GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes | Generic Names Supporting Organization

Date

29 May 2008

List of attendees:

Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C

Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.

Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C - absent, apologies

Greg Ruth - ISCPC

Antonio Harris - ISCPC

Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies

Thomas Keller- Registrars

Tim Ruiz - Registrars

Adrian Kinderis - Registrars

Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries

Edmon Chung - gTLD registries

Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries

Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C

Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent

Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests

Robin Gross - NCUC

Norbert Klein - NCUC - absent, apologies

Carlos Souza - NCUC

Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee - absent, apologies

Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent, apologies

Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

15 Council Members

(21 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

Bart Boswinkel - Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO

Steve Gobin - Registrar Liaison Manager

Matthias Langenegger - At-Large Coordination Officer

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

Deferred Item 5: Discussion of Jon Bing's paper and other IDN ccTLD.

Edmon Chung requested that the IDNC update be at the end of the agenda, but given the conflict with the Board call and the overlap in staff it was not possible.

Alan Greenberg suggested moving Item 11 Paris Plan to after Item 3.

Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes 8 May 2008.

Chuck Gomes seconded by Tom Keller moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 8 May 2008.

The motion passed unanimously.

Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 8 May 2008.

Item 4: (Item 10) Paris Plan

Avri Doria gave an overview of the four proposed agendas for the Paris meetings:

Agenda 21 June 2008

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_21_june_2008

GNSO Improvements – discuss next steps

Whois study proposals - in-depth deliberations

Inter Registrar Transfer Policy PDP on Denial Definitions – Deliberations as there will be a report on the state of readiness and the issues.

Inter Registrar Transfer Policy PDP A - first discussion of new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues

Fast Flux discussions - if the charter is approved, the working group will have its first meeting

Front Running discussion

New Issues for future consideration – Blue Sky (facilitated by Olof Nordling) What items need to be on the policy agenda for the next year or longer.

The lunch break will be from 13:00 to 14:30

Agenda 22 June 2008

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_26_june_2008

Joint meeting with At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)

Possible topics for discussion:

New gTLDs were removed from the agenda as it was considered a topic currently between the ICANN Board and the staff.

- Public Comment Period Length

--Near-impossibility of gaining global (consensus, comment) in 30 days, especially in multiple languages

Global consensus refers to constituency statements rather than public comment periods.

- Improving communications between the Advisory Committees and the Supporting Oganisations at the regional level and at the local level, that is, the At Large and GNSO constituency members' relationship in the same region.

- GNSO Improvements is targeted at the Board, but there is ongoing discussion over the joint statement of users where there is not full agreement within ALAC that it should be engaging directly in the GNSO.

- New gTLDs - Update on dispute issues, Open Issues?

- IANA/ICANN names - what is the process for changing Reserved names beyond the new gTLD process

- Single Character Second-Level Domain Names

- IDN ccTLDs - this will be a separate session from the GAC and Jon Bing's paper will be discussed.

- ccNSO-gNSO meeting prep

- GAC meeting prep

- Joint Meeting with GAC to discuss IDN ccTLD

- Board Dinner -suggested topic GNSO "Improvements, following the pattern of one topic before the dessert and then diverse topics during dessert,

Agenda 25 June 2008

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_25_june_2008

- Inter Registrar Transfer Policy PDP on Denial Definitions – Decision

- Intern Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report on Part A - Decision on initiating a PDP

- Whois Study Proposals – having discussed over the weekend it is foreseen that there will be a Decision

- GNSO Improvement next steps - Decision

- New Issues – Report of the facilitated discussion at the Saturday meeting will be open for discussion

- General Open Discussion

- AOB

* approval of Chair and Liaison for Fast Flux Working Group

Agenda 26 June 2008

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_26_june_2008

Possible topics for gNSO-ccNSO joint lunch meeting open to observers, space permitting.

- Fast track objection processes and their alternatives,

- Meaning of non controversial in the Fast Track

- Technical, operational and other conditions in fast track approval with a focus on the similarities and differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs

- The role of ccTLD operators and language committees in the gTLD application process. Is there a concern?

- How the ccNSO and the GNSO could communicate and work together more effectively and regularly.

Avri Doria, commenting on the role of ccTLD operators and language committees in the gTLD application process, asked whether ccTLD operators in the nations had a say in terms of language choices, and the way names are described in their script or language? The GNSO has a defined objection procedure mechanism which is not necessarily accepted by the country code (cc)operators, thus a GNSO/ccNSO discussion would be appropriate on the way a proposed new name in the gTLD space is expressed in a country's script or language.

Adrian Kinderis commented that the issues were raised by one or two people during an APTLD meeting in Kuala Lumpur, but was not considered a legitimate concern.

Bart Boswinkel concurred with Adrian, that it had never been discussed as such within the ccNSO and it was mentioned at an APTLD regional meeting, which is not linked to the ccNSO, the only commonality being that there were some ccTLD managers involved.

Chuck Gomes asked whether the topic should be deleted from the agenda?

Bart Boswinkel suggested that the language should be more neutral and committed to send new language.

Avri Doria commented that the GNSO Council post-meeting that usually takes place on Thursday will be replaced by a teleconference the week after the Paris meetings due to a change in the overall ICANN meeting schedule.

Item 4: Update from Edmon Chung on IDNC

Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor to the ccNSO, gave a status report on the IDNC from a Staff perspective.

1. The high level planning for the next step will be as follows: a draft recommendation will be sent out to the IDNC within the next couple of days for internal discussion only, followed by a conference call, and around 10-12 June a draft document will be posted on the ICANN website. At the IDNC working group meeting in Paris it is foreseen that the document will be finalised and ready to distribute to the ALAC, GAC and GNSO for further discussion. The GAC and ccNSO will hopefully be in a position to endorse the document for it to be submitted to the Board after a ccNSO vote.

2. Consensus has been reached on what the proposed strings should be, namely, a meaningful representation of the name of the territory in an official language, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that it will be such a representation. There is consensus that the role and responsibility of the technical committee is to review the proposed strings to examine whether there is compliance with IDNA protocol and the IDN guidelines. A contentious issue, specifically being debated with the GAC, is whether or not there should be a committee of linguistic experts.

One of the guiding principles that was proposed and is being debated is whether 'non-controversial' should be 'non-controversial' in a territory, or in a broader sense? Flowing from this, there should be an institutionalised objection procedure as recommended by IDNC. On the IDNC call on 28 May 2008, the debate was reopened on who could apply for an IDN ccTLD, in particular, what is a territory.

Adrian Kinderis asked whether the GNSO was providing adequate support to the process.

Bart Boswinkel responded that it would be useful for the GNSO to consider how they want to treat the recommendations of the IDNC working group.

Bart commented that the goal was for the ccNSO and GAC to support and endorse the final recommendations at the Paris meeting. Feedback on the draft could be provided through the participants in the IDNC WG and at the IDNC workshop on Monday morning 23 June in Paris. In Bart's view the Board would not adopt the report at the Paris meeting because of the complexity of the issue.

Chuck Gomes pointed out that all items posted for discussion or consideration by the community in Paris should be posted 2 weeks before attendees start travel and that deadline is June 6 2008.

Chuck further commented that there would be a huge reaction from the GNSO if the Board pushed through the report without allowing comments.

Edmon Chung commented on two issues where there was no consensus in the IDNC. Two ccTLD members and one GAC member have disagreed on the proposal of non-contentious which is currently described as non-contentious in a territory, and is still undecided. Most people are more comfortable with the objection mechanism as an approach to solicit comments. With regard to legal arrangements, where Jon Bing made a very good point, the group believes that technology and protocol policy require a legal arrangement between ICANN and the fast track ccTLD operators.

However, Bart Boswinkel commented that during the teleconference on 28 May 2008, the GAC chair reiterated the GAC view expressed in New Delhi that there could only be voluntary arrangements and no legal arrangements between ICANN and the fast track ccTLD operators.

Edmon Chung suggested that the Council deliberate and then provide a GNSO Council position statement for the IDNC to submit to the Board.

Avri Doria suggested that a draft statement be discussed on the mailing list, deliberated during the GNSO working session on 22 June and voted on by Council at the Open Council meeting on Wednesday, 25 June 2008.

Item 5: GNSO Improvements Overview

GNSO Improvements Top Level Plan

http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-22may…

Chuck Gomes gave an overview of the GNSO Improvements Top Level Plan using a power point presentation

http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/improvements-plan-29may08.pdf

Chuck Gomes urged the Councillors to start thinking about the standing committee membership, which need not necessarily be restricted to councillors, so that these committees can get started in Paris. However, the real work will get done at the lower level in the work teams.

Avri Doria reminded the Council that the GNSO Improvements – Top Level Plan is published in the drafts section

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-22may08.p…

and on the WIKI

https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?gnso_improvements

both of which are publicly available to the community and comments can be made on the WIKI.

Alan Greenberg commented that the composition of standing committees included representation of constituencies and asked whether it would remain the same with the possible constituency restructuring that was foreseen.

Chuck Gomes responded that the planning team was very careful not to assume any structural changes and the plan was flexible enough to accommodate any changes

Avri Doria added that it was reasonable to assume that the membership of the standing committees would remain at the constituency level and provision was made to review the charters frequently. On the operations standing committee provision has been made to involve any new constituencies that may be formed. The formation of any new constituencies will be a formal process and their participation would be considered only after their formation.

Mike Rodenbaugh enquired what the situation would be if one of the committees did not reach consensus.

Avri Doria commented that probably all the views would be forwarded to the Council for deliberation.

Chuck Gomes added that at some point the Board would approve the recommendations and address the Council to implement the changes.

Avri Doria commented that one of the reasons for the delay in presenting the Top Level Plan to the Council was that the planning team had to do further work to reach agreement.

Chuck Gomes suggested that Mike Rodenbaugh edit and add the discussion on consensus to the document on the WIKI.

Avri Doria suggested that further discussion take place on the council mail server list and noted that there will be an in depth discussion during the GNSO working sessions and the Open Council meeting in Paris.

Item 6: Resume tabled discussions on:

- a: Single-Character Second -Level Domain Names - Discussion

IANA/ICANN names – what is the process for changing Reserved names beyond the new gTLD process

- b: Pending budget measure for domain tasting

Patrick Jones sent the following email to the Council list prior to the meeting because of the overlap with the Board call.

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05061.html

Patrick Jones provided the following additional information regarding single-character names at the second-level:

- Contractual provisions in ICANN's registry agreements govern how we act. In addition, new Registry Services are governed by the GNSO Policy, which was put into the contractual provisions of the registry agreements.

- ICANN cannot unilaterally change the registry agreements and the Schedule of Reserved Names. There is no Policy which states that registries must release single-character names at the second-level. There are policy recommendations from the Reserved Names working group that the names be released in new gTLDs and that they may be released in the existing registries but that depends on allocation methods and the further work that may be needed.

- A registry can be released from its obligations related to its Schedule of Reserved Names on ICANN's approval pursuant to the specific contractual provisions in the registry agreements. We are going through staff work to determine the appropriate mechanism for release - this work includes the development of a paper close to release, on allocation methods and uses of funds from allocation of single-character names and because this affects all registries, the development of a process for release of single-letter names.

- The Reserved Names Working Group (RN WG) developed policy recommendations on single-character names at the second-level for new gTLDs, and for existing gTLDs, stating that release should be "contingent upon the use of appropriate allocation frameworks. More work may be needed."

- As the Council is aware, these recommendations are not consensus policy because they do not follow the consensus policy process. Therefore, the RN WG recommendations and subsequent staff work does not raise new duties or obligations for registries.

- A one-size-fits-all method may not work for all registries.

- Based on the direction of the Council, the public comment period and synthesis document, ICANN staff will publish a paper regarding a proposed allocation method and distribution of funds model for community consideration.

Avri Doria asked in connection with a process for the registries, if the GNSO did not make a separate policy recommendation for the existing gTLDs, whether it would go through the funnel process, or would it be a different process?

Patrick Jones responded that the funnel process is established and currently available for registries that are interested in making changes to their contractual agreements and that there is significant interest among the different registries for proposing different models.

Chuck Gomes added that GNR, the dot name registry, used the funnel process for the change that was approved for two-character second-level domain names.

Patrick Jones commented that no registry has had a proposal published on single-character names and cited several more examples, such as, dotJOBS which was approved without a contractual change in March 2007 but had not yet notified the ccNSO and the GAC that they will proceed with allocation, and individually, dotCATand dotCOOP have been granted permission to release smaller amounts of two-character names.

Avri Doria suggested that the time had come for the Council to decide on the next steps to be taken.

Tim Ruiz commented that initially it would be a process for registry funnel requests, but that if staff considered a policy was required, the GNSO should be informed.

Mike Rodenbaugh was under the impression that the Council had made a recommendation.

Avri Doria clarified that the recommendations were made for new gTLDs, and although there are recommendations that relate to existing gTLDs, there was never a formal process on changing reserved names for the existing gTLDs. If the Council did decide to take any action it would have to be through the PDP process on a later agenda.

Tim Ruiz commented that in one of the recommendations, single-character names at the second-level no longer had to be reserved, but in reality all the existing agreements provided a process through which the registries could request that single-character names at the second-level be released within that name space. Each individual registry could deal with the issue as they pleased and thus it was questionable if policy would add value to the situation.

Avri Doria, summing up the two points of view, a) more needs to be done and b) what is being done is adequate, suggested that any proposals should be further discussed at the GNSO working sessions in Paris.

Patrick Jones requested that the topic be discussed on Sunday June 22, when he would be available.

- b: Pending budget measure for domain tasting

Denise Michel reported that the ICANN Board did not vote on the GNSO domain name tasting at the meeting on 29 May 2008, which overlapped with the Council meeting. The Board would probably take one vote on the budget, and a separate vote on the GNSO domain name tasting motion and that staff would be directed to produce an implementation plan.

Avri Doria stated that the staff had matched the budget recommendation with the domain tasting PDP recommendation.

The threshold notion is in the policy recommendation and in the application of the registrar transaction fee which is currently twenty cents. The proposal states that the transaction fee be applied to add-grace period deletes after a threshold of 10%.

Denise Michel volunteered to ask Kurt Pritz, who was not on the call, to follow up with the specific timing and the implementation steps.

Denise Michel encouraged Councillors to raise the issue during the scheduled budget briefings with the constituencies and the Council.

Item 7: Fast Flux charter discussion/decision

PDP Working group on Fast Flux Issues

Charter

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?fast_flux

PDP Working group on Fast Flux Issues

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;

Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting:

In this context, the term “fast flux” refers to rapid and repeated changes to A and/or NS resource records in a DNS zone, which have the effect of rapidly changing the location (IP address) to which the domain name of an Internet host (A) or name server (NS) resolves.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group 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 WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their Advisory Committee.

Charter

The Working Group 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?

Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?

How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?

What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior 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?

What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?

What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux?

Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.

The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members.

The Working Group report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the WG or policy recommendation for constituency and community comment and review and for Council deliberation

Working Group processes:

While the development of guidelines for Working operations, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree

Strong support but significant opposition

Minority viewpoint

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :

Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.

The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public.

A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal.

Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)

With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated.

Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released.

Final report to be released to GNSO council and for public comment at 90 days

Working Group chair(s):

To Be Decided

GNSO Council Liaison(s) to Working Group:

To Be Decided

Staff Coordinator

Liz Gasster

Subject Matter References:

Issues report 25 March 2008

[SAC025]: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC025) (28 January 2008)

Process References:

Tutorial on IETF WGs

Information on W3C working group processes

Avri Doria, who proposed the Fast flux charter, accepted Chuck Gomes's proposed changes:

From: How are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting

activities?

To: Are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

From: How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities?

To: Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

After: 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?

Add: What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation at the edge?

Kristina Rosette directed a question to Chuck Gomes on the proposed changes relating to the registrar and registry questions and commented that it would be preferable to have a policy development process based on what is possible rather than current practices only. The language proposed was: are registry/registrar operators involved or could they be....

Chuck Gomes was not sure that it was a realistic question, but was not opposed to the charter being as flexible as possible.

Tim Ruiz expressed concern that the working group membership should be well balanced in the community in order for rough consensus to be meaningful.

Avri Doria commented that it was up to each constituency to assure that there was adequate representation and that rough consensus was defined in the charter.

Chuck Gomes commented that rough consensus should depend on adequate coverage of varying view points and not on the number of people involved. In addition he suggested that the definition of fast flux be added to the charter.

Philip Sheppard suggested that it should be specified that any single individual could qualify for a minority report.

It was suggested that the timeline be calculated from the time the group was put in motion.

Avri Doria suggested that the Council defer the vote on the chair and the liaison.

Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the Charter as amended.

Mike Rodenbaugh requested a voice vote.

Avri Doria, hearing no objection, called for a voice vote on the charter.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Decision 2:

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

Charter

The Working Group 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?

Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?

How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?

Working Group processes:

While the development of guidelines for Working operations, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree

Strong support but significant opposition

Minority viewpoint

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :

Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report.

This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public.

A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal.

Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)

With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated.

Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released.

Final report to be released to GNSO council and for public comment at 90 days

Working Group chair(s):

To Be Decided

GNSO Council Liaison(s) to Working Group:

To Be Decided

Staff Coordinator

Liz Gasster

Subject Matter References:

Issues report 25 March 2008

[SAC025]: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC025) (28 January 2008)

Process References:

Tutorial on IETF WGs

Information on W3C working group processes

Avri Doria proposed posting an announcement on the GNSO website indicating:

- that working group members should contact the Secretariat within one week to be added to the working group list.

- the Working Group will have an initial meeting on 21 June in Paris.

- at the initial meeting, one topic will be that of a picking a working group chair.

- the choice of working group chair will be subject to GNSO council approval at its meeting of 25 June.

It is expected that discussion on candidates for chair will occur before the 21 June meeting.

In the interim, Avri Doria, as GNSO Council chair, will chair the working group.

At its meeting on 25 June, the GNSO council will also decide on its liaison to the WG.

Item 8: Whois Report Overview

WHOIS Study Group Report to the GNSO Council

http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-study-group-report-to…

Avri Doria, supported by Chuck Gomes, proposed deferring the WHOIS report overview to the Paris meeting.

Item 9:

Update from Denise Michel on Board activities.

Denise Michel reported that the Board discussed the reform of the ICANN meetings and a proposal is expected to be posted for public comment, there was a review of the Paris schedule, a finance committee update on the ICANN budget and the process being used for soliciting public comments on the budget.

The Root Server Security Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and the Board reviews were deferred to the next meeting.

Kurt Pritz gave an update on new gTLDs focused on the staff implementation work.

Under the update on GNSO improvements, the BGC working group report on GNSO improvements was deferred as was the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Negotiations and Process Update.

The absentee voting was approved with a slight clarification.

Domain name tasting, WHOIS, PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC in .ORG, and discussions on various Bylaws-Mandated Reviews and the compensation Committee Report were deferred.

There was a discussion on the GNSO improvements recommendations and the Board specifically talked about the various constituency stakeholder groups' positions on the Council and the constituency structure and seats on the Council. The Board anticipated discussing the topic further on line and taking action in Paris.

Item 10: Action Items

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf

Avri Doria suggested that comments be sent to the Council mail server list.

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

The meeting ended at 14:33 UTC.

Next GNSO Council Meeting will be at the Le Méridien, Utrillo room in Paris on 25 June 2008 at 06:00 UTC.

see: Calendar