. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacy services.
The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 (USD) for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8).
On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois "Misuse" Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009.

On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy or privacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts with overall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 (USD) and take less than a year to complete.

On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy "Relay and Reveal" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study "survey" be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do.

Resolved:

Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.

Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-recommendations-rysg-29mar11-en.pdf and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, as described in staff's 5-October-2010 report as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf.

Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" pre-study survey, as proposed in staff's 11-February-2011 report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf.

Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up any shortfall of $130,000 (USD) between the amount of "at least $400,000" (USD) that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000) (USD); the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000) (USD) if subsequently approved; the Proxy/Privacy "Abuse" Study ($150,000) (USD); and the Proxy and Privacy "Pre-study" ($80,000) (USD), total of $530,000 (USD).

Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible.

The motion passed by voice vote.

One vote against: Tim Ruiz, Registrars Stakeholder Group, Contracted Parties House.
One councillor was absent: Adrian Kinderis, Registrars Stakeholder Group, Contracted Parties House.

Avri Doria, in collaboration with Chuck Gomes developed suggested next steps for the Whois Service Requirements Report, and provided Council with an overview.

Historically the Report relating to protocol and service behaviors, was requested to gather facts about the tools required to make policies. Currently the joint Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the GNSO are involved in an International Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) that is looking at the requirements on how to handle IDN or non-ASCII information.

The Whois Service Requirements Report, is focused on an analysis of requirements and includes a number of conclusions and assumptions. A survey has been suggested to estimate the level of agreement the conclusions and assumptions have in the broader community, however caution should be exercised so as not to duplicate any of the IRD-WG work. The following set of questions have been suggested for further study:

Whois Service Requirements Assumptions:

The current Whois protocol is sufficient and no major changes are needed.

WHOIS contact information by users whose local languages cannot be represented in US-ASCII7.

The current WHOIS service is deficient in a number of ways:

  • Data accuracy
  • Reliability
  • Accessibility
  • Readability

The current WHOIS service might decrease in reliability and usefulness over time.

The current set of WHOIS tools are inadequate to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed WHOIS service policy requirements.

The current set of WHOIS tools is inadequate for use in an IDN environment.

A mechanism is needed to find Whois servers.

There needs to be standard Whois query structure.

A standard data structure for WHOIS query responses needs to be defined.

A set of standardized error messages and handling procedures for error conditions should be defined.

Query capabilities need to be expanded.

Whois data should be displayed both in native script and in Latin characters.

Authenticated Whois access should be possible.

Access controls would be a useful feature for Whois.

It would be helpful if Whois access was auditable.

There is community consensus on all the Whois requirements in the report.

The value of making major changes to the existing Whois services would not justify the expense and effort required to do so.

The discussion highlighted the following points:

  • There appears to be a strong view within the technical community that the WHOIS protocol is substantially dated and needs revision or development and that the technical community and the policy work need synchronization.
  • When the ICANN community knows what its requirements are, people involved in both ICANN and the IETF should work together, narrow down the requirements and start the discussion on how they might be met.

Liz Gasster noted that staff is facilitating technical discussions with the community on the WHOIS protocol. A draft paper has been written on a Web based WHOIS protocol of which different versions are being used by two Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) that may hold some promise for WHOIS for future work at the IETF. The technical discussions are open to those interested and provide a forum for community discussion.

Item 3: Pending Projects – Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC)

Jeff Neuman, seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed a motion to terminate the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC)

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, and the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP WT), which was chartered to make recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP;

WHEREAS the WG WT has already completed its tasks;

WHEREAS the PDP WT has worked diligently to develop the proposed new GNSO Policy Development Process and expects to deliver a final report soon;

WHEREAS submitting the PDP-WT report to the PPSC would add additional delay to the completion and approval of the new GNSO PDP;

WHEREAS a Standing Committee for Improvement Implementation (SCI) has been created and will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council hereby terminates the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the PPSC for their dedication and commitment.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests the Charter of the PDP-WT to be updated from 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for PPSC review' to 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for the GNSO Council's review'.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council hereby instructs the SCI to amend its charter approved by the GNSO Council on April 7, 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104) to include "recommendations provided by the PDP-WT as approved by the GNSO Council" in addition to those recommended by the OSC and PPSC as approved by the GNSO Council.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Item 4: Motion on OSC Global Outreach Recommendations

Jonathan Robinson, seconded by Olga Cavalli proposed a motion re the : Public Comments on Global Outreach Recommendations

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

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 OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations at: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf;

WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups;

WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document "Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO" at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf;

WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English speakers;

WHEREAS, on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the document by the OSC and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#gnso-outreach;

WHEREAS, ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the four comments received and posted it in the Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#gnso-outreach.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC to ask the CSG-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Item 5: Meeting with ICANN's new Compliance Director

Maguy Serad, ICANN's Senior Compliance Director, provided Council with an overview of her Compliance philosophy and her 30-60-90 day plan for the department.
Councillors are encouraged to send Maguy Serad any questions they may have about compliance.

Item 6: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation

Rosemary Sinclair provided Council with an update on the work to date on the Cartagena Board resolution on consumer choice, competition and innovation. From consultations with Bruce Tonkin from the ICANN Board, members from the ALAC, and after discussion with the Council, a report is envisaged that will suggest a workshop at the June ICANN meeting in Singapore.
The "what" of the Board resolution relates back to the Affirmation of Commitment:
"If and when new gTLDs have been in operation for one year ICANN organizes a review that examines the extent to which the new TLDs have promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice."
A section on "Context" could be included in the workshop which picks up a number of contributions that relate to why the issues are being discussed. The resource issue could be addressed in a couple of ways. Firstly in the time that has passed other things have been advanced and secondly through the workshop the scope will be narrowed, issues will be defined, and some degree of agreement achieved. Staff could then possibly be asked to help with background research if needed. However the "who" issue remains as the Board resolution includes ALAC, GAC, ccNSO and GNSO on an issue which relates to gTLDs which possibly indicates another cross-community working group. However the proposed workshop in Singapore will include members from all these groups referred to by the Board.

Council was supportive of the workshop and of inviting the GAC to the workshop.

John Berard commented that the BC had given thought to metrics used in framing consumer trust and committed to re- circulate a draft BC position on competition, consumer trust and consumer choice on the Council mailing list.

It was suggested that the original group of volunteers as well as Carlos Aguirre and Margie Milam would work with Rosemary on the logistics, identification and scope of the workshop

Next Steps:

Rosemary Sinclair to provide the report within the next few weeks and consult further with Bruce Tonkin and the ALAC.

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

The co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels were absent.
Council expressed concern that there was no update provided from a group that had been created by the GNSO Council.

Stéphane van Gelder was tasked with sending a message to both Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels expressing Council's disappointment that they were not on the call, but understanding that they may have had other commitments and inviting them, or alternates if they are unable, to the next Council meeting.

Item 8: UDRP Issues Paper

Margie Milam reported that at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting, Staff presented an overview of its progress with regards to preparation of the Issue Report. Due to the complexity of the issue, the GNSO Council convened a drafting team to guide Staff in conducting its research and analysis. A Questionnaire has been issued to each UDRP provider seeking information regarding the administration of the UDRP. These UDRP provider responses are expected to provide current data to inform Staff on the current state of the UDRP for reference in the Draft Issue Report.

The drafting team has also been guiding Staff in understanding the intended scope of the Issue Report, and in designing a webinar to solicit information on potential issues with the UDRP. The Webinar on the Current State of the UDRP, scheduled for 10 May 2011, seeks feedback from a broad range of experts in the UDRP and its administration, including representatives of UDRP providers, registrars, ICANN Compliance Staff, panelists, complainants, respondents, and academics.

A public comment forum will be launched upon the publication of the Draft Issue Report. In Singapore, ICANN will conduct a session on the UDRP to continue the dialogue with the ICANN Community on this important ICANN policy, and whether it should be updated or reviewed at this time.

Item 9: Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (JIG)

Stéphane van Gelder, referring to the motion approved by the GNSO Council at the April 7, 2011 meeting noted that the ccNSO Council has since asked that the GNSO Council not forward the report to the Board until it has had an opportunity to address a few issues it has with the report. In the meantime, it is suggested that the GNSO Council submit, as part of the DAGv6 Public Comment period, its comments on those parts of the JIG report that pertain to new gTLDs.

Jeff Neuman re-emphasized that this is an issue with all cross community working groups and is a lesson learned, so that in future a cross community working group should not send anything to the Board until such time as all the groups that are involved have had a chance to consider the report.

It was suggested that the parts of the JIG report relating to the new gTLD program be copied and pasted to provide a set of comments as part of the DAGv6 Public Comment period from the GNSO Council.

Action Item:

Ching Chiao committed to provide the content for the document which Stéphane van Gelder will submit to the Council list for comment. If there are no objections, the document will be submitted on behalf of the Council to the DAGv6 Public Comment period.

Item 10. Any Other Business

Mary Wong requested councillors and members of the stakeholder groups to provide input to her and the GNSO secretariat for the GNSO weekend schedule.
Mary proposed that the meetings start later on Saturday, 18 June 2011.
Stéphane van Gelder noted that there would be a change in the interaction with the ccNSO which is still to be worked out.

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 19 May 2011 at 15:00 UTC.
See: Calendar