GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 2 September 2009
20 December 2007
20 December 2007

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 - absent, excused
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars - absent
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent, excused
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
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC - absent, excused
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent, excused
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

19 Council Members
(25 Votes - quorum)


Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat

Absent - apologies
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination

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.

Approval of the agenda
Avri Doria
suggested changing the order of the agenda items to accommodate Ross Rader who would review and discuss the results from Inter-Registrar Transfer Review Working Group.

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest

No updates to record.

Item 2: Approve GNSO Council minutes 20 November 2007.

Tom Keller, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of
of 20 November 2007

One abstention was noted from Mike Rodenbaugh.

The Motion passed.

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 20 November 2007.

Item 3: Review and discuss results from Inter-Registrar Transfer Review Working Group.

Ross Rader, the Inter-Registrar Transfers Prioritisation Working Group leader reported that the group, which met via email and one teleconference, had completed their work and prioritised the outstanding issues related to the Inter-Registrar Transfer policy.
The top 6 issues that the group agreed should have the highest rankings were:

1. Whether there could be a way for registrars to make Registrant Email Address data available to one another. Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact.

2 Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report. Currently a name could be hijacked during the transfer process and it would take a long time to resolve the issue.

3 Whether there was a need for other options for electronic authentication due to security concerns on the use of email addresses, such as the potential for hacking or spoofing.

4. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions.

5 Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status, for example when it may/may not/should/should not be applied.

6 Whether provisions on time-limiting form of authorisation (FOA) should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.

Beyond the top six items, there was less agreement, and after the top ten there was no longer broad agreement round the specific rankings.
There was a recommendation to set a mark that rankings above 10 had to be dealt with, while it would be optional for rankings below, but there was no strong agreement as to where that mark should be drawn.
Furthermore, the group did not make specific recommendation on how policy should be undertaken.

Chuck Gomes noted a discussion on the General Assembly (GA) mail server list concerning the issue of registrars denying transfers following a change to Whois information, and asked whether this issue was part of the list of issues considered by the prioritization working group.

Ross Rader mentioned that there are various tracks of ongoing work regarding transfer issues:
1) staff's compliance work (a proposed advisory posted by
staff was the subject of the GA list discussion), as well as
2) the prioritization group's work and
3) policy work currently being undertaken by the council.

Karen Lentz mentioned that the PDP initiated by the Council covered the section of the policy on reasons for denial of a transfer request.

Kurt Pritz noted that some registrars cited security concerns as a reason for denying transfer requests following a change to Whois, and that consideration of any relevant security issues should be on the table in a policy discussion.

Philip Sheppard enquired about the estimated time between the identification of the prioritised items, and the actual implementation, and whether different tracks were envisaged during the process.

Ross Rader responded that the working group had not discussed timelines. From a personal point of view, he believed that the issues should be doled out to the community on a regular basis, should not be broadened in scope and since no best practices had evolved, policy was required in these areas.

Chuck Gomes asked whether the report contained any possible breakdown of Policy Development Processes (PDP) or could all the recommendations form one PDP?

Ross Rader commented that issues could be grouped together to form different PDPs which could be dealt with sequentially and flexibly.

Avri Doria suggested that the Council consider the next steps on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Prioritizations at the face to face meeting scheduled on Saturday, 9 February 2008 in New Delhi.

Chuck Gomes expressed concern at the delay and suggested that an effort be made to start the issue before the New Delhi meetings.

Avri Doria thanked Ross Rader for attending the meeting.

Item 3: Review/publish form for Whois study suggestions

Avri Doria, tracing the background to the issue, noted that the Council had passed a resolution 20071031-3
tasking a small group to create a template, which once reviewed and approved by the Council, would be used to solicit ideas for studies of WHOIS from GNSO councillors, constituencies, Supporting Organisations, and Advisory Committees. It was also suggested that, after Council approval, the design team might continue with the next step of defining a few studies using the template, and passing those on to other ICANN groups that might be interested in contributing ideas for studies.

Liz Gasster reported that the Small group had developed and completed a template with the following suggested headings:

- Topic for study:
- The hypothesis/theory that would drive the study:
- How could this hypothesis be falsified:
- How could the study results lead to an improvement in the WHOIS system that could be adopted by consensus policy?
- The type of study needed:
- The specifics about the data that would need to be collected, including sources of data:
- The population to be surveyed:
- What sample size is available/necessary:
- The types of analysis to be done once the data was collected:
- Level of support for this study:

Chuck Gomes suggested that data collection feasibility, should be added to the template as it could be an underlying factor in estimating the costs.

Liz Gasster proposed an additional column under 'potential sources of data' requesting proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data.

Philip Sheppard commented that although there may be different requests for different studies with slightly different perspectives, much of the data collection would be a common source. It would thus be important to build a pool of data that could be used for multiple research studies.

Chuck Gomes added that building a pool of data was equally important in the preparation of cost estimates to obviate providing cost estimates for each separate template.

It was also suggested that the current small group's expertise should be used in analyzing responses and in preparing the final summary for broader Council review.

The GNSO Council, in the absence of a motion, by consensus,

approved the WHOIS template with one additional column under potential sources of data, asking proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data.

and further agreed to:
1. extend the timelines for the Whois study following a full discussion and a vote of the extension at the GNSO Council meeting on 3 January 2008

2. request the current small group to stay in place and produce some study proposals by the January 3, 2008 meeting

3. send an advisory letter, with a copy of the template, to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) chairs on the process that is ongoing.

Alan Greenberg cautioned Council about the language of the advisory letter. It should be worded so as to avoid comments targeted at ICANN about unending studies being undertaken to defer any action on the Whois issue.

Item 4: International Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO) Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) discussion and Vote

Avri Doria read the two motions that had been proposed.

Motion 1


- The Issues report for IGO has been released and discussed

- and in response to a Council resolution the staff has produced a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure

- and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a revised IGO DRP

Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the creation of IGO dispute Resolution Procedures

Motion 2 proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, but for which there was no seconder.


- The Issues Report for IGO has been released and discussed

- and in response to a GNSO Council resolution the ICANN Staff has produced a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure

- and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a revised IGO DRP


- The GNSO initiates a PDP to discuss amendments to the UDRP which would enable IGOs to pursue domain names referring to IGO names via the UDRP and, in the event of an unfavorable decision by a UDRP panel, to challenge that decision via a new appeal process to be added to the UDRP and which shall be limited to disputes regarding IGO names.

- As initial material for the PDP, the following will be used:
- the Issues Report prepared by the staff

- the DRP proposal prepared by the staff

- the revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC

- a new document to be prepared by Staff no later than January 12, 2008, showing proposed amendments to the UDRP based upon the IPC's Nov. 28th proposal, rather than an entirely new DRP proposal

- Staff will request Constituency representatives by January 12, 2008, who shall meet and confer in order to recommend to Council, no later than January 26, 2008, whether or not a Task Force is needed for this PDP.

At that point, Council can decide to accept that recommendation, or not, but the PDP would continue down one of the two paths in the Bylaws (Task Force, or Constituency Impact Statements).

Avri Doria further commented that if motion 1, to start a Policy Development Process (PDP) carried by the required 33% of the votes present, then two contingent motions on the content and whether to work in a task force would follow, while in motion 2, there was a built-in delay on the vote for a task force.

Kristina Rosette noted that the Staff recommendation in the Issues Report stated that there was no need for a PDP on the protection of IGO names and abbreviations in all contracts. Instead, the proposal was to develop a DRP that was acceptable and could be applied to new gTLDs as a contractual condition and, once that DRP had been finalized, a PDP could begin to address the question of applying the DRP to existing gTLDs.

Chuck Gomes disagreed, and said that it was a policy issue which, whether it applied to new gTLDs or existing gTLDs, should be dealt with through the policy development process (PDP).
A strong concern of the Registries was that the Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) effectively established a new system of enforcement of trademark rights which allowed national courts to supercede their rulings, while the IGO DRP proposal required binding arbitration with no recourse to national courts and could possibly set a precedent for ICANN to impose arbitration in other areas. Domain names that are protected by a nation's freedom of expression rights exist and it would not be appropriate for ICANN to address any such related issues. It could create a precedent and be considered as opening the door for 'other' groups to ask for such protection rights.

Kristina Rosette reminded Council that historically, the original report that precipitated the issue in 2001, called for the protection of country names. The findings of an ICANN and an IPC working group concluded that country names could not be included, because there was no internationally recognized basis in law for doing so.
However, there is internationally recognized scope for the protection of IGO names and abbreviations on a macro level which is one of the reasons why the IPC believes in the legitimacy of an IGO DRP.

In addition, ICANN would be directly responding to a specific United Nations agency, namely the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), quest which could be considered different from 'other' groups asking for similar rights.

Avri Doria, seconded by Kristina Rosette proposed:

- The Issues report for IGO
( ) has been released and discussed

- and in response to a council resolution the staff has produced a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure

- and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a revised IGO DRP

Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the creation of an IGO Dispute Resolution Procedures

The roll call vote failed and the motion did not pass.

Details of the vote:
5 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Cyril Chua (IPC),Tony Holmes (ISPCP). (one vote each)

10 Votes against: Tom Keller (Registrar c), Jordi Iparraguirre (gTLD Registry c.), Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registry c.), Edmon Chung (gTLD Registry c.), (two votes each) Robin Gross(NCUC), Norbert Klein (NCUC).(one vote each)

2 Abstentions: Avri Doria (Nominating Committee appointee), Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee appointee). (one vote each)

Reasons for Abstention:
Avri Doria - GNSO Chair, Nominating Committee appointee - conflict of interest based on being a frequent consultant for the United Nations.
Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee appointee - did not have time, as a new Council member, to form an opinion.

Absent Councillors who did not vote: Bilal Beiram (CBUC), Ute Decker (IPC), Carlos
Souza (NCUC), Jon Bing (Nominating Committee appointee). (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (Registrar c), Tim Ruiz (Registrar c). (two votes each)

Councillors who dropped off the line: Tony Harris (ISPCP), Greg Ruth (ISPCP). (one vote each)
Total 27 Votes

Philip Sheppard requested that the details of the vote be transmitted to Dr. Paul Twomey which Denise Michel confirmed would be done.

Item 6: IDN email list
Avri Doria read the proposed motion for a GNSO moderated IDN discussion email list.

Whereas there have been requests for a list where a public discussion of IDN issues facing the GNSO can be discussed by stakeholders and constituency members,

Resolved that a trial of an IDN discussion list will be created on the following basis:

- The purpose of the list is to allow public discussion of issues regarding the creation of IDN TLDs in ICANN namespace

- The Chair of the GNSO council and other volunteers will be responsible for monitoring the list and for administering any rules
as required.

- Membership requests for the list will be reviewed by the list moderators on the following basis
- Membership in the list will be open to any ICANN participant who has not been removed from any other ICANN list in the last 6 months.
- All potential participants will be required to submit a statement of interest regarding their participation in the list prior to their subscription
to the list. All such statements will be sent to the list by the moderators upon enrollment.

-The List Moderators will be responsible for administering the following rules:
- Participants on the list must restrict themselves to on topic postings.
- Participants must not engage in personal attacks on others
- Participants must follow generally established rules of netiquette. and the references in that
article will be used by the list monitors as a reference if required.
- The moderators will give a transgressor one private and then one public warning of any breach of netiquette, after which time
a further breach will enable expulsion from the list. Any such warning or expulsion by the moderators must be explicit in terms of
what rules of email list behavior have been breached.
- A participant who is expelled from the list may apply for reinstatement after 6 months.
It will be up to the moderators whether the applicant will be re-enrolled

- While GNSO council members are encouraged to participate in the conversations on the IDN discussion list, there will be no obligation
for any council member or the council itself to take specific action on any recommendation made on that list. Any question directed at
the council will be handled by the list moderators, with council consultation when necessary.

- The charter for the IDN discussion list will be reviewed 6 months after creation of the list.

There was no support for the proposed motion in the council.

Item 7: Travel funding for Council members

Avri Doria stated that there were two separate issues:

I. Immediate funding for the ICANN meetings in New Delhi.
Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer (COO) had made the following proposal:

I wanted to respond to the GNSO Council¹s inquiry regarding ICANN travel support for GNSO counselors attending the India meeting. ICANN has always valued highly the work of volunteers in the organization and now has the resources to re-examine its travel support policies. As I previously noted, it is important to re-examine the situation and come up with explicit, sensible policies that 1) support ICANN volunteer work, 2) justify this use
of money ICANN collects, and 3) have ICANN community support.

Some of the reasons why finding the right answer here is hard include:
- It is important to provide appropriate support to volunteers (and there are varied perspectives on what is ³appropriate²),
- GNSO counselors need an answer now about possible travel support related to India,
- ICANN has never before provided Council travel support to ICANN meetings, nor has such travel support been included in ICANN¹s budget,
- Support has to be balanced with the cost of that support, to be in concert with the interests of registrants,
- Different constituencies within ICANN are asking for India travel support, and the actions the GNSO/ICANN take now could have broader implications, and
- As I mentioned in my last note, ICANN is right now working on an overall policy for the community that could be reviewed at the India meeting (though, again, this timing will be difficult); I'm very reluctant to set new precedent just as we're trying to put a more comprehensive plan in place.

So, trying to balance these various concerns:
- As Denise has suggested, staff will support the GNSO Council¹s request for India travel support by using previously budgeted inter-sessional travel dollars for airfare to India, and staff will report on this decision to the
ICANN Board,
- In the absence of an overall policy, ICANN will provide counselors with India travel support under the guidelines currently used for travel support
for Council inter-sessional meetings ­ ICANN will pay for upgradeable coach class airfare.
- Counselors will be asked to contact ICANN¹s American Express travel desk to arrange for ICANN¹s purchase of their tickets (contact information will be provided soon), and
- During the meeting in India, staff will suggest a policy going forward to address GNSO Council travel support (and other group travel support) for all ICANN meetings.

Please let me know if you have any questions and would like to discuss this.
Again, I'm happy to join a GNSO call if that would be useful.

2. The broader question of funding GNSO Council members to attend ICANN meetings.
- Should the letter, drafted by the GNSO Council Chair, be addressed to the CEO or the COO?

Denise Michel commented that it was important to address the two issues separately. The funds that had been set aside for inter-sessional meetings would be used to offset, only, the Council members' travel costs to India. ICANN had set up an American Express travel desk to which all enquiries should be addressed.

ICANN’s role in supporting travel to ICANN meetings for the GNSO council was related to the broader, complex issue, with budget implications, of how ICANN supports travel for the Board, the ICANN staff, Supporting Organisations, Advisory Committees and other groups involved in ICANN, that may be interested in receiving travel support.

The COO, was responsible for developing a new travel policy for ICANN which was targeted for discussion by the ICANN community in New Delhi.

Denise Michel further commented that Council was free to address the letter for a long term solution to whom ever they wished, but the responsible person for the issue was Doug Brent, the COO.

Philip Sheppard supported the Council sending a letter to the CEO requesting travel support for Council members to ICANN meetings.

Chuck Gomes shared some of the gTLD Registries constituency comments:
- There was support for travel funding being provided on an 'as needed' basis but there was opposition to general travel funding provided for everyone.
- The special needs with regard to New Delhi should be handled transparently, on an 'as needed' basis, with full accountability.
- Travel would account for a huge part of the ICANN budget if it was envisaged for other ICANN organisations and committees beyond the New Delhi meetings. If the GNSO working group model for policy work was adopted, it would place a heavy burden on funds and the question would be where to draw the line.
- There was an overall pressing need for ICANN to improve remote participation tools to facilitate the feasibility of working together remotely in different parts of the world.
- Constituencies lobby for the interests of their members. For example, the gTLD Registry constituency lobbies for registry interests; is it appropriate to use money contributed by registrants globally, who had different viewpoints, to fund the ability to do that?

Avri Doria proposed redrafting the letter to the CEO, taking comments on line, and voting on the letter at the Council meeting on 3 January 2008.

Item 8: Action Items

- Reserved Names recommendations for existing TLDs.
Patrick Jones is the token-holder - no update, pending action - feedback on ICANN/IANA names and single digit/ letter names at the second level.

- Response to Board resolution on IDN ccTLDs.
Chuck Gomes reported that the group was making good progress but a rough draftmight not be ready by 20 January 2008; more realistically the Council would have the draft by 31 January 2008.

- Question/Appeal of Board Resolution 07.89 on IDNC working group.
IDNC working group has started up, there is a mailserver list, work is ongoing. The alternates and observers do have right of speech on the list.

- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Review.
The group has completed its work, the report will be sent to the Council and the issue on next steps will be placed on the agenda before the New delhi meetings.

- Motion on proxy voting.
Liz Gasster and Dan Halloran produced an initial memo on proposed changes.
Discuss at 3 January 2008 Council meeting.

- Motion on term limits (2006-Nov-06)
Discussion submitted to the Board Governance Committee on the GNSO Review.

- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Development Process (PDP).
Constituency statements will be delayed for the deadline 25 December 2007.
Registry constituency statement will be sent shortly. Review the deadlines at 3 January 2008 Council meeting.

- Domain Tasting PDP.
Registrar Constituency statement outstanding.
Extend deadline for last constituency report.
7 January 2008 is the proposed timeline for the Initial report.

- Whois Studies
The revised schedule will be discussed and voted on at the next Council meeting.

- Chair, Vice Chair elections

On 7 January 2008, voting for the GNSO chair will be completed.
Nominations for the Vice Chair will commence, the vote for the GNSO chair will be confirmed, and the voting for the Vice Chair will take place at a Council teleconference.

- Travel funding for Council members.
Decision on sending letter to CEO will be taken at the next Council meeting.

- Election for Board seat #14.
Proposed dates for the call for nominations are 10 - 31 January 2008.
29 February 7 March 2008 Voting period.
2 April 2008 Announcement required.

Item 9: AOB
Denise Michel gave an update on pending Board issues:
New gTLDs
The Board, in considering the Council’s new gTLD report, has asked staff for additional implementation information and analysis before acting on the report.
ICANN will launch a webpage on the website to apprise the community of the progress made on new gTLDs.
It is anticipated that the Board will vote on the report early in 2008. ICANN has hired an outside consulting firm to draft the RFP and has called for expressions of interest from consultants to provide work in this area.

Contractual Conditions
Board action is required for official closure on the Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing Top Level Domains (PDPFeb06).

GNSO Improvements
January/February 2008 is the foreseen timeframe for finalizing the package of GNSO improvements that will be considered by the Board. The public comments are still being summarised for the Board Governance Committee to consider and finalise their recommendations. In addition, staff is developing implementation input for the committee to consider.

Discussions on ICANN’s proposed budget and operating plan will start in New Delhi. Council will be asked to provide input, and it would be appropriate to raise such issues as, travel funding.

Domain Name Tasting
In response to the Council's suggestions, the Services Staff continues to examine closing the 'domain name tasting loophole' through the budget and finance process.

Nominating Committee
Denise drew Council's attention to the Nominating Committee's invitation for statements of interest in ICANN leadership positions, namely 2 Board seats and a GNSO Council position.

The Board approved the Telnic request to limit the public display of Whois information for .TEL registrants. The Board noted the Whois conflict of National Laws procedure and anticipated a vote on the issue in January 2008.

Council agreed that there should be a standing item on the agenda at the beginning of every meeting to provide a Board update.

Avri Doria suggested that a small group of volunteers work on providing input to the budget process.

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

The meeting ended at 17:20 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 3 January 2008 at 21:00 UTC.
see: Calendar