| 16 April 2009 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 17 Council Members Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Roll Call. Mr Han Chun Lee, the ccNSO observer, was welcomed to the Council. Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest It was noted that the agendas on the website and the Wiki should both be the same at the time of the meeting. At the start of the meeting at 14:00 UTC there was no quorum, but later, about 40 minutes into the meeting, quorum was achieved. Since discussions were undertaken without a quorum, a procedural question arose as to whether the voting could be cast by email. It was clarified that the absentee voting provision in the by-laws only applies to members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote. A quorum is required to conduct Council business. It was agreed if there was no quorum and the vote had to be carried over to the next Council meeting that the discussions would not have to be repeated. Avri Doria recommended that the working team on GNSO Council operations examine the issue of allowing certain aspects in the voting procedure to be taken out of the meetings and into an online voting process. IItem 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes: The motion passed unanimously. The working group recognizing that it is not specifically an agreement of this Working Group to make any recommendations for Whois modification, does support further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars, and recommends analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation, and appropriateness for IRTP purposes. Liz Gasster commented for the record that the IRIS exploration would be complex and time-consuming and asked the Council to consider, not only whether it should be done, but if so, when. Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Chuck Gomes, proposed a motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) Whereas: On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing (2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing," and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars; Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009; Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above; Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council: (1) Carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes; (2) Suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and, (3) Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD. Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes. To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar. Footnote: (i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or (ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure: (a) The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD. Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.' In favour: 24 votes Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) [Absentee ballots were sent to eligible Councillors. The following voted in favour: Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Adrian Kinderis (two votes each) (Final results for the record)] The motion passed. 24 Votes in favour. Item 5: Motion on next round of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies (IRTP) issues to address Tim Ruiz, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh proposed the motion on the next round of IRTP issues to address. WHEREAS, A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified IRTP issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list, Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations from the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under PDP B and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below in one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues report, RESOLVED, a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm). b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar. (Issue #7) c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9) d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied). (Issue #5) e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG) (Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering in the Transfers Working Group list. Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.) Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion. In favour: 24 votes. Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) Absentee ballots were sent to eligible Councillors. The following voted in favour: Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Adrian Kinderis (two votes each) (Final results for the record)] The motion passed. 24 Votes in favour Item 6: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items from March 26 In the GNSO resolution it was agreed to convene two groups of representatives from the GNSO Community within 30 days of Board approval to: 1) draft a registrant rights charter; and 2) identify further amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable and provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than 31 July 2009. Avri Doria proposed a charter to initiate the discussions. 1. Registrar community to produce a list of existing registrant rights (this was already mentioned at the last meeting 26 March 2009) 2. Working Group to define a mechanism by which the community can be brought into the discussion of the rights identified by the Registrars and recommend 3. Working Group to define specific areas in which further amendments to the RAA could be developed. 4. Working Group to engage in consultation with the ICANN legal staff to differentiate between prospective amendment areas that could be made via 5. Working Group to make a set of proposals, to be vetted among the constituencies and in a community public comment, on requested issues reports and on other processes to be initiated. A Final Proposal, including appropriate response to public comment, should be available for review The charter items should be discussed by a drafting team on the list created for this Working Group and incorporated into a charter following the The charter should be brought to the GNSO Council for a vote at its next meeting. At that time a council liaison to the group could be approved During the Council discussion the following points and proposals were made : - There was a proposal to separate the issues into two groups, giving the Registrant Rights Charter group, composed of ALAC and GNSO participants, the opportunity to complete its work in the time frame set by the Board and not be held up by the group working on the RAA amendments which would need a longer timeframe. - It was suggested that the term 'Statement of Rights,' with the intention of it being a compilation of existing rights, replace the word "Charter". In favour of using the word 'charter' was that it allowed for some evolution and additions if consensus was reached which would also attract participants, rather than a work team which would be limited to listing existing rights.
The Secretariat informed Council that a mailing list has been created <gnso-raa-dt[at]icann.org> and asked volunteers to let her know if they wanted to be subscribed. By request Item 9 was moved up on the agenda. "That, without prejudice to each constituency's existing travel credits, the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional travel funding for those persons nominated by each Clarification was given that the DNSO funds were being authorised to assist the councillors to attend the Sydney meeting. Any money left over would be carried over to the next meeting. For auditing purposes, ICANN wished to liquidate the funds. The CFO, Kevin Wilson, informed Denise Michel that it would be possible for constituencies, which so wished, to carry over any of their assigned ICANN travel allotment from the Sydney meeting to the Seoul meeting. The constituency should contact Kevin Wilson directly. This information will also be posted on the liaison6c mailing list so that all the constituencies are aware of this possibility. Whereas: At its meeting of September 25, 2008 the GNSO Council created the Travel Drafting Team (TDT) to work on proposals to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO Constituencies. At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes. That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers. Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2008, in Sydney. The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD. Resolved: That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support. The motion passed by voice vote. Two 'Nays' were heard. Present at the time of voting: Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (Alan Greenberg/Drafting Team) The motion is deferred to the Council meeting on 7 may 2009. Item 8: Whois service requirements motion The motion is deferred to the Council meeting on 7 may 2009. Item 10: New Bylaw discussion Council agreed to schedule a separate teleconference for the GNSO Restructuring group, which is composed of Council members /or alternates, liaisons, constituency chairs and potential new constituency leaders, to meet, preferably in the week 20-24 April and to report back to Council at the next Council meeting on 7 May 2009. 11 . 1 Board Update 11. 2 ccNSO Liaison update Olga Cavalli reported that: - The ccNSO appointed an observer to the GNSO Council, Mr Han Chun Lee, present on the call. Denise Michel informed Council that no deadline had been issued yet, and would inform the Council when more information was available. 11. 3 Geographical Region WG No update 11. 4 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) No status update work in progress. 11. 5 Joint GNSO/ccNSO group to discuss coordination of timing for IDN TLDs (Avri Doria /Chris Disspain) Discussions in progress. Avri Doria reported that James Bladel is the new Fast Flux PDP working group chair. 11. 6. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) No status update, work in progress. 11. 6. 2.1. Travel Policy Drafting Team - Travel Database for Sydney 11. 6. 2. 2. Response to IDN ccTLD Fast Track Avri Doria reported that the GNSO comments were provided to the public comment forum. 11. 6. 3. 1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) 11. 6. 3. 2. PPSC Working Group work team WGWT Robert Hoggarth reported that the work is in progress. The 'working group' work team has divided into two sub groups, which are both going to meet next week. Item 12: Any Other Business 12.1 Prioritisation Avri Doria suggested that a formal prioritisation process should be one of the first items of business for the new bicameral council once it is seated. In the mean time, getting the new bicameral council seated while continuing the current work is a full work load. In the mean time each new work item has to be examined in the light of the current workload. 12.2 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) update Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. Next GNSO Council teleconference will on 7 May 2009 at 14:00 UTC. |
GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes
Last Updated:
Date