GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes

Last Updated: 31 August 2009
Date: 
20 September 2007
20 September 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
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent
Ross Rader - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent - aplogies
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries - absent
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

16 Council Members
(20 Votes - quorum)

ICANN Staff

Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Karen Lentz -
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
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

Observers
Tim Ruiz - Registrar
Miriam Sapiro - consultant
Liz Gasster - consultant

MP3 Recording

Chuck Gomes chaired the beginning of this meeting until Avri Doria arrived.

Approval of the agenda

Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Mike Rodenbaugh
noted that he was no longer with Yahoo, but had set up his own business, Rodenbaugh LLC.,currently a member of Business constituency and was thus representing himself. Mike also communicated that he would submit an updated statement of interest.

Item 2: Report from IDN-ccTLD ad hoc group and discussion
Summary of Report for discussion
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-gac-issues-paper-idn-cctld-draft-21Aug07.pdf
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccNSO-GAC-IDNs-issues-report-GNSO-draft-comments-summary-21aug07.pdf

Chuck Gomes noted that he was the author of the Summary of the GNSO Comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues, and it was distributed to members of the ad hoc group for comments.
Working Group Information

In its meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico on 29 June 2007, the ICANN Board approved the following resolution: “Resolved (07.56), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that that the ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC provide the Board with responses to the published list of issues and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet. The Board requests status reports regarding progress by the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2007.”

It was decided in the Council meeting on 19 July to form a small ad-hoc group of volunteers who would develop draft responses to the questions asked in the "ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Policy Issues.

The group worked via email and held three teleconference calls. Rough consensus was reached by the group regarding all the recommendations contained in the draft document. In cases where there were differing opinions, language was developed that most, if not all, could support.

Document Overview

Purpose: The document contains comments from the GNSO Council in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues.

Four key documents are referenced throughout:
1. ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
2. Adopted Board Resolutions - San Juan, Puerto Rico, 29 June 2007: Acknowledgement of Policy Progress on IDNs
3. Outcomes Report of the GNSO IDN Working Group
4. GNSO Reserved Names Working Group Final Report.

The comments are divided into two sections:
A. Comments related to an interim and an overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in the context of the introduction of IDN gTLDs
B. Input in response to the list of issues and questions identified by the ccNSO and the GAC. Note that every response is identified as ‘Proposed GNSO response’, recognizing that the Council needs to finalize the responses.

Chuck Gomes read through a summary of the draft GNSO comment document that included proposed responses to the questions asked in the Issues Report and the following discussion occurred.

Mike Rodenbaugh requested specificity or definition around the requirements and tests and their timeline as mentioned in 1."IDN TLDs (ccTLDs and gTLDs) should be introduced as soon as practicable after technical requirements and tests are successfully completed"

Kurt Pritz would work with Chuck Gomes in providing the information.

Tony Harris sought clarification on IDN ccTLDs, in the case of a country, such as India or China which could mirror their current two character ccTLD string in ASCII in their own alphabet.
Chuck Gomes clarified that it did not make sense to refer to two characters or the length of the string when referring to IDNs in the same way as in the ISO 3166.
Cary Karp added that the notion of abbreviations and of alphabetic strings were biased from the outset.
Olof Nordling added the likely assumption was that the IDN ccTLDs would map to the territories which were currently identified in the ISO 3166.
Alan Greenberg commented that if any given country reacted slowly and IDN ccTLDs were not introduced first, a gTLD could be approved, which might have been the logical IDN ccTLD for that given country and that there were no provisions in the gTLD for any mechanism to stop that.
Avri Doria commented that it would fall under the objection process provided for in the new gLTD process.

It was suggested and agreed that an executive summary, with pointers highlighting the key features should be available to the broader community to facilitate understanding and discussion at the Los Angeles meetings.
Avri Doria proposed continuing the discussion of the recommendations on the Council mailing list as each recommendation had to be discussed separately for the GNSO council to agree as a whole with the proposed statements from the working group.

Item 3: Follow-up on the Registrar Transfer Policy Review
Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf
Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf
Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy [PDF, 88K]
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf

Ross Rader reported that the working group on inter-registrar transfers had concluded its work. Pursuant to the GNSO Council resolution 20050512-03, the working group had a mandate to
"...review the staff Transfers report in order to seek clarification, further information and provide guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council..."

The working group conducted its work through mailing lists and teleconferences sporadically held throughout 2005-2007 and with the assistance from Karen Lentz, on the ICANN staff, produced the following three reports:

1. Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
The report was submitted by the Working Group (WG) to the Council as a suggestion for an advisory to be posted and distributed to the community. It was intended to provide clarifications and reminders on some common questions. The items covered in the document were those raised by the WG and believed to be not generally well-known or understood.

Kurt Pritz clarified that the Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy posted on the ICANN website should complement the GNSO work and coincidentally was published at the same time..

2. Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
The WG document suggested tightening the language on 4 areas within the list of reasons for which a registrar may deny a transfer request - to modify these would require policy development work, but the document could be helpful as a starting point to reduce the time necessary to be spent on the work. The purpose was to move toward tighter wording of some key points in the existing policy to remove loopholes/provide clarification. The suggestions included in the document were based on available references to the intent of the original policy work.

3. Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review
The document suggested areas in which further policy development work may be desirable but did not require immediate action.

Ross Rader, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed:

i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and;

ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration,

Be it resolved that;

i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and;

i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council
i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory.

ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report.

Avri Doria called for a voice vote.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

Decision 1:
i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and;

ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration,

Be it resolved that;

i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and;

i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council
i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory.

ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report.

Ross Rader thanked the working group participants for their time and effort and expressed special thanks to Karen Lentz of ICANN for her patience, persistence and work.

Item 4: Discuss agenda for LA public meeting
Avri Doria commented on the different structure proposed, in response to community suggestions at the San Juan meeting, for the GNSO Public Forum and Council meeting in Los Angeles.
Possible topics for discussion would be :
- IGO dispute resolution
- IDN ccTLD
- Domain Tasting,
- Whois services,
The proposed format would be receiving community input, constituency and staff reports followed by the Council discussion and a vote, if required, on each topic.

Council members cautioned that the topics should be carefully prepared and timed so as to prevent an extended public forum session and that any votes should perhaps be postponed if there was insufficient time for constituency consultation.

The proposed topics for the GNSO Council and working group sessions:
- on Saturday 27 October 2007, a discussion on Whois, IDN ccTLD and the rights protection mechanism working group report.
- on Sunday 28 October 2007, a discussion on the GNSO reforms where the Board Governance committee has been invited to join the Council, preparation for the gTLD workshop on Monday and the joint GAG/GNSO Council discussion.

All the meetings are open and observers are welcome to participate.

Item 5: Follow up on Reserved Names for existing TLDs
Staff Proposed Implementation Document on GNSO Reserved Names Working
http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-implementation-doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07.pdf

Patrick Jones reported that the Council discussed the Reserve Name recommendations
at the meeting in San Juan and after some minor modifications were made, the staff developed the proposed implementation document from the recommendations.
There was additional work staff was required to conduct with existing gTLD registries on gTLD names at the second level.
For ICANN and IANA names, the recommendation was to maintain the existing reservation in the current registry agreements and that IANA/ICANN names at the top level would be dealt with in the implementation of the new gTLD process.
In the case of existing registries, the recommendation was to consult with those parties that had a name on the reserve list and to find out if they wished to maintain that reservation. This outreach had not yet happened.
On single letters and digits for the second level, the proposed implementation was for staff to develop proposed allocation methods and post a forum, after the Council call, on the ICANN website to request ideas.
The recommendations that concern the top level, have been either included in the new TLD process or will be added as a contractual condition for the new TLDs.

There was agreement that no Council action was necessary on the staff status report.

Item 6: Action Item Review

6.1 Whois
Constituency comments have been invited.
Avri Doria invited Nominating Committee appointees, to submit individual comments to the WHOIS process as they did not form part of a constituency
Kristina Rosette asked for clarification on the community public comment period that was already open for the WHOIS reports, as it was understood from the resolution that Council passed that the community public comment period on the final report would be from 15 - 31 October 2007.

Avri Doria pointed out that the formal comment period on the version of the draft that included updated constituency statements would occur as decided in the council resolution. The current open comment opportunity had been arranged so that the public would have as much time to comment on the report as possible.

There was general agreement that all the public comments should be included in the Final Report

6.2 New gTLD s
- Olof Nordling reported that the document in preparation for the Board report had been sent to Denise Michel on September 19, 2007.
- Chuck Gomes reported that a supplemental draft document, facilitating community understanding of the issue, would be ready at the beginning of October 2007.
- The proposed plan for the new gTLD workshop on October 29 would be ready for Council review NLT October 4, 2007.

6.3 IGO issue follow up
Olof Nordling reported that the document would meet the deadline for the Council meeting on 11 October 2007.

6.4 Domain Name Tasting
The report would be discussed in Los Angeles

6.5 Report on the IDN ccTLDs Issue paper
The report will be discussed during the Council session in Los Angeles on October 27, at the joint GAC/GNSO Meeting on October 28 and during the open Council meeting on October 31.
Avri Doria would provide a summary to present at the ICANN public forum.

6.6 Registrar Transfer policy review
Chuck Gomes
suggested that the group examining the policy development process be composed of outside participants, not only councillors, and preferably participants who had been on the working group.

6.7 Proxy voting
Awaiting a response from the General Counsel's office.

6.8 Term limits for Councillors
A response is likely to be in the report from the Board Governance committee.

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

The meeting ended at 16:00 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 11 October 2007 at 14:00 UTC.
see: Calendar