GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
6 March 2008
6 March 2008

Proposed agenda and documents

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - excused
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC - absent, excused
Carlos Souza - NCUC
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent excused
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

18 Council Members
(24 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff

Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Penelope Wrenn - Policy communications
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Karla Valente - gTLD Program Director
Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison

Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies

MP3 Recording

Avri Doria chaired the meeting.

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
The Secretariat noted in response to an enquiry that Tim Ruiz 's statement of interest had been updated and was posted on page:
http://gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml

Item 2: Review/amend the agenda

Avri Doria
noted that the Domain Name Tasting motion for public comment was not on the Wiki pages but had been sent to the mailing list.
Mike Rodenbaugh requested Items 6 and 7 to be switched.
Item 12 AOB: Kurt Pritz -
update on staff work on new gTLD implementation.

Item 3: IDNC update - Edmon Chung


Edmon Chung reported that there had been little discussion in the IDNC since New Delhi and highlighted the key elements in the GNSO responses to the IDNC Initial report which was mostly his drafting. A mailing list was created for the work and those subscribed to the list were: Edmon Chung, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Charles Sha'ban, Cary Karp and ICANN staff, namely Olof Nordling, Tina Dam and Liz Gasster.

Edmon highlighted the following key elements:

1. Non-contentious and associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes.

2. Requirements and process appropriate for the Fast Track may not be applicable to the longer term process.

3. Adherence to the IDN guidelines and policies to reduce the risks of spoofing using IDN homoglyphs.

4. Fast Track IDN ccTLD strings must not be confusingly similar to existing TLDs

5. Appropriate and balanced participation from the ICANN community must be maintained throughout the Fast Track process

6. ICANN should have a contract or some other form of agreement with the Fast Track ccTLD manager that includes appropriate technical, operational and financial requirements.

Edmon confirmed that a single entry in the ISO-3166 list could potentially have more than one fast-track IDN if it there was an official status in the country and territory for it to be eligible for the fast track.
Tim Ruiz asked, if this was the case, whether there would be a need for the proposed ccNSO Policy Development Process (PDP)?
Edmon responded that the PDP may develop criteria to examine whether non official languages or scripts in a particular country or territory could be considered IDN ccTLDs and would also be able to deal with contentious situations, such as, when different ccTLD managers submitted the same application.
Edmon further clarified that the requirement for the ccTLD managers to have experience was modified from being mandatory to being preferable. There were potential cases where a ccTLD was not operational because they did not want to operate an ASCII ccTLD and there were situations, such as in the Arabic world, where an existing ccTLD did not offer second level IDNs because the mixture of the IDN and ASCII ccTLD did not make sense.

Chuck Gomes noted that it was not anticipated that every ISO 3166-1 code would get a fast-track IDN TLD so the fast-track IDN TLDs should only be a small subset of the total possible IDN ccTLDs, and the PDP would deal with the total allocation of IDN ccTLDs.

Edmon noted that there were 20 to 23 countries that would be involved in the fast track process.

Olga Cavalli noted that due to conflicts she had not been able to participate fully in the group's meetings

Avri Doria proposed:

that the GNSO Council resolve to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report as presented by Edmon Chung to the IDNC as the GNSO response.

The proposal was accepted unanimously

Decision 1:
The GNSO Council resolved to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report presented by Edmon Chung to the IDNC as the GNSO response.

Item 3: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities

Denise Michel noted that the last Board meeting was held on 15 February 2008 in New Delhi and the full report with the resolutions were posted on the ICANN website.

Denise gave a brief overview of the key points:

- The Board approved the Framework and Principles on Accountability and Transparency.

- The Board acknowledged receipt of the Board Governance Committee to GNSO Improvements Report and directed staff to open a public comment forum for 30 days on the GNSO Improvements Report, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan.

- The Board discussed the possibility of extending the public comment period and if Constituency and Council members required more time to develop comments on the GNSO improvements, they should indicate this to the Board Governance Committee using the same public comment e-mail address.

- The Board dealt with some housekeeping items related to the budget.

- The Board received extensive briefings related to the implementation of new gTLDs. The Board directed staff to continue the implementation work on new gTLDs and to keep the GNSO apprised of the Board discussions and to provide the Board with additional input on implementation which could assist them in making a decision on the new gTLD Policy Report. The ideal timeframe would be before the Board Retreat scheduled for 17 April 2008.
Kurt Pritz would share some of the slides on the Board briefings with the Council before the end of the meeting.

- The Board acknowledged receipt of several reports, namely the SSAC Reports on Domain-Name Front Running, Fast Flux, DNSSEC, and WHOIS.

- The Board expressed its gratitude to the IDNC Working Group for its Draft Initial Report, and to the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC for their ongoing collaborative efforts and commitment to recommend a course of action to the ICANN Board in a timely manner.

- The Board approved the ICANN Bylaws Change Request from ALAC.

Avri Doria asked whether the resolution acknowledging the cooperation and discussions of the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC for their ongoing collaborative efforts and commitment to recommend a course of action to the ICANN Board in a timely manner on IDN TLDs, was a formal response to the letter that the GNSO had sent to the Board and was thus concluding the issue?

Denise Michel responded that the resolution was not a formal response to the GNSO’s letter requesting that a new working group be created. The resolution merely acknowledged the ongoing work that was occurring in different parts of the ICANN community.

Avri Doria further enquired whether the letter would be acted on by the Board at some point?

Denise Michel responded that the Board and the staff were waiting for the GNSO and the ccNSO to come back to the Board with further guidance or input on the pending request which the ccNSO officially opposed.

Chuck Gomes suggested that a follow-up between Avri Doria and Chris Disspain, the ccNSO Chair, would be productive.

RIta Rodin suggested that Avri Doria reiterate the request and the concerns expressed in the letter to the Board before the scheduled Board Retreat in April 2008.

Item 5: Report from Domain Name Tasting Design Team

Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the Domain Tasting team offered the following motion which would effectively put a substantive motion out for public comment for a period of 21 days and set a timeline for the final vote by the Council meeting scheduled on 17 April 2008.

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion [see below] to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses. The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.

2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.

3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council for vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.

4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that
the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008


Motion contained in above motion intended for public comment:
Domain Tasting Design Team Motion
Revised - 26 February 2008

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of its net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2. The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

3. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

Avri Doria proposed that if the motion passed, in parallel, she would request General Counsel to verify that the motion was within scope of the GNSO and request General Counsel to answer any other questions that Councillors would send her.

Kristina Rosette enquired whether all questions would be included, mentioning specifically Adrian Kinderis's question relating to pricing.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04779.html

Chuck Gomes proposed, in agreement with the Registry constituency and as stated in an e-mail on the Council mailing list, to delete Clause 2 in the Resolution, namely;
"The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an "ICANN adopted specification or policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars" in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in
material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement."

Kristina Rosette clarified that the intent of clause 2 was to eliminate domain name tasting and share the obligation to do so between the registries and registrars, putting some of the onus on the registrars so that they would have a reason, other than financial, not to exceed the 10% threshold

Alan Greenberg clarified that comments could be made on individual parts of the motion rather than rejecting the whole of the motion.

Tom Keller supported Chuck Gomes's proposal to delete clause 2, and if the motion passed, requested Avri Doria to send specific questions to the General Counsel in parallel.

Kristina Rosette proposed and Mike Rodenbaugh accepted the friendly amendment to the substantive motion changing the wording in: paragraph 1 a
from
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund for any domain names deleted during the Add Grace Period (AGP) that exceed (i) 10% of its net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

to read:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a Registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that Registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

Chuck Gomes seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh proposed the amendment to remove number 2, as noted below, from the recommendation in the substantive motion

2. The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote:

The amendment succeed.

23 votes in favour:
Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria (one vote each)
Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each)

One vote opposed: Mike Rodenbaugh (1 vote)

Decision 2: Number 2, as noted below, was removed from the recommendation in the substantive motion

2. The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Mike Rodenbaugh seconded by Cyril Chua proposed the draft motion which included the substantive motion for public comment:

Draft motion:

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on DomainTasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with
respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to
update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses.

The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.

2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via
submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.

3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended
Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.

4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008

The motion carried by voice vote and there was no dissenting voice heard.

Decision 3: The Council resolved
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with
respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;

The GNSO Council RESOLVED:

1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to
update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses.

The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.

2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via
submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.

3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended
Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.

4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008

Bilal Beiram seconded by Kristina Rosette proposed the Domain Tasting Design Team Motion for public comment

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz
registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1.The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”).
Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a Registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that Registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

c.In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2.Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the
GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the
implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any
ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 4:
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz
registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1.The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a Registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that Registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

c.In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2.Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the
GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the
implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any
ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

Item 7: Proposed motion requesting an Issues Report on "fast flux DNS" changes

Mike Rodenbaugh seconded by Cyril Chua proposed:

Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade
detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.

Chuck Gomes on behalf of the Registry constituency, commented that it was more a DNS issue affecting Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which, with exceptions, did not have contractual relationships with ICANN, rather than Registries and Registrars and which could be dealt with better at the ISP level. Chuck suggested evaluating whether it was a domain name issue before assigning staff to provide an Issues Report and generally considered that it was not a domain name issue.

Philip Sheppard drew attention to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) report which encouraged ICANN, registries and registrars to consider the issue.
However, this was not the view shared by some registry and registrar representatives.

Tom Keller cautioned about the GNSO becoming a legislating body making Internet law enforcement rules rather than policy concerned with domain names.

Robin Gross supported the views of Chuck Gomes and added that the NCUC's concern was ensuring that legitimate anonymous speech was allowed on the Internet and that the motion would make it difficult for anonymous web sites to happen.

Kristina Rosette supported creating an Issues Report to gather more information.

Alan Greenberg supported an Issues Report, quoting from the SSAC report "registries and registrars are not bound by policy to respond in a particular way to complaints regarding fast flux hosting" implying that policy could be developed which would force them to take specific action in a timely manner.

Denise Michel reminded Council that an Issues Report, prescribed in the ICANN bylaws, included the General Counsel’s opinion whether the topic was within the scope of the GNSO and ICANN’s policy development process (PDP), and whether or not the Staff Manager recommended initiating a PDP, and was different from an initial research report by the SSAC on this issue. Furthermore the Council could request more research and investigation before deciding that an Issues Report was needed.

Mike Rodenbaugh emphasised the urgency of the issue and proposed that Council vote on the motion.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote.

10 Votes in favour:
Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each)

14 Votes against:
Robin Gross, Carlos Souza (one vote each)
Tom Keller, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each)

The motion carried.

1. Raising an Issue
b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made.

Decision 5:
Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies

The GNSO Council RESOLVED:

ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.

Item 6: Discuss the Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf

Robert Hoggarth gave an overview of the Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS recalling that the GNSO Council decided in October 2007 during the ICANN meetings in LA to terminate an existing pending policy development process (PDP) on WHOIS and to pursue the following path:

1) to solicit public opinions about the types of future studies that might be conducted on WHOIS, to inform future policy development.
2) for staff to review and summarize the submissions received
3) the Council would then provide additional definition regarding potential data gathering and study requirements.
4) Staff would then provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies as requested by the Council.
5) Based on those cost estimates, the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued;
6) the staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and
7) report the results back to the Council.

Step 1 is completed -- The public comment period closed on 15 February 2008. A total of 25 public comments were received.

Step 2 is completed -- Liz Gasster worked with Dr. Lorrie Cranor of Carnegie Mellon and developed a summary and analysis of those comments. Liz Gasster circulated that document to the Council via email on February 25 2008.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04732.html

Step 3 is now ready. The GNSO Council now needs to consider the suggestions offered and at some point following will provide additional definition to staff regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements. Based on that direction, staff will provide rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies and the Council will then decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued. Staff will then perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report results to the Council.

Avri Doria requested Council members to read the summary in detail and be prepared for discussions at the Council meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008. The Council asked staff to check Dr. Cranor's potential availability for that meeting.

Avri Doria suggested that Council members could also email potential questions to ask Dr. Cranor and these might be answered without her actual participation in the call.

Philip Sheppard excused himself from the call but noted for the record that he supported the current staff draft on the Bylaws amendment on absentee voting .

Item 8: Update on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP

Olof Nordling
reported that the ISP constituency statement was outstanding and that a more focused statement was expected from the NCUC. An Initial Report will be posted for public comment when the constituency statements have been received.

Tony Holmes (ISP) and Robin Gross (NCUC) agreed to provide the outstanding statements as soon as possible.

Council agreed to grant a week's extension, until 14 March 2008 for the outstanding statements.

Item 9: Update on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy future PDPs

Chuck Gomes reported that good progress was being made and that there would be a report to Council for the next meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008.

Item 10: Discuss status of draft Bylaws amendment on absentee voting

Chuck Gomes commented that there were two contingent issues for voting:
One was the proposal for e-voting developed by the small group.
Second, if that proposal was approved, a by-law change would be necessary. The suggested by-law change had been drafted.

Olga Cavalli asked whether absentee voting procedure existed in another ICANN body.

Denise Michel commented that absentee voting has been used in different instances in task forces and advisory committees and volunteered more information on the mailing list.

Avri Doria suggested that motions on the issue be crafted for the Council meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008.

Item 11: Action Item Review
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf
Deferred

Item 12: AOB

12.1 New gTLDs update

Kurt Pritz and Karla Valente gave an update of the implementation progress on new gTLDs since New Delhi and proposed discussion topics for further clarification from the GNSO Council.

Kurt Pritz commented that there had been discussions with multiple dispute resolution firms which would come back to ICANN with proposals.
A company had been identified that would provide checks for visual similarity on a trial basis on a few scripts with a methodology for expanding the number of scripts.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) consultants were currently in house discussing the contracts.
In order to build the global communications plan, a matrix is under construction that currently has 700 contacts comprising members of government, ccTLDs and technical organisations.
Initial steps are underway to provide an auction process.
ICANN is undertaking an operational readiness analysis to evaluate what paradigm shifts have to be made in order to accommodate a new level of operations.
CRAI an ICANN retained economist, is studying the issue of registry-registrar separation and TLD demand that will facilitate planning, pricing, scoping.

Ongoing work includes a comparative evaluation between pending strings, finalisation of reserved names, the base agreement, costing and financial analysis, a comprehensive communications plan, dispute resolution standards and procedures and developing an interface for receiving and expediting applications to the appropriate panels.

Karla Valente gave an overview of the proposed discussion topics and asked Council whether there was agreement on the topics and the structure presented, a minimum of three meetings and ideally, the time frame would be before the Board retreat in mid April 2008.

Avri Doria commented that the proposed meeting times were too restricted and proposed an open meeting including not only Council members but interested constituency members and observers as soon as possible with further organising and discussion on the Council list.

Chuck Gomes commented that a face to face meeting would be more productive, given the quantity and quality of previous work accomplished during physical meetings.

Council generally agreed. Questions arose about funding for travel and accommodation and each constituency was asked to appoint a representative in preparation for an eventual face to face meeting.

Avri Doria proposed planning a preliminary teleconference before the face to face to start the discussions.

12.2
Joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in Paris


Avri Doria reported that the ccNSO had proposed a joint meeting with the GNSO in Paris, possibly on Thursday afternoon, 26 June 2008 . Avri suggested discussing the form it should take on the list, whether it should be Council to Council or a meeting of both Supporting Organisations.

Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting ended at 21:15 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 27 March 2008 at 15:00 UTC.
see: Calendar