[council] GNSO Council minutes 19 May 2011 posted on website

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 19 May 2011 have been posted, as 
approved, on page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#may

And may be directly viewed at:
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-19may11-en.htm

Thank you.
Kind regards.

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org


<p><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm";>Agenda and 
documents</a></p>
<p>  The meeting started at  15:04 UTC.<br>
  <strong>Jeff Neuman</strong> GNSO Council vice chair, chaired the meeting in 
the absence of St&eacute;phane van Gelder. </p>
<p><b><u>List of attendees:</u></b></p>
<p>  NCA &ndash; Non Voting  - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre</p>
<p><strong>Contracted Parties House</strong><br />
  <u>Registrar Stakeholder Group:</u>  Tim Ruiz, St&eacute;phane van Gelder, 
absent apologies, proxy vote to Tim Ruiz, Mason Cole temporary alternate for 
Adrian Kinderis- absent apologies <br>
  <u>gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: </u>  Jeff Neuman,  Jonathan Robinson, 
Ching Chiao <br>
  <u>Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA)</u>: Andrei Kolesnikov </p>
<p><strong>Non-Contracted Parties House</strong><br />
 <u>Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): </u> ,  Jaime Wagner,  Zahid Jamil,    
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard    - absent, apologies -  proxy vote to   Zahid 
Jamil, Brian Winterfeldt temporary alternate for Kristina Rosette -absent 
apologies, David Taylor absent apologies, proxy vote to Brian Winterfeldt. <br 
/>
  <u>Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)</u>:          Debra Hughes, Mary 
Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake,      Rosemary Sinclair, absent, 
apologies -  proxy vote to Debbie Hughes. <br />
  <u>Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA):</u> Olga Cavalli</p>
<p><b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><strong>/Observers </strong><br />
  Alan Greenberg &ndash; ALAC Liaison <br />
  Han Chuan Lee &ndash; ccNSO Observer - absent</p>
<p><strong>ICANN Staff</strong><br>
  Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor<br>
  Julie Hedlund - Policy Director<br>
  Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director<br>
  Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor <br>
  Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director<br>
Alexander Kulik - System Administrator <br>
  David Closson - Director of IT Operations<br>
  David Prangnell - Systems Engineer  <br>
Glen de Saint G&eacute;ry - GNSO Secretariat</p>
<p>  For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110519-en.mp3";>MP3 
Recording</a>        
    
    
  </li>
</ul>
<p><strong><u>Item 1: Administrative Items</u></strong></p>
<p><strong>1.1 Roll call of Council members and update of <strong>Statements of 
Interest</strong></strong></p>
<p>Updated statement of interest received from <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/drake-soi-05may11-en.htm";>Bill 
Drake</a> and <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/berard-soi-current-en.htm";>John 
Berard</a></p>
<p><strong>1 2 Review/amend  the </strong><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm";>agenda</a></p>
<p><strong>  1.3.The GNSO Council </strong><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11235.html";>28 
April  minutes</a> will be approved on  20 May 2011.</p>
<p><u><strong>Item 2: Pending Projects &ndash; GNSO Constituency 
reconfirmations and review of Stakeholder Group (SG) charters </strong></u></p>
<p>Rob Hoggarth provided Council with an update noted that it was for the 
Council to decide whether the item should remain on the GNSO's <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf";>Pending 
Projects.<br>
 list</a>.  The GNSO Constituency reconfirmations and review of Stakeholder 
Group (SG) charters is one of the progeny of the GNSO improvements efforts that 
is still outstanding but nearing completion.</p>
<p>In July 2009 the ICANN Board approved four stakeholder group charters, two 
on the Contract Party House side for the Registrar and Registry stakeholder 
groups and two on the Non-contract Party House side for the Commercial 
stakeholder group (CSG) and the Non-commercial stakeholder group (NCSG). The 
difference being, that the CSG and NCSG charters were approved as 
temporary/transitional charters and the ICANN Board requested the two 
communities to establish permanent charters. The CSG charter was ratified, 
submitted for public comment and is currently ready for Board approval. The 
NCSG charter has been ratified and is currently open for community review and 
comments through June 5, 2011.</p>
<p>A Board resolution regarding the charters is possible at the meeting in 
Singapore in June 2011. </p>
<p>The original Board timetable in July 2009 was to resolve stakeholder group 
charters, reconfirm constituency charters and restructure the GNSO Council. 
However, the Board adopted a different timetable and approved stakeholder group 
charters in July 2009 and the new GNSO Council was seated in October 2009, 
while constituency reconfirmations were deferred.<br>
  The Structural Improvements Committee changed leadership after the Annual 
General Meeting in 2009 and looked at different aspects of the GNSO 
improvements. Another aspect of the GNSO improvements effort was to encourage 
new constituencies. Procedures were developed and five different communities 
have formally requested Board approval. The Structural Improvements Committee 
is looking to develop objective criteria for reviewing and analyzing new 
constituencies before reconfirming the existing constituencies.</p>
<p>In parallel with the new GNSO Council structure, new GNSO procedures have 
been developed by work teams and the new standing committee on improvement 
implementation will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective 
functioning of recommendations provided by these work teams. <br>
  This work has required constituencies and stakeholder groups to review their 
procedures, make modifications and update charters even though the timetable 
for reconfirming constituencies is still not clearly determined.</p>
<p>There are currently two new constituency proposals pending; the Consumers 
Constituency, and the Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency.</p>
<p>  The Board, within the new constituency recognition process has been 
looking at new objective criteria as part of the process for the review and 
evaluation of all stakeholder groups and constituencies charters.</p>
<p>The Structural Improvements Committee has indicated that the next GNSO 
Review should develop objective criteria that can be used by the independent 
reviewers, and members of the ICANN community to evaluate the structure and 
operations of the stakeholder groups and constituencies in the GNSO.</p>
<p>From a practical standpoint there is little impact on the existence of, or 
the continuing operations of current constituencies.</p>
<p><strong>Questions and discussion highlighted:</strong><br>
  - In the development of objective criteria for constituency review there will 
be an opportunity for the community to review and comment on the existing 
charters prior to the Board making any reconfirmation decision. <br>
  - There are two schools of thought on the timing of reviews, one is that 
there is a time table and the other is that another review cycle should not be 
started until the previous one is finished.<br>
  - The NCSG charter has taken a long time to develop because the NCSG 
leadership and the Structural Improvements Committee have been challenged in 
designing a charter that accommodates potential new constituencies.</p>
<p>It was concluded that this is no longer an issue for the Council, and 
councillors are encouraged to review the Pending Projects list.</p>
<p><u><strong>Item 3: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) 
</strong></u></p>
<p><strong>Jonathan Robinson</strong>, on behalf of the Registries stakeholder 
group, requested that the <a 
href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011";>motion</a>
 be deferred to the next Council meeting on 9 June 2011. </p>
<p>The Registry stakeholder group has received the responses to their questions 
from the JAS working group, but the narrow timeframe did not allow for adequate 
deliberation among the members. Councilors are encouraged to study the report, 
the group has done significant work and there are real proposals and algorithms 
in the content of the report. The Council is urged to move forward on the issue 
so that the proposals can be incorporated in a timely manner into the New gTLD 
Applicant Guide book. Councillors are encouraged to discuss the various aspects 
of the report on the Council mailing list.</p>
<p>Considerable discussion   has appeared on the Council mailing list about two 
versions of a proposed letter to be sent to the ICANN Board regarding the JAS 
Issues and Recommendations Draft Second Milestone Report. The Council is split 
on the actual wording, but there is an overwhelming majority, (one person 
against) in favour of sending a message to the Board.<br>
  Highlights of the discussion </p>
<ul>
  <li>The Council needs to send a factual message to the ICANN Board</li>
  <li>Much time has been spent on the topic and it would not be appropriate to 
drop the topic and do nothing</li>
  <li>St&eacute;phane van Gelder in his role of GNSO Council chair should send 
the message to the Board</li>
  <li>The Board should be informed that the Council tabled the JAS motion and 
that it has been moved to the next Council meeting on 9 June 2011. </li>
</ul>
<p><u><strong>Item 4: Registration Abuse (RAP) outstanding 
recommendations</strong></u></p>
<p><strong>  Marika Konings</strong> gave a brief overview of the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf";>
 Registration Abuse (RAP) outstanding recommendations</a>.<br>
There are four categories of recommendations:</p>
<p>  1. Those recommendations that the Council has acted upon such as the 
request for the UDRP Issue Report (Cybersquatting Recommendation #1) and the 
Best Practices discussion paper to help registrars and registries address the 
malicious use of domain names (Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation 
#1). The discussion paper is being prepared by the staff and a preliminary 
version is expected to be published in time for the ICANN meeting in Singapore. 
In addition to a public comment forum, a workshop is being planned in Singapore 
to solicit community input prior to finalizing the Best Practices discussion 
paper for submission to the Council.</p>
<p>2. Those recommendations that the Council has started acting on by 
requesting input from ICANN Compliance Staff (Whois Access Recommendation #2 
and Fake Renewal Notices Recommendation #1). The feedback received was 
discussed in San Francisco with the compliance staff. The Council has not 
considered or decided what, if any, next steps need to be taken with regard to 
these two recommendations on the basis of the feedback provided.</p>
<p>3. A group of recommendations that the Council has not considered at all, 
some of which did not receive the consensus of the Registration Abuse Policies 
working group.</p>
<p>4 One recommendation where the Registration Abuse Policies working group 
recommends that no further action is required (Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or 
Offensive Domain Names &shy; Recommendation #1) and presumably no further 
Council action is needed.</p>
<p>It was noted that during the weekend GNSO working session, Councillors might 
want to discuss the remaining items in the report and decide what do with areas 
that did not have full or unanimous consensus but only rough consensus as these 
are on the pending projects list and at some point Council needs to consider 
the next steps in relation to these issues.</p>
<p><u><strong>Item 5: Whois Update </strong></u></p>
<p><strong>  Liz Gasster </strong>provided the Council with a brief update on 
the four Whois studies.<br>
  1.<br>
  a. The Carnegie Mellon University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA, has currently begun 
work on the WHOIS Misuse Study.<br>
  b. On <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104";>28 April 2011 the 
Council </a>approved two more studies, the WHOIS Proxy and Privacy 
&quot;Abuse&quot; Study and the pre-study survey on the WHOIS Proxy and Privacy 
&quot;Relay and Reveal&quot; . The contracts and the statements of work are 
being finalised and when this is completed the work will begin on these 
studies.<br>
c. The WHOIS Registrant Identification Study's Terms of Reference are being 
revised, by a volunteer group, along the lines of a non-hypothesis based data 
gathering study. Councillors are encouraged to review the revised statement of 
work with their constituencies and Stakeholder Groups when it becomes 
available. It is anticipated that the study will be ready for the Council to 
vote on at its meeting in June 2011. </p>
<p>2. The International Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) has produced 
an<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ird/ird-wg-final-report-15nov10-en.pdf.";> 
interim repor</a>t proposing four models. Comments received on the interim 
report are being reviewed and a draft final report is being developed. The 
internationalization of contact data is also a relevant issue for the Whois 
Service Requirements.</p>
<p>3. The Whois Service Requirements Report<br>
  During the Council meeting on 28 April, 2011, 
(http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-28apr11-en.htm) Avri Doria 
participated as a guest and discussed some possible next steps that she and 
Chuck Gomes have suggested for the Whois service requirements report, namely 
forming a drafting team to develop a survey to estimate the level of agreement 
that the conclusions and assumptions in the report actually have in the broader 
community.</p>
<p>Resources for the drafting team will depend on what the drafting team 
proposes and over what period of time. An estimate of staff time is four or 
five hours for every hour that the drafting team actually works or meets.</p>
<p>Council agreed that a call for expertise for a drafting team to Develop a 
Whois Service Requirements Survey should be launched and that the chair of the 
IRD WG should be invited to join the group. the announcement should specify the 
skills and expertise needed and the participants do not necessarily have to be 
Councillors.</p>
<p><u><strong>Item 6: Community Working Groups CWG </strong></u></p>
<p>  Jeff Neuman referred to the  <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-cwg-principles-19may11-en.pdf";>high 
level draft principles for cross SO/AC working groups</a> and stated the need 
to formalise a possible Council position on community working groups (CWGs).and 
noted that a group had been formed and a<a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/";> mailing list </a>created for 
discussions on this topic. <br>
  Jonathan Robinson volunteered to stimulate discussions in the group with the 
aim of providing a set of draft principles and procedures which can be 
circulated to the other Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees for 
comments in the hope of reaching some commonalities across the different 
groups. <br>
It was noted that there are a number of other topics such as the new gTLDs 
needing attention at this time and silence should not be taken as disinterest 
in the group's work.</p>
<p class="style3"><u>Item 7. Global Outreach Recommendations</u></p>
<p>Council instructed staff to proceed with the Global Outreach recommendation 
and form a Charter Drafting Team for the Outreach Task Force described in the 
recommendations as follows:</p>
<p>&quot;The GNSO Council should manage the development of the OTF [Outreach 
Task Force] through the creation of a Drafting Team to develop the OTF's 
[Outreach Task Force] Charter. The Charter shall include procedures for member 
recruitment, application, selection, terms and term limits. The Charter should 
also set goals for the completion of the membership selection process, 
establishment of a meeting schedule, and participation guidelines. The Charter 
should establish an initial term for the OTF [Outreach Task Force] of two 
years. After this period a review should be conducted to review the success of 
the OTF's [Outreach Task Force] initiatives and, if deemed successful, the 
OTF's charter could be extended annually.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Action Item:</strong><br>
  Extend an invitation to all members of the GNSO Community who may be 
interested in participating in the drafting team.<br>
  <strong>Olga Cavalli</strong> volunteered to lead the discussions in the 
drafting team.</p>
<p><strong><u>Item 8. UDRP </u></strong></p>
<p><strong>Jeff Neuman</strong> congratulated <strong>Margie Milam</strong> on 
the success of the UDRP webinar on 10 May 2011. </p>
<p><strong>Margie Milam</strong> reported that all the UDRP providers who were 
approached have responded and the responses are being collated together with 
the content of the webinar as input for the Issues Report which is on schedule 
for the end of May 2011.<br>
  A different approach is being followed for the Issues Report; namely a 
preliminary Issues report will be produced followed by a 45 day public comment 
period after which the Final Issues Report will be published toward the end of 
July 2011. <br>
  The UDRP drafting team is currently identifying speakers for the UDRP 
two-hour session in Singapore on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 from 8:30 to 10:30.</p>
<p><strong><u>Item 9: Proposed GNSO Council teleconference schedule change 
</u></strong></p>
<p><strong>  Jeff Neuman</strong> noted that  a change in schedule for GNSO 
Council meetings from a three to four week cycle will only be an issue in 
September 2011 and up until that date the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>current schedule</a> will be 
followed.</p>
<p><u><strong>Item 10. Any Other Business </strong></u></p>
<p>  The Secretariat reported that the GAC/GNSO meeting had been moved from 
Sunday afternoon to Wednesday, 22 June from 11:00 to 12:30 due to a Board GAC 
meeting which will take place on Sunday afternoon and will most probably be an 
open meeting. </p>
<p>Councillors are encouraged to reflect on GNSO -selected Board, ccNSO and GAC 
topics and send these to the mailing list.<strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Jeff Neuman adjourned the GNSO  Council  meeting  and thanked 
everyone for their participation. </strong><strong><br />
The meeti</strong><strong>ng was adjourned at  16:48 UTC.</strong></p>
<p><strong>  Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 9 June 2011  
 at  20:00   UTC.</strong><br />
See: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>Calendar</a></p>