GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
8 May 2008
8 May 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 - absent , apologies
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
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests - absent
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent excused
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

18 Council Members
(23 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Craig Schwartz -
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

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

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

MP3 Recording

Avri Doria chaired the meeting.

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No statements of interest were updated.

Item 2: Review/amend the agenda
Move item 5 to after item 12
Corrected Item 10 regarding Single-character second-level domain names

Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of
27 March 2008 and 17 April 2008.

Adrian Kinderis seconded by Tony Holmes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 27 March 2008.

The motion passed unanimously.

Chuck Gomes seconded by Adrian Kinderis moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 17 April 2008.

The motion passed unanimously.

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 27 March 2008 and 17 April 2008.

Item 4: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities

Denise Michel gave an overview of the issues addressed at the ICANN Board meeting on 30 April 2008.

Denise Michel alerted the Board to two current issues recently approved by the GNSO Council on absentee voting and domain name tasting. Background information has been delivered to the Board, the issues are out for public comment and staff will deliver briefings prior to the next Board meeting, for the Board to consider taking action at the earliest opportunity.

The Board was given a brief update on the independent reviews and the GNSO improvement actions. They were informed that the public comment period on the GNSO improvements report was closed and that they had received an alternative proposal for the Council structure from the users group, the Business, Intellectual Property, Internet Service Providers and Non-Commercial constituencies as well as the At Large. The Board Governance Committee Chair, Roberto Gaetano indicated that the public comment period had been extended to the end of April and that he was not in favour of a further extension. Staff was asked to provide a summary of public comments received and additional information for Board members to review in preparation for a possible Board vote at the May meeting, and if not then, by the Paris meeting in June 2008.

The Board received an update on new gTLD implementation planning. At the retreat in April 2008, the Board reached agreement on a number of issues and staff was asked to provide further information on the Dispute Resolution Processes.

Under the item meetings, the budget for the Paris meeting was approved as well as Cairo as the location for the 2008 annual meeting. The Board will continue to discuss the report proposing the change from three to two ICANN meetings a year, with one in a hub location.

Other topics included approving the proposed amendment to the dot-pro registry agreement, a report on foreign exchange issues, the redelegation of dot-KN and approving the authorization of the creation of a DS Key registry for Top Level Domain DNSSEC keys.

Denise Michel clarified that the Council's structural change recommended in the public comments and the user proposal would be dealt with directly by the Board and would not go back to the Board Governance Committee. Denise added that the Board would welcome input from constituency members.

Avri Doria enquired whether the Board was provided with additional information on new gTLDs updates beyond that which the Council received in Los Angeles and if so, whether that information would be provided to the Council?

Denise Michel responded that more detailed information regarding the discussion that occurred around the dispute resolution processes and the potential providers would be available to the Council and the public.

Tony Holmes asked whether the Board would make a decision if there were no major concerns with the public comment material.
Denise Michel responded that it was likely.

Adrian Kinderis enquired whether the information pertaining to certain competition issues, and the economic study regarding registry, registrar cross ownership would be available to the Council.
Denise Michel
volunteered to make enquiries and keep the Council apprised.

Mike Rodenbaugh enquired whether there was currently a motion on GNSO improvements before the Board.
Denise Michel explained that the executive committee of the Board would meet in two to four weeks before the Board meeting itself and accept the agenda based on pending issues, and the chair would then seek input from Board members as to whether they were prepared to move to a vote on GNSO improvements at the meeting.

Item 5: Front-running discussion

Background:
The ALAC submitted a letter to the ICANN Board requesting it 'to establish a temporary narrowly-tailored policy as a stopgap until such time as the relevant policy-recommending ICANN Supporting Organisations can provide a comprehensive consensus policy solution' <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html >
The ICANN Board's disposition was that
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm > "The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action."

Avri Doria commented that the issues were not clear and suggested, that since there was no motion before Council, that the Council initiate a drafting team to work with staff to define a pre-issues research effort, to determine the questions to be asked and the expertise required.

Chuck Gomes commented that two related questions needed to be answered, irrespective of the approach taken.
1) how prevalent is the problem currently?
2) are there measures that could be taken within the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) to manage the issue without initiating a policy development process (PDP)?

Tim Ruiz commented that some of the ALAC concerns might disappear with the proposed changes to the Add Grace Period (AGP) to deal with domain tasting. He commented further that it should be clear what Council was requesting in the issues report.

Alan Greenberg commented that the ALAC views were not unified and the proposal to examine the issue further in a study group may require ALAC participation.

Mike Rodenbaugh referred to the SSAC report and urged Council to request an Issues Report and not delay the process.

Liz Gasster noted, from a staff perspective, that it was important in drafting an Issues Report that Council give direction on not only the subject the report should cover, but the specific policy issue to be explored.

Kristina Rosette commented that if the issue fell within the RAA, perhaps the ICANN compliance department has already made a determination, and if that was the case, it would be useful to know the outcome.

Denise Michel undertook to make enquiries.

Chuck Gomes seconded by Kristina Rosette proposed that the Council

Create a drafting team to look at questions such as:
- How is the problem defined?
- How prevalent is the problem?
- Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
- Are there rules within the RAA that can be used?

The goal is to bring a recommendation to the council on whether to request an Issues report or more extensive research effort and to define the terms of the report.

This team should bring its report by 7 June 2008 in time for deliberations in Paris or sooner if possible.

Team is open to constituency members. Liaisons are invited to participate

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Liz Gasster was assigned as staff support to the group and the Secretariat will set up a mailing list.

Decision 2:
The GNSO Council resolved to create a drafting team to look at questions such as:
- How is the problem defined?
- How prevalent is the problem?
- Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
- Are there rules within the RAA that can be used?

The goal is to bring a recommendation to the council on whether to request an Issues report or more extensive research effort and to define the terms of the report.

This team should bring its report by 7 June 2008 in time for deliberations in Paris or sooner if possible.

Team is open to constituency members. Liaisons are invited to participate

Item 6: Fast-Flux vote on motions
Overview of the motions before Council.

Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tony Holmes proposed a motion on Fast-Flux that was amended into two motions by Philip Sheppard and the amendment was accepted by Mike Rodenbaugh.

1) Friendly amendment to initiate a PDP based on the Fast-Flux Issues Report, requiring a 33% vote;
Friendly amendment: by Philip Sheppard

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 resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SSAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, , recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;

Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report.

2) contingent on the success of that motion, to create a task force according to the bylaws, requiring a 50% vote.
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP on fast flux hosting;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Task Force of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting.

The Task Force initially shall consider the following questions:

Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
How are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities?
How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities?
How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
What measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting?
The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Task Force members.
The Task Force report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation.

Chuck Gomes proposed an alternate/contingent motion

"Whereas:

The Security and Stability Advisory Committee reported on “fast flux” DNS changes in its January 2008 Advisory SSAC 025 ,

The GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff to consider the SSAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit DNS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes.

ICANN Staff prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008 recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux hosting and that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO also to participate in such an activity,

Resolve that:

The Council form a drafting team of interested and qualified individuals to develop a list of questions regarding “fast flux” hosting for which answers would facilitate pending action by the Council regarding policy development work and task that team with submitting the list to the Council not later then 22 May 2008,

Form an expert panel consisting of volunteers from groups such as the SSAC, the APWG, and constituencies that have expertise related to the use of fast flux and task that group with answering as best as possible the questions delivered by the drafting team and delivering those answers to the Council NLT 11 June 2008.

The Council decide whether or not to initiate a “fast flux” PDP as soon as possible after receipt of answers from the expert panel.

Avri Doria reminded Council that 'front running' and 'fast flux' were two different processes. There was a Fast Flux Issues Report while there was no Issues Report on front running, and the Policy Development Process (PDP) allowed the inclusion of experts in the task force.

Chuck Gomes explained that the Registry constituency did not intend to delay the process with the alternate motion, but to get expert advice and assure that some of the fundamental questions were answered before the Policy Development Process commenced. Chuck further clarified that the alternative motion would only be considered if no PDP was initiated.

Tim Ruiz commented that it was premature to start a PDP as the issues were not clearly defined and suggested spending additional time to focus on the relevant issues within a reasonable timeframe. The same results could be reached by first undertaking the necessary research as recommended in the Issues Report.

Liz Gasster noted that in the Issues Report staff recommended more research and definition as the subject was broad and everything related to Fast-Flux could not be controlled or influenced in the context of a PDP, some issues being potentially in scope, some issues being potentially outside of scope. Further more, the breadth of the topic in general made it important for Council to focus on items where there could be an impact. However, this did not mean that a PDP could not be commenced before further research was undertaken, nor did it need a higher threshold to start a PDP.

Mike Rodenbaugh urged the Council to move forward on the vote, reminding the group that the specific issues for initial research by the task force mentioned in the motion were quoted practically verbatim from the staff report, and he did not see the necessity of Chuck Gome's motion which suggested examining the issues in another group before commencing a PDP.

Philip Sheppard gave an historical overview noting that::
1. the PDP details should never have been in the bylaws. The original drafting group suggesting the timelines, never intended them to be set in stone, thus there should be no concern about failing to miss whatever was only an aspirational guideline;

2. the issue is being recognized by two independent consultants;

3. the issue has been recognized by the Council itself in its own self report;

4. the issue has been recognized by the ICANN Board.

Philip went on to emphasise the importance of commitment and moving forward with the policy development process and said that Council was not being criticised for missing timelines.

Avri Doria added that Council had set a practice to be intentional about timelines and try and understand the schedule if they could not be met.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tony Holmes and amended by Philip Sheppard

The motion carried with 8 votes in favour out of 20 votes present, exceeding the Bylaws minimum threshold of 'more than 33% of the Council members present' (Bylaws, Annex A, Section 3.c)"

8 votes in favour:
Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Mike Rodenbaugh, Ute Decker, Kristina
Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Avri Doria (one vote each)

12 votes against:
Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Carlos Souza, Olga Cavalli (one vote each)
Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes,

Adrian Kinderis (two votes) and Greg Ruth (one vote) dropped off call at the time of the vote.

Absent: Cyril Chua, Tom Keller, Jon Bing

Decision 3: 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 resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SSAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, , recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;

Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report.

A Council discussion followed on the composition of task forces, that according to the ICANN bylaws, were primarily composed of constituency members and for other participants to join, including Nominating Committee appointees to the Council, there had to be Council approval.

Chuck Gomes explained that he would vote against forming a task force, not because he thought that Council should do all the work, but because the bylaws restricted flexibility in terms of open group membership. If the Council did not agree on a task force, Chuck would support forming a working group with a very open membership.

Dan Halloran quoted section 5 from the Bylaws

" Upon voting to appoint a task force, the Council shall invite each of the constituencies of the GNSO to appoint one individual to participate in the task force. Additionally, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. "
And commented that the Council had previously used that bylaw statement to add liaisons or other advisors on the task force. The issue with liaisons was their voting role on the task force.
Furthermore the Bylaws state:

"The Council may increase the number of Representatives per constituency that may sit on a task force in its discretion in circumstances that it deems necessary or appropriate."

Dan Halloran commented that the motion was not clear whether there would be, according to section 6 of the bylaws, 'Public Notification of Initiation of the PDP' and if constituency statements would be collected, whether or not a task force was formed.

Mike Rodenbaugh responded that the motion implicitly suggested that there would be no public comment or constituency impact statements until the Issues Report questions had been answered.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the second motion, contingent on the success of the motion that carried, to create a task force according to the bylaws, requiring a 50% vote.

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP on fast flux hosting;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Task Force of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting.

The Task Force initially shall consider the following questions:

Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
How are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities?
How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities?
How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
What measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting?
The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Task Force members. The Task Force report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation.

The motion failed with 8 votes requiring a 50% vote to pass.

8 Votes in favour:
Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria (one vote each)

12 votes against:
Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Carlos Souza, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes,

Adrian Kinderis (two votes) and Bilal Beiram (one vote) had dropped off the phone at the time of the vote.

Absent: Cyril Chua, Tom Keller, Jon Bing

Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed:

Whereas the motion to initiate a Task Force Failed

Resolved the Council will create a working group to fulfill the requirement of the PDP. A charter for that working group will be presented to the Council by 22 May 2008 for approval at the 29 May 2008 meeting. The schedule for the constituency reports and the public comment will be included in that charter.

The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.

Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes, Liz Gasster and Olof Nordling volunteered to start work on a charter.

Decision 4 :Whereas the motion to initiate a Task Force Failed

Resolved the Council will create a working group to fulfill the requirement of the PDP. A charter for that working group will be presented to the Council by 22 May 2008 for approval at the 29 May 2008 meeting. The schedule for the constituency reports and the public comment will be included in that charter.

Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Review – next steps

Chuck Gomes's proposed a motion on the Council mail server list.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04994.html

There was general agreement in the Council that the PDP should be started as soon as possible. There was a certain amount of discussion as to why all the proposed issues could not be dealt with in one PDP. Views expressed on this were that an Issues Report was required to start off each PDP and it would not be realistic to assume that these reports could be done in one go. Since it was an issue that interested the Registrars particularly, their participation would be important and doing the work in sections could allow for more flexibility in registrar and other participation, rather than establishing one ongoing team, that may ensure continuity, but may have difficulty in sustaining the workload.
In the latest ICANN compliance report the number one complaint issue reported to ICANN was registrar transfers.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Tim Ruiz and amended by Tony Holmes.

Whereas:
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

An IRTP working group examined possible areas for improving the existing policy and delivered its outcome in August 2007 in a report posted at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf and this report provided a list of potential issues to address for improvement of the transfer policy,

In September 2007 a working group was tasked by the GNSO Council to assign priorities to the remaining issues in the report (i.e., those not addressed in the PDP underway regarding four reasons for denial of a registrar transfer) resulting in the prioritized issue list contained in that group’s report at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf,

In its meeting on 17 January 2008 the GNSO Council requested a small group of volunteers arrange the prioritized issue list into suggested PDPs,

The small group delivered its recommended PDPs on19 March 2008 in its report at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf,

Resolve that five PDPs be initiated in the order suggested by the small group and shown here:

PDP ID

PDP Category Name Policy Issue #’s

A

New IRTP Issues

1, 3, 12

B

Undoing Registrar Transfers

2, 7, 9

C

IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements

5, 6, 15*, 18

D

IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements

4, 8, 16, 19

E

Penalties for IRTP Violations

10

* First part of issue only

Resolve that the recommendations of the small group be approved to not initiate PDPs at this time for issues 11, 13, 14, the second part of 15, and 17.

Resolve that the Council asks the staff to produce an Issues report of the Items listed under A - New IRTP Issues.

Resolve Council will review the progress of these PDPs every 60 days with the goal of moving the process along as quickly as possible.

The motion passed unanimously.

20 Votes in favour
Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote)
Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Tim Ruiz (two votes)

Bilal Beiram and Adrian Kinderis had dropped off the call.

Absent: Jon Bing, Cyril Chua, Tom Keller

Decision 5:
Whereas:
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

An IRTP working group examined possible areas for improving the existing policy and delivered its outcome in August 2007 in a report posted at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf and this report provided a list of potential issues to address for improvement of the transfer policy,

In September 2007 a working group was tasked by the GNSO Council to assign priorities to the remaining issues in the report (i.e., those not addressed in the PDP underway regarding four reasons for denial of a registrar transfer) resulting in the prioritized issue list contained in that group’s report at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf,

In its meeting on 17 January 2008 the GNSO Council requested a small group of volunteers arrange the prioritized issue list into suggested PDPs,

The small group delivered its recommended PDPs on19 March 2008 in its report at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf,

Resolve that five PDPs be initiated in the order suggested by the small group and shown here:

PDP ID

PDP Category Name Policy Issue #’s

A

New IRTP Issues

1, 3, 12

B

Undoing Registrar Transfers

2, 7, 9

C

IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements

5, 6, 15*, 18

D

IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements

4, 8, 16, 19

E

Penalties for IRTP Violations

10

* First part of issue only

Resolve that the recommendations of the small group be approved to not initiate PDPs at this time for issues 11, 13, 14, the second part of 15, and 17.

Resolve that the Council asks the staff to produce an Issues report of the Items listed under A - New IRTP Issues.

Resolve Council will review the progress of these PDPs every 60 days with the goal of moving the process along as quickly as possible.

Item 8: Discussion on pending budget measure for domain tasting
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23jan08.htm
THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget,

This item was deferred from the last Council meeting on 17 April 2008.
Avri Doria explained that the Board resolution came out of an action from the GNSO Council and opened the discussion for further comments or motions on the pending budget measure.

Alan Greenberg commented as an individual that if the Board chose to go ahead with the budget measure that it should be subject to the similar 10% constraint as the consent recognition of the consensus policy.

Chuck Gomes commented that the Registry constituency position clearly stated that the fee should not be applied in addition to the consensus policy that was recommended by the Council. It was not clear what was meant by threshold, whether it is a threshold per registrar or an overall threshold per registry? A 10% threshold applied to a registry has different results than a 10% threshold applied to the registrar. Registry constituency support for applying the fee in addition to the consensus policy would depend on clarity in terms of what direction the Board is pursuing and Staff was requested to provide clarifying information.

Tim Ruiz commented that the registrars would prefer not to see both measures implemented, but if both are, then the threshold similar to that provided for in the the GNSO recommendation would seem appropriate. The threshold would facilitate the payment approval process for registrars.

Denise Michel responded that there has been no status change. The proposal was part of an initial budget that was posted for public discussion and the next iteration of the budget will be posted around May 15, 16, and 17, 2008. This will be followed by a public comment period and the final decision on the complete budget, including the proposals regarding fees, will be decided by the Board at the June 2008 meeting in Paris.

Avri Doria suggested tabling the topic for the next meeting.

Item 9 : Single-Character Second-Level Domain Names
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-synthesis-on-sldns-27feb08.pdf

Patrick Jones suggested tabling the discussion till the next meeting in view of the Council meeting running over time.
Mike Rodenbaugh asked if Patrick could give a brief update.

Patrick Jones explained briefly that since the ICANN meeting in San Juan in June 2007, work has been proceeding from the Reserved Names Working Group in two areas 1) ICANN/IANA names and 2) single-character names at the second-level. The work on ICANN/IANA names is proceeding as part of the development of the base agreement and schedule of reserved names for the new gTLD process and currently there is little to report.

On single-character names, staff conducted the comment period from 16 October to 15 December 2007 on potential allocation methods, posted the summary of public comments, and provided the Synthesis document to the Council on 27 February 2008. Patrick noted that the Synthesis document was available for comment by the Council, but staff was not looking for any action by the Council. Staff has moved forward with identifying additional expertise to inform the work in this area. Additional expertise was identified as needed on allocation methods such as auctions, not just for single-character names but for other areas including the resolution of string contention in the new gTLD process. ICANN has been following a process to locate an auction-design consultant and is close to completing a contract with an auction-design consultant. Once the contract is finalised, staff will be in a better position to provide more information to the Council.

Avri Doria suggested that further discussion would take place at the next Council call where the item would be placed near the beginning of the agenda.

Item 10: Status update on Whois proposals
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04998.html

Liz Gasster reported that the small study group, meeting weekly since the first week in April 2008, was tasked with developing a recommendation to the Council on what, if any studies should be conducted on WHOIS.

The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) provided recommendations which have been compared and mapped to the other suggestions. A substantial number of participants in the group do not think further studies should be done while a substantial number of participants do think studies are worth doing and are prioritising study proposals. The WHOIS study group report is expected on 22 May 2008.

Avri Doria proposed the WHOIS study group report as a topic on the agenda for the next Council meeting. In addition it was planned as one of the discussion items at the face-to-face meeting in Paris and tentatively for a decision at the Open Council meeting on Wednesday, 25 June 2008.

Item 11: GNSO Improvements – discussion

Avri Doria reported that the goal was to have had the report to the Council a week ago, however there were still some issues under discussion which would hopefully be agreed upon at the next GNSO Improvements planning team meeting on Monday 19 May 2008 after which Council would receive the report.

Avri Doria proposed that further discussion should take place on the Council mail server list due to the time constraint .

Item 12: (Item 5 on agenda) Update from Edmon Chung on IDNC

Edmon Chung reported that the IDNC had had two meetings on April 22, and 29 2008.
The group is discussing the Draft Methodology document, where there is some confusion in the process as it was supposed to be called the Interim report. The latter never came into being and no one is certain of the process, and whether the timeline has shifted as the process is no longer following the charter.

Currently, the main issues under discussion are:

a) the scope of the language evaluation committee and technical evaluation committee in terms of determining whether a TLD string and a ccTLD manager is appropriate.

b) the non-contentious issue - the current document creates a new scope stating that 'non-contentious' is within the territory but there is disagreement on whether non-contentious should be only within a particular territory or generally as suggested by the charter.

c) the objection mechanism which is related to the non-contentious issue, the main issue is whether it is being built into the fast-track mechanism or whether the fast-track mechanism would rely on the Board ultimately having to make a decision on whether or not to open a public comment period or if an objection process is required.

The next IDNC meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 12 2008.

The Secretariat will check the previous discussion list [gnso-idnc-initial] so that it can continue to be used.

Item 13: Action Items
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf

Avri Doria proposed sending any questions regarding the action items to the Council mail server list.
Avri drew attention to the topic list for future meetings at the end of the action items, on page 2.

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

The meeting ended at 14:13 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 29 May 2008 at 12:00 UTC.
see: Calendar