ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Council resolutions 17 0ctober 2012

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 17 0ctober 2012
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:56:25 -0700
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac2tthEUIe5pdPavSwSWSZfIWWbEnA==
  • Thread-topic: GNSO Council resolutions 17 0ctober 2012


Dear All,

On 17 October  2012 the GNSO Council unanimously passed the following

Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in
its Final Report the ?need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to
initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports?;

Whereas the RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that ?the GNSO
and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform
reporting processes?. 

Whereas the GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN
Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track
violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG
Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any
improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage;

 Whereas the ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO
Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting
on 12 April 2012 (see

Whereas the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the
feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and Mikey O?Connor
volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation
could be implemented;

Whereas Mikey O?Connor submitted his proposed approach to the GNSO Council
on 3 September 2012 (see

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its
meeting on 13 September 2012.


The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity
in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports.
This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in:

*       The RAPWG Final Report, section 9.1 (
*       The ICANN Compliance Department Report (
*       Thought paper from Mikey O?Connor (

In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN
Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how
this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in
relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection
of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether
ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international
organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.

Whereas ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection
of International Organization Names in New gTLDs in a
public comment forum that opened on 4 June, 2012, and closed on 26 July

Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report

Whereas the Final Issue Report on the Protection of International
Organization Names in New gTLDS was published on 1 October 2012

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed
with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues
discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the
topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within
the scope of the GNSO.


Resolved, the GNSO hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate (ii) whether there is
a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for
the names of the following types of international organizations:
International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and  international
non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties
and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the
Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic
Committee (IOC), and (ii) if so, to develop policy recommendations for such

Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests
that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the
requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

Motion to approve the Charter for the ?thick? Whois PDP Working Group

Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development
Process (PDP) on ?thick? Whois and decided to create a PDP Working Group for
the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its
members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting


The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints Volker Greimann as the
GNSO Council Liaison to the ?thick? Whois PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of ?thick? Whois PDP Working
Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion.
Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed
by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter ?

Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development
Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter

1.      "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this
function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the
country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD
space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review
of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an
aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
2.      Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s
should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a
Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact,
but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to
the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other
registration information may have changed.
3.      Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that
registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the
Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations
in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.


RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors
the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed
in the IRTP Part C Final Report


RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C Implementation
Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details
for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The
Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed
implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is
expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant
implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy. If the IRTP
Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to
the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C
Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its
consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN
Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a
call for volunteers for an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the
members of the IRTP Part C Working Group.

RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D,
which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original
transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C
WG, namely:

*       Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers
should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information
available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute
*       Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP
(Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple
transfers have occurred;
*       Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and
implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on
registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
*       Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for
registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options
available to registrant;
*       Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or
if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added
into the policy;

Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has
eliminated the need of FOAs.

GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the
Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the
Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (SSAC) published
<http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf> SAC037 "Display and
usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).

WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6> resolution
requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an
Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of
individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to
study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications
to deal with the internationalization of registration data.

WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft
Final Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a
ficationDate=1333659631000> Final Report that addressed issues raised in the
forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a
onDate=1337981336198> revised Final Report that addressed changes requested
by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a
2> motion to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board.

WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a
-redline-06aug12-en.pdf> joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to
the ICANN Board to deliver the Final Report.

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that
while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter,
the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information
of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which
involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and

RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to
prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact
information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is
desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or
transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should
bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and
3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those

RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO
Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the
estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the
GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD
applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its
operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates,
the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical
communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate
separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,




Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>