[council] GNSO Council resolutions passed at the 12 April 2007 meeting

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear All,

Ahead of the complete GNSO Council minutes, Council passed the following 
motions at its meeting on 12 April 2007.
Motion One: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13
============================================================

 The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN 
Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 
abstentions, 3 votes not cast.
Motion Two: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work
==========================================================
2. The GNSO Council resolved to accept the WHOIS Working Group Charter
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html      
 (text below) making the changes listed below:
- update the Background section with:
 --previous council decisions
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html
 --specific reference to the GAC principles
http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf
highlighting the GAC's list of legitimate activities.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html

Section 3: footnote reference to specific section of the Task Force Report.
Section 4B: place current material in Background
Section 4C: adjust sentence to determine how and which legitimate third 
parties can access registration data that is no longer available for 
unrestricted public query based access.
WHOIS Working Group Charter
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html      

        1       INTRODUCTION
The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group 
with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output 
of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns 
raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around 
improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between 
providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution 
of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the 
need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any 
identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, 
unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.
2       Background
Whois
ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them 
to provide  data concerning active Registered Names via three 
mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS 
service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is 
made available.   The data includes contact information of natural 
persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and 
voice telephone numbers.

Whois Policy Development Process (PDP)
The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill 
terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the 
PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make 
policy recommendations to the Board on:
1.      The purpose of the Whois service
2.	The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, 
technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which 
the data is collected.
3.	Which data should be available for public access, and determine how 
to access data that is not available for public access.
4.	How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate 
data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data.
5.	How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN 
agreements, and local or national privacy laws
Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois 
requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the 
GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006.   A draft Procedure for 
Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the 
ICANN website at 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm).
The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO 
Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion 
Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at 
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm.    The GNSO 
Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 
2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee.   Various 
concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the 
report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and 
decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues 
raised.

3       Objective
The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to 
the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations 
concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address 
these issues.
4       Work Plan
4a	Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts 
available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens 
if the responsibilities are not fulfilled.
4b.	Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no 
longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for 
legitimate activities.
The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) 
sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) 
activities, including:
1.	Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing 
contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, 
and certified computer incident response teams;
2.      Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names;

3.	Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing 
national and international laws, including, for example, countering 
terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international 
cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental 
entities may be involved in this work;
4.	Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and 
Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts 
motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related 
intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including 
paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation 
of, human beings.
5.	Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark 
clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, 
misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and 
international treaties;
6.	Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and 
efficient means of information and communication and as an important 
tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate 
uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for 
content and services online; and
7.	Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating 
fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of 
the public.


4c	Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the 
registration contact information published based on the nature of the 
registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its 
use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use)..
        
        
5       Participation
The WG will allow for new insights regarding this issue, with people 
drawn from the GNSO, members of the GAC, government agencies (such as 
law enforcement agencies), and the broader community.
The membership of this WG extends to the following:
•        Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors
•        GNSO constituency members
In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the 
following basis:
Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working 
group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing 
with members of the working group.   In particular observers will be 
able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical 
meetings.
Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with 
an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the 
GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone 
contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a 
public statement of interest, as for working group members.
The GNSO Council will appoint an interim Chair of the WG and the working 
group can elect a chair at its first meeting.
6       Working Methods
The WG will work using the following methods:
•        Teleconferences, likely to be once a week
•        Wiki / other participatory forum or platform for group decision-making
•        Face to face meeting at ICANN Puerto Rico meeting, 25-29 June, 2007.
•        Email list

7       Decision-making
The WG will operate using a rough consensus approach. The WG will work 
to achieve agreement on positions that most or all of the group members 
are willing to support.
For the expression of views, the Working Group will use the following 
conventions:
-	Agreement –  there is broad agreement within the Working Group 
(largely equivalent to “rough consensus” as used in the IETF)
-	Support –  there is some gathering of positive opinion, but competing 
positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached
-	Alternative view – a differing opinion that has been expressed, 
without garnering enough following within the WG to merit the notion of 
either Support or Agreement.
Working with the group, the Chair will have the authority to establish 
where agreement/support/alternative views exist.
8       Timeline
The WG will convene within one week of the GNSO Council’s agreement of 
its Charter, by 20 April, 2007, latest.
The WG will work to achieve the following targets:
1.	Produce for publication on the ICANN website a progress reports by 
each of the following dates: 25 May, 2007, and 22 June, 2007.
2.	Conclude its work and submit a final report to the GNSO Council on or 
before 26 July, 2007.
If the WG has not been able to reach conclusions by 26 July, 2007, it 
will terminate its work and report its outcomes to the GNSO Council by 
that date.
 9      Relevant Documents
The following documents are directly relevant to the work of this 
Working Group and should be read by participants before joining the group:
•	Final Task Force Report on Whois Services, including the public 
comments report on comments received on the policy proposals from 
November 2006 – January 2007; 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm 
.
•	Staff notes on Potential Implementation Issues; 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/staff-discussion-points-whois-final-15mar2007.htm 

•	Government Advisory Committee Principles regarding gTLD WHOIS Services 
http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf
Motion Three: Appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group
=============================================================
The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of 
the Whois Working Group,  that Philip would undertake to chair the group 
in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in 
determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.

Motion Four: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of
work
=======================================================================
The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name 
Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council,
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 
April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the 
attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment 
that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks 
regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1:  'explore the issue around ICANN IANA 
names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 
10 May 2007.
Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of Reserved Names Working 
Group (RN-WG)
Original RN-WG Statement of Work
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml
will apply as applicable with the following added.

General Tasks
1.      Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon
2.	Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in 
the following categories:
a.	Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP 
report
b.	Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, 
not as reserved names
i.      Geographical and geopolitical names
ii.     Controversial names
c.      Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG
i.      Three character names at the third level
ii.     Registry specific names at the second level
iii.    Other reserved names at the second level
3.      Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs
4.      Review IDN-WG Report
5.	Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and 
reference them in applicable name categories
6.	Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability 
issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to 
how any such issues might be mitigated
7.      Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams

Tasks regarding Recommendations

1.      ICANN/IANA reserved names
a.	Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be 
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i.      Explore the issue around ICANN IANA names
ii.	Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for 
.name and .pro and edit the document accordingly
iii.	Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN 
names
1.      Provide examples
2.      Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
iv.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
b.      Finalize guidelines for additional work
2.      Use of symbols in Reserved Names
a.	Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language
i.      Provide examples as possible
ii.     Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
b.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
3.      Single & two-character reserved names
a.	Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character 
IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to 
non-roman scripts
b.	Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding 
single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character 
ASCII names involving at least one number.
c.	Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character 
IDN names
d.	Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i.	Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, 
ASCII and IDN, single and two-character
ii.     Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
f.	Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character 
names at all levels
g.	As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single 
and two-character names at all levels
4.      Tagged names
a.	Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i.	To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth 
character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’
ii.	Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top 
level
iii.	In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording  to use the terms 
‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’
iv.	Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an 
IDN gTLD would have to provide
v.      Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
5.      NIC, Whois and www
a.	Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i.      Provide examples
ii.     Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
6.      Geographical & geopolitical names
a.	Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical 
and geopolitical names
b.	Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical 
names and IGO names
c.      Consult with the GAC as possible
d.	Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify 
underlying laws if different than a treaty
e.	Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to 
unsponsored gTLDs only
f.	Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New 
gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i.      Describe process flow
ii.     Provide examples as possible
iii.    Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
g.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
h.	Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to 
conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not 
be considered reserved names
i.      Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
7.      Third level names
a.	Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the 
Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b.	Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with 
the statement regarding scope
8.      gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable)
a.	Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final 
results in the RN-WG report
b.      Determine whether final recommendations can be made
c.	State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily 
transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i.      Provide examples
ii.     Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
d.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
e.      If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work
9.      Other names at the second level
a.	Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the 
Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b.	Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with 
the statement regarding scope
10.     Controversial names
a.	Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial 
names
b.      Consult with the GAC as possible
c.	Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a 
reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names 
are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only
d.	Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New 
gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i.      Describe process flow
ii.     Provide examples as possible
iii.    Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e.	Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, 
referring to the role of the category as applicable
f.	Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to 
conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered 
reserved names
g.      Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary

Schedule
1.      Restart date:  Wednesday, 11 April
2.      Completion date: Monday, 10 May

Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org