GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 24 February 2011 | Generic Names Supporting Organization

Date

24 February 2011

The meeting started at 15:04 UTC).

List of attendees:

NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis - absent, apologies - proxy vote to Tim Ruiz
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao - absent, apologies - proxy vote to Jeff Neuman
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Andrei Kolesnikov - absent, apologies

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, William Drake - absent, apologies - proxy vote to Rafik Dammak, Rosemary Sinclair - absent, apologies - no proxy vote assigned.
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:

MP3 Recording

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest

Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, Councilors were polled regarding
disclosures of interest regarding the following meeting topics:

- The main issues for this meeting are:
  • GNSO Project Decision Making
  • GNSO Improvements
  • Registration Abuse Policies
  • DNS Security and Stability
  • Whois
  • Cross Community Working Groups
  • New gTLD Applicant Guidebook

1.2 Statements of Interest
No Statements of Interest updates were received.

1 3 Review/amend the agenda

1.4.The GNSO Council 3 February 2011 minutes were approved on 23 February 2011.

Item 2: Pending Projects - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group (IRTP Part B)

Marika Konings ICANN Staff support, to the working group provided an update on Working Group's progress in the absence of Michele Neylon, the working group chair.

Stakeholder group and constituency members are encouraged to submit comments to the proposed Final Report that is open for public comment until 31 March 2011 and attend the update to the GNSO Council on Saturday afternoon, 12 March in San Francisco and the working group meeting on Monday morning, 14 March 2011 in San Francisco.

Item 3: Operations Steering Committee (OSC)

3.1 Approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interest

Stéphane van Gelder, seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and amended by Stéphane and Jeff Neuman, proposed a motion re: revision of section 5.0 of the Statements of Interest of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures.

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a revision of Section 5
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-23feb1…
that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the revised Section 5.0 submitted by the OSC and directs Staff to post this document for thirty - (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on this document, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

3.2 Approval of Global Outreach Recommendations for public comment

Jonathan Robinson, seconded by Debbie Hughes and amended by Jeff Neuman, proposed a motion re: Global Outreach Recommendations.

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf

WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups;

WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document "Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO"
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf

WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English speakers;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the document submitted by the OSC
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en…
and directs Staff to post this document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on this document, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Item 4: Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines

Jeff Neuman, the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) work team chair provided Council with an update on the status of the comments received on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Two comments, one un substantive and one substantive, on the Working Group chairperson, were received during the public comment period and one one comment from the ALAC after the close of comments.
Recommendation:
In the interest of time to move forward and expedite the report by the San francisco meeting, Jeff Neuman proposed submitting the non-substantive clarification comment from the Registry Stakeholder group to the PPSC and recommending it as possible amendments to the Final Report and to refer the substantive issue on Working Group chairpersons to the Standing Committee. The ALAC comments should be referred to the PPSC and Alan Greenberg committed to drafting a bullet point that could be incorporated in the report without any substantive change.

Item 5: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation

Stéphane van Gelder referred to the report Rosemary Sinclair provided to the Council.

Highlights from the discussion:

The ICANN Board and the Council should communicate before the Board assigns tasks to Council, especially with regard to the time line, and the Council resources.
The context of the resolution should be clearly spelled out. Recommend as discussion topic with the Board at the San Francisco meeting.
Ascertain what actions the ALAC & CCNSO have undertaken.
The ALAC has expressed interest but has not formed any formal group.
The ccNSO liaison will provide an update to the Council after the ccNSO Council meeting on 1 March 2011
The Commercial and Business Constituency (CBUC) is eager for this work to progress in light of the San Francisco meeting deadline and the new gTLD process.
Concern was expressed that the resolution suggests that ICANN has been operating without definitions for competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice. Need to understand the definitions that ICANN has been operating under so far.
The context of request could be interpreted as based on Paragraphed 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en…
that requires ICANN to organize a review, one year after the launch of the first new gTLDs, that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs promotes competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice.
It was suggested that Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies provide comments which would be discussed during the working lunch on the Saturday in San Francisco.

ACTION ITEM:

Ask Rosemary Sinclair to oversee the drafting of a letter requesting the Board to clarify the context of the Board Resolution
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6
and provide clear timelines.
The letter should be transmitted to the Board at least a week in advance of the GNSO meeting with the Board on Sunday 13 March in San Francisco.

Item 6: WHOIS studies

Liz Gasster provided Council with an update on the WHOIS studies
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-studies-update-…

A view was expressed that the WHOIS studies should look at the outcome of the Registrar/Registry discussions with law enforcement to ascertain if solutions could be found. Without disclosing the content of the discussions to date, targeted benchmarks time wise would assist constituencies/stakeholder groups in determining what action to take.
The CBUC and NCUC supported doing study one.
The amount that the Board originally allocated for WHOIS studies was $400,000.for the fiscal year 2011.
The cost of three studies plus the fourth pre-study will amount to $530,000.The gap would be $130,000, added to the issue that the funding originally allocated for 2011 to 2012 has to be carried over to pay for the studies when they are completed.
The price of the pre-study could be reduced by $20,000 if the Council decided that it should be done in English only.

Next Steps: The topic needs further discussion.

Item 7: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG)

Julie Hedlund provided Council with the following update:
The Draft Charter for the Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group was established in November by a drafting team from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Number Resource Organization (NROs).

Following the ICANN meeting in Cartagena in December the call went out for volunteers to the participating SOs and Acs and this process is just being completed. There are 13 volunteers from the GNSO with the addition of Chris Wright for the RrSG. The ccNSO is providing support for the WG. The next step is to schedule the first meeting of the WG.

The objective of the DSSA-WG is to draw upon the collective expertise of the participating SOs and ACs, solicit expert input and advice and report to the respective participating SOs and ACs on:
A. The actual level, frequency and severity of threats to the DNS;
B. The current efforts and activities to mitigate these threats to the
DNS; and
C. The gaps (if any) in the current security response to DNS issues.

If considered feasible and appropriate, the DSSA-WG may identify and report on possible additional risk mitigation activities that it believes would assist in closing any gaps identified under item C above.

Action Item:

Stéphane van Gelder will ask the ccNSO chair whether the GNSO can have 12 participants, three from each group: Registrars, Registries, Commercial and Non Commercial stakeholder groups.
Constituencies and stakeholder groups are encouraged propose three names per group.

Item 8: Discussion on Community Working Groups

The Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA) was cited as a model for joint working groups with a charter that specified communication paths, going back to the respective Councils or Advisory committees for approval or input on the charter, as well as approval of the output before transmitting it to the Board.
It was pointed out that individuals joining a group do so in their individual capacity and it cannot be assumed that their work is supported by the communities in which they are associated, it needs to go back to the GNSO or other community to decide whether that community endorses it or not.
Community groups should not be rejected, there should be room for them to bring their work to Council and for it to determine whether that work reflects the GNSO Council's consensus.
From a staff view point it is difficult to incorporate the information in a report, not knowing whether there is consensus from the GNSO Council or other group.

Council was reminded of an action item arising from the 13 January 2011 Council meeting

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-13jan11-en.htm

Council approved starting discussions on cross community working groups, but there was no agreement on the size or composition of the group.
Volunteers: Rosemary Sinclair, Jaime Wagner, Bill Drake, Tim Ruiz, Jonathan Robinson, Jeff Neuman and Wendy Seltzer.

Action Item: . Volunteers are encouraged to contact the Chair and/or the Secretariat if they wish to join the group.

Item 9: Follow-up on RAP recommendations

Marika Konings noted Pam Little's apologies and drew Council's attention to the compliance report distributed on the Council mailing list.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html

Pam Little will address the Council at the GNSO working session on Saturday 12 March 2011 in San Francisco.
The Council should provide written questions in preparation for the meeting.

Liz Gasster reported that Margie Milam is provisionally, because of significant staff resource constraints, assigned to the UDRP Issues Report project.

Liz Gasster reported that Marika Konings and Steve Sheng are provisionally, because of significant staff resource constraints, assigned to the discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report.

Staff explained that it was difficult to give deadlines with the current work load and would appreciate any assistance the Council could give in prioritising projects.

Suggestion:

Provide an outline of topics to be addressed in the UDRP Issues paper and the discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report.
Seek input or comments from the Council during the GNSO weekend working sessions.

Item 10: Any Other Business

10.1
David Olive noted that Staff have provided, on various mailing lists, a series of information and background materials including the release of the various papers that were submitted for the Board GAC consultations.The discussions will focus on identifying the differences between the views of the Board and the GAC and how to narrow them going forward.

10. 2
Olga Cavalli urged Councillors to provide ideas for the GNSO Board and GNSO GAC meetings over the weekend.

10.3
Kristina Rosette asked whether the appropriate staff person could confirm whether the Monday and Wednesday GAC consultation sessions in San Francisco are duplicative because traveling arrangements for a number of IPC members depend on this.

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:08 UTC.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 in San Francisco at 14:00 (PST) 21:00 UTC.
See: Calendar