The meeting started at 20:03 UTC..
List of attendees:
NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Andrei Kolesnikov
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Zahid Jamil, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor.
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Rosemary Sinclair,Mary Wong absent, apologies - proxy vote to Rafik Dammak
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli - absent, apologies - proxy vote to Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer - absent
ICANN Staff
David Olive - VP Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Alexander Kulik - System Administrator
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison - apologies
For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:
Item 1: Administrative Items
1.1 Roll call of Council members and update of Statements of Interest
No Statements of Interest updates
1 2 Review/amend the agenda
Request to start with Items 3, 4, and 5
1.3.The GNSO Council 19 May minutes were approved on 6 June 2011.
Item 3: Whois Registrant Identification Study
In 2009, the Council asked for research on the possibility of carrying out a set of selected studies on Whois. One of the studies suggested by ICANN Staff is the"registrant identification" study.
Jonathan Robinson, seconded by John Berard proposed a motion on the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study May 2011:
Whereas:
In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
On 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for a Whois "Registrant Identification" Study, finding that the study would cost approximately $150,000 (USD) and take approximately one year to complete (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).
This exploratory study would examine Whois data for a representative sample of gTLD domain names to classify the types of entities that register domains, including natural persons, various kinds of legal persons and Privacy and Proxy service providers.
On 28 April 2011 the Council deferred consideration of the Whois Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requested that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.
On 20 May 2011 a volunteer Whois studies group submitted to the GNSO Council revised Whois Registrant Identification Study Terms of Reference
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-id-studies-20may11-en.pdf
supporting Rationale
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-registrant-id-study-rationale-20may11-en.pdf
and Summary of Changes
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/summary-changes-whois-registrant-id-study-tor-20may11-en.pdf
Resolved;
The Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the Whois Registrant Identification Study as set forth in the revised Terms of Reference http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-id-studies-20may11-en.pdf
Further resolved, the Council asks staff to report back to the Council if the original estimate for the study of $150,000 USD is exceeded by greater than 20%.
Further resolved, in recognition of the substantial amount of coordination needed to direct the research, that staff be given the discretion to manage this study serially or in parallel with the other Whois studies, with a goal of expediting completion of all of the studies as efficiently as possible.
The motion carried.
Comments noted for the record:
IPC will support the motion but expressed concern about phrasing and definitions being adopted and replicated in the ICANN community.
Registrars do not support the motion and are of the view that the studies are not necessary and not likely to lead to consensus on the issues.
Analysis of voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
4 votes in favour: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao, Andrei Kolesnikov
3 votes against:Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis
Non Contracted Parties House:
9 votes in favour: Zahid Jamil, John Berard, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Jaime Wagner, Debbie Hughes, Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong.
4 votes against: Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Olga Cavalli.
Item 4: GNSO improvements, Policy Development Process Work Team
Jeff Neuman, seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed a motion to acknowledge the receipt of the Policy Development Process Work Team Final Report and initiate a Public Comment Period.
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);
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 PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN’s policy development needs;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may11-en.htm, on 31 May 2011 to the GNSO Council;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the PDP-WT Final Report as delivered by the PDP-WT and directs ICANN Staff to commence a thirty (30) day public comment period on this Final Report.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the PDP-WT Final Report as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the new Policy Development Process be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the new PDP by the ICANN Board, in order to serve as a primer to the new Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and PDP Manual for potential PDP WG members
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Item 5: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS)
Rafik Dammak, seconded by Andrei Kolesnikov proposed a motion regarding the JAS milestone report that was amended by Jeff Neuman.
Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
The Working Group released it Milestone Report posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the original charter and requested an update to the Working Groups charter, and
The GNSO and ALAC, separately, renewed the Working Groups charter with additional work item in February 2011, and
The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and
The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the work as defined in its extended charter and published a second milestone report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 8 May 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled JAS Milestone Report. and
The GNSO Council does not wish to delay the start of the new gTLD application process, and
The GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions,
RESOLVED:
The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and
The GNSO Council requests that the report be put out for community review as soon as possible, and
The JAS Working Group continues working to deal with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community,
That the JAS Working group publish their final report after this review process.
Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Item 2: Pending Projects – Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation
Rosemary Sinclair provided the Council with a brief update regarding the workshop being planned in Singapore.
The objective is to discuss, in workshop format, the work required by ICANN to support the Affirmation of Commitments, as set forth in 3.c “to promote competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace” and more specifically,in 9.3 after the first year “to examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion if gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.”
The proposed topics for discussion include:
• “ICANN context” definitions of – competition; consumer trust; consumer choice
• Possible Metrics for– competition; consumer trust; consumer choice
• Measurement Tools – currently available; need to be developed.
The Commercial Stakeholder Group has provided input and the ALAC and the ccNSO through auDA have offered to present at the workshop. Speakers are being sought from the different Stakeholder Groups, the Board, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) which will provide a view of what is underway/possible from technical perspective, and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC). Any offers or suggestions for speakers are welcome and should be communicated to Rosemary.
The next steps are to be developed by the Workshop participants with the input gathered at the workshop.
Action Item:
- Create an email list to facilitate the work of the group.
Stéphane van Gelder drew the Council's attention to a new item on the agenda which summarises changes to the Pending Projects List since the last Council meeting and asked for feedback on this new item.
• GNSO activities: 8 (9 – PPSC WG WT removed).
• Other activities: 9 (10 – Work Prioritization removed).
• Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (8 – Rec6 removed).
• Outstanding recommendations: 1 (1).
• Drafting Team on Cross-Community Working Groups (added).
• Outreach Task Force (added).
• Drafting Team to develop survey on Whois Service Requirements (added)
Item 6: Community Working Groups
Jonathan Robinson stated that the objective of the drafting team is to compile a document that recognises the strongly useful and the potentially effective nature of community working groups, balanced with a concern that there is no clear structure or set of processes scoping out how these might work and operate in a commonly understood way in the existing ICANN structure. The drafting team is fleshing out the issues and questions and with the valuable input the Staff has provided on the scope and practices for community working groups, is on target to produce a discussion paper for the Singapore meetings.
Councillors are encouraged to join the drafting team or provide input directly to Jonathan.
Discussion highlights:
- A provision is needed in the community working group charter that the report generated from the group cannot be sent to the Board by any participating Advisory Committees/Supporting Organisations (AC/SO) unless and until it has been acted upon by all participating AC/SOs.
- The ICANN Bylaws do not speak to cross community working groups. Issues can be discussed and recommendations made, but policy should be developed along the Policy Development Process as set out in the Bylaws. Not every matter is a policy development matter.
- Try and build a consensus in the GNSO that can be shared across the board with other AC/SOs..
- It was pointed out that as far as participation is concerned since the Board Governance Committee report, the GNSO has opened its working groups to all members of the community both inside and outside of the GNSO while the difference with cross community working group is that the group has cross community chartering organisations.
- Joint working should be acting jointly and follow basic principles
- Different chartering organisations approaching issues from different views may stimulate the work product.
- Need to find a way to participate in discussions and interim conversations before reaching conclusions.
- One group should never be held hostage by another, there should be provision to terminate the work jointly and for a group to continue the work alone with clarification to the Board of whose position is represented.
Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group
Marika Konings provided council with a brief overview of the Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process and noted that there would be a presentation and discussion of the recommendations to the Council and GNSO community on Sunday, the 19th of June in Singapore from 14:00 to 14:45 local time.
A motion has been presented, for discussion only.
Tim Ruiz expressed concern about recommendations 8 and 9.
Item 8: Singapore meeting preparation
Stéphane van Gelder noted that the GNSO is an important part of the work that goes on at an ICANN meeting and the standard schedule that that has been established is there to maximize the efficiency of the work. He expressed concern that more and more other meetings were conflicting with the GNSO making it very difficult to plan and proposed this as topic of discussion during the GNSO working sessions.
The GAC GNSO session is likely to be cancelled. The Board has confirmed a social event with the GNSO Council on Saturday after the Board GNSO meeting.
The GNSO informal dinner, being arranged by Mary Wong, is likely to be held on Saturday night, 18 June 2011, after the Board/GNSO council event.
Item 9. Any Other Business
No further discussion on key votes or topics where briefing papers would be desired.
Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 22:50 UTC.
Next GNSO Council Public meeting will be in the Raffles Ballroom area, PADANG, in Singapore on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 at 14:00 local time (06:00 UTC).
See: Calendar