| 11 October 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 15 Council Members ICANN Staff Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Invited Observers Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest Item 2: Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 30 August 2007. Motion approved Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 September 2007 Motion approved Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 September 2007 Motion approved Decision 1: The Council approved the Item 3: LA gTLD Workshop planning The goals of the workshop are twofold: Chuck drew attention to the following key items: 4. Avoid re-debate of the issues by panel and/or Council members 7. Councilors, New gTLD Committee members and ICANN Staff members who are not on the panel should be encouraged to participate with other audience participants during the interactive session using a special microphone set up for that purpose, but in doing so, they should: 8. All Council members should support the recommendations in a way that is constructive with the goal of increasing understanding of the thought processes that happened in the PDP process that led to the final recommendations. 9. Reading of lengthy portions of the report should be avoided; instead Session Breakdown The following assumptions were made in developing a list of panel members: Chris Disspain, chair of the ccNSO, was selected to be the Workshop moderator. In summary, session one would deal the selection process and introductory type information related to the report and the recommendations. The following comments arose from Chuck's overview: Denise Michel reported that all efforts had been made to minimise conflicts with other sessions during the workshop and the Board members would be present. Rita Rodin suggested that the GNSO provide a schedule which stipulated where Board participation was important to encourage Board member's presence at such sessions. Ray Fassett commenting on the recommendation "Application must be of a commercially reasonable length.” asked whether the committee had determined the length of time. Chuck Gomes noted that in the base contract, published some months ago, ten years had been mentioned. The draft versions of the RFP and the base contract would be ready after the LA meetings and would be posted for public comments when available. It was suggested that the ALAC and the GAC liaisons to Council should be available in front of the audience along with Council members, not on the panel, to give supplementary information if required. The group was thanked for all the efforts that had gone into the new gTLD workshop planning. Item 4: Discussion on PDP timing Avri Doria noted that the agenda item was prompted by two issue reports that Council had received, one on IGO Names and abbreviations and one on Domain Tasting which, following the strict timing set out in the ICANN bylaws policy development process (PDP), necessitated that the Council vote during the current meeting whether or not to initiate a policy development processes. If the vote for PDP would be successful another vote would follow on whether to form a task force or not. Avri Doria suggested sending the following statement to the ICANN Board: The GNSO considers the timings contained in the bylaws impossible for proper policy development process. This has been discussed in the LSE Report and reinforced in many constituency statements on the topic of GNSO Reform. Chuck Gomes was supportive of the motion. Until the GNSO improvements would be implemented and the PDP revised timing would continue to an issue. Avri Doria proposed removing the motion, which had not been seconded, based on the Council discussion which was not in favour of removing timelines but tended towards a case by case approach. Item 5: Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) Olof Nordling reported on the staff draft Intergovernmental Organizations Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure which was intended to apply to dispute resolutions and procedures at the second level for new gTLDs. The object of the report was to mirror the WIPO 2 recommendations, an integral part of the UDRP, in a separate text. The report set out how these mechanisms would function,how they would be referenced in the new gTLD registry agreement and then in the registrar agreements as they became accredited for the new TLD. "a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that an International Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) (a “complainant”) asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that As background: "Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required. Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs. Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names. The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2." Chuck Gomes questioned differentiating between new TLD's and existing TLD's with regard to the proposed policy as it was a significant policy issue that could end up applying to new and existing gTLDs. The Government Advisory Committee had provided input that there should be such provisions, it was not included in the objection process nor in the Reserved Names discussions, nor at the second level where the issue would reside. The fundamental question was whether Council was examining a proposal to apply to names in the past and the future or only in the future? Avri Doria suggested further discussion during the GNSO working sessions in Los Angeles and proposed voting on whether or not to initiate a PDP at the LA meeting. Avri Doria, seconded by Norbert Klein proposed the following motion The GNSO Council resolves to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles Item 4: Domain Tasting report and decision on next step (20) Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the Domain Tasting ad hoc working group was tasked with accumulating factual information with regards to the issues outlined in staff issues report on domain tasting. In addition the Registrar’s constituency contributed information on various non-tasting uses that Registrars had for the Added Grace Period (AGP). The Registries provided information in the form of graphs, tables and statistics from Neustar and Afflias. The group was asked to draft terms of reference (ToR) that could be considered by the Council in the event that a PDP would be initiated. 2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede domain tasting. 3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the potential impacts of measures on the Constituencies, and recommend measures designed to impede domain tasting. Ross Rader commented that in order to properly consider the forthcoming recommendations of the working group on tasting, he sought further data from staff as background information. Specifically, Ross wished to understand staff experience in enforcing clause 3.74 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. a) How many enforcement cases had been opened related to this clause in the last 5 years? Denise Michel mentioned that an Economic Research Assistant had been retained and would take the working group output and provide additional information on issues such as a performance analysis, add grace deletes and other data points that would be useful for the Council's deliberations. This data would, however, not be available before October 31, 2007. Alan Greenberg did not support delaying a PDP process beyond the Los Angeles meeting. Chuck Gomes commented that he had currently no direction from the Registry constituency as to how to vote on the matter. Philip Sheppard commented that looking at the question from a higher level, public interest prospective the issue was trying to correct harm that was out in the community and it behooved Council to act, as swiftly as possible, force timelines and to encourage staff to obtain the necessary information. Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Robin Gross and Alan Greenberg were supportive of waiting until Los Angeles to enlist further input from the community. Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the following motion The GNSO Council resolves to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles. Avri Doria called for a roll call vote. 17 Votes in of favour of postponing the decision: 1 vote against 1 abstention The motion passed. Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles. Item 6: Registrar Transfer Policy Plan Avri Doria called for a volunteers including a volunteer to lead the group, and added that the leader and the participants did not necessarily have to be Council members, though some Council participation was desirable. Ross Rader was appointed as the lead for the short-term planning group, Tim Ruiz and Tom Keller from the Registrar constituency, and Barbara Steele, proposed by Chuck Gomes volunteered to join the group. The Issues paper would be published during the week beginning 15 October 2007. Item 7. Item 8: Action Item review WHOIS: Liz Gasster reported that the WHOIS staff implementation report and the staff overview, final report would be delivered to meet the 15 October timeline. New gTLDs had been discussed under Item 3. The IGO names and abbreviations would be a subject for open Council discussion in Los Angeles. Domain Tasting would be a subject for open Council discussion in Los Angeles. Response to Board resolution regarding IDN ccTLDs would be a subject for open Council discussion in Los Angeles. Registrar Transfer Policy Review: the volunteer group was in formation and the Staff Issues Report would be produced by 19 October 2007 Proxy voting: Avri Doria had received a response, but was awaiting permission from General Counsel to share it with the Council. The ICANN bylaws are explicit about councillors being able to communicate with each other at the time of voting and that has been interpreted to mean no proxy vote. Motion on term limits 2006-nov-06: Avri Doria reported that the Board Governance group would be reporting on this in their report. Question regarding WHOIS motion #2: Avri Doria reported that the response would be discussed at the Los Angeles meeting. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 16:10 UTC. Next GNSO Council open meeting will be in Los Angeles on 31 October 2007 at 8:30 local time UTC. Action Items arising from the minutes Item 4: Avri Doria undertook to obtain a response from ICANN staff on Ross Rader's questions: - to understand staff experience in enforcing clause 3.74 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. a) How many enforcement cases had been opened related to this clause in the last 5 years? Item 6.
|