GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes
| 6 September 2007
Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 18 Council Members GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Observers Miriam Sapiro - consultant Avri Doria chaired this meeting Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest Item 2: Discussion of New gTLDs 2.1 - review reports Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains 2.2 - review public comments The issues fell into three categories. 2. The second category of comments were general ones related to the process and urging ICANN to move towards having a robust and objective application process available as quickly as possible. 3. The third category's comment related to specific elements which included discussions of IDN issues, Recommendation 19 with respect to the use of Accredited ICANN Registrars and protecting the rights of others. The arbitrary cutoff date was midday, CEST on 30 August, 2007 for producing the synopsis of comments for Council members. Comments that were received after that time (but before the posted deadline) would be included in the Board report. The agreed process was to discuss the principles or recommendations where there were issues or comments. Principle A Principle B Mike Rodenbaugh asked for clarification of the statement "the reasons for introducing new TLDs include their demand from potential applicants" Avri Doria commented that in the absence of statistics or metric of demand, anecdotally demand was visible. Chuck Gomes called attention to the wording of the principle, Mawaki Chango added that during the ICANN public forum in San Juan forum, many participants called for the completion of the process so that they could apply for TLDs. Principle D Principle E Principle F Principle G Recommendation 1 No comments Recommendation 2 Mawaki Chango expressed concern about moving away from the terms 'visually confusing' or 'visually similar' to 'confusingly similar'. I therefore urge the GNSO Council to make clear in this new gTLD report the limits intended to its use of the concept “confusingly similar” in this particular context, and later on the ICANN Board to seek further advice, as necessary, from legal experts and authorities. The main objective for such consultation should be to establish legally and internationally valid mechanisms by which this concept may be operationalized (and the policy enforced) in the fair spirit – not just the letter – of the law as recognized by all parties involved. Staff commented that there was work in progress, experts were being consulted, and the goal would be to have confusingly similar disputes resolved by an algorithm that would be posted ahead of time. It was agreed that the language should be changed from "implementation plan" to "work in progress". Recommendation 3 No Comments Avri Doria commented that there were public comments on this recommendation. Recommendation 5 No comments Recommendation 6 Robin Gross reiterated NCUC’s continued objection to Recommendation 6 as stated in the Statement of DISSENT on Recommendation #6 Robin Gross further stated: Chuck Gomes agreed that there were recommendations that not everyone could agree on, but in the general approach of trying to reach a rough consensus that a strong majority of the group could support, considerable time and a sincere and effective effort was made on recommendation 6 to try and address the concerns of competing constituencies and interests. The NCUC concerns were addressed in a reasonable manner considering that there was no way the group could reach a position that perfectly met everyone’s interest. Avri Doria commented personally for the record: Recommendation 7 Recommendation 8 Recommendation 9 Recommendation 11 Recommendation 15 Recommendation 17 There were comments on the public comment list pertaining to this recommendation. The Chinese registrar in the public comments suggested that it was not a good idea to use ICANN accredited registrars only: Tony Harris commented that the Chinese registrar Avri Doria commented that an implication of recommendation 19 could be a possible review of the registrar accreditation processes, costs and eventual barriers to accrediting registrars in non-developed areas. Chuck Gomes expressed empathy for the Chinese registrar and others in similar situations and supported a review of accreditation requirements to assure that they adequately meet the needs of regions sparsely populated by registrars. Kurt Pritz commented that ICANN had undertaken coaching new registries to acquaint them with ways in which they could satisfy the registrar requirements. ICANN, in the past couple of years has held outreach meetings, the most recent being in Hong Kong with a large number of registrar representatives from Asian and other countries. Adrian Kinderis repeated former comments that the recommendation tried to be all-encompassing and combined two distinct channels Avri Doria commented that while there was discussion at the committee level after Adrian joined the committee, no changes were made to the recommendation. Chuck Gomes confirmed that registrars had the option of offering which ever TLDs they wished and that this was one of the rationales behind the registry’s concern, because some TLDs business models were too weak for registrars to support, thus registries were at the mercy of the registrars who justifiably might not be interested in providing any support at all for the new TLD. Adrian Kinderis acknowledged that the Registry Constituency’s support of Recommendation 19 was as a part of the “total package” as reflected in Chuck Gomes’ comments on the call and not potentially of Recommendation 19 in isolation. The Registrars Constituency, having helped author the recommendation completely support Recommendation 19 in its entirety. Adrian Kinderis also made comment that he believed that no other constituencies or groups within the gNSO had really thought about the ramifications of Recommendation 19 and as such it is only the Registry Constituency and the Registrar Constituency that could comment with any authority. In this circumstance, because of the lack of understanding, Adrian Kinderis also pointed out that the Registry Constituency was “on a hiding to nothing” if it spoke against the recommendation which was an unfortunate position. Avri Doria confirmed that the current discussion was noted in the discussion in the report under recommendation 19 and that there was ongoing dialogue between registrars and registries where new agreements may come on line that would change the condition for the recommendation. Kurt Pritz commented that the accredited registrars operated through a contract with ICANN and that provided certain protection for registrants. Current debate is taking place that is strengthening protection for registrants through making changes to the RAA and making registrars more responsive to the needs of the user such as addressing small registries and amending their agreement to allow for graduated sanctions. Replacing this with another model would require deeper discussion and reflection. Recommendation 20 Mawaki Chango commented given the definition provided for 'community' and for 'explicit and implicit target' Council needed to define what was a 'TLD that was targeted to a community' in order to help the community understand what TLD would not be included in the category of TLD applications that explicitly or implicitly targeted a community. Avri Doria commented that there was no requirement that a TLD be explicitly targeted towards the community and there may well be TLD applications that do not specifically target a community. Mike Rodenbaugh asked what would happen in the event that a community was targeted in the original application, then they changed their business model, as has been the case in several of the country code TLDs to date. Tony Harris commented and questioned that with sponsored TLD applications, there could be requirements which would have to be respected. Alan Greenberg reiterated previous comments, giving dot China as an example, whether it would refer to the country or pottery and believed the answer was, that the contractual agreements included the applications as part of its documentation, and they are held largely to that, although business model changes could be accommodated. Adrian Kinderis commented on the definition of gTLD and that the premise of the entire document fell under the banner of gTLD. Chuck Gomes commented that historically, the definition of the gTLD, included both sTLDs and unsponsored TLDs. In fact in the registry constituency, has divided its members into those two categories. In the current round a specific sTLD category is not being suggested and old sTLD are still considered gTLD. A gTLD is not a ccTLD in the broadest definition of the term. There is no requirement to be sponsored in this round. Adrian Kinderis confirmed that a supported or non supported community could equally apply for a gTLD. Mike Rodenbaugh expressed the concern and asked what would be the role of ICANN in the case of an applicant with a sponsored community, applying to ICANN for a gTLD, ICANN granting the application, and then the applicant essentially changing its business model completely. For example, if dot Cat became a TLD for actual feline cat owners, instead of Catalan speakers. Kurt Pritz commented that the sponsoring community was free to arrive at an agreement with the registry sponsor or the registry itself. And in order to support that registry and have an agreement between them, that would be a form of guarantee for them that the registry operations would continue to support the original intent of the sponsored community represented TLD. Alan Greenberg commented that Kurt's comment was different from what came out in the committee discussions, that it was acknowledged at that point that ICANN was not going to police but could, since the original application was part of the contract, react to complaints, which was very different from policing and very different from what Kurt had said that that a separate contract would be required between the two bodies if the sponsored organization wants to try to enforce anything. Robin Gross commented it was important to leave room for innovation In the domain name space. For a domain name to be registered for one purpose, and then used for an entirely different purpose was perfectly lawful as long as there was not any kind of broader misrepresentation for which there would be legal recourse anyway. Avri Doria called for comments on the Implementation Guidelines to be found in the Summary - Principles, Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines Avri Doria clarified that input from the discussion, with regard to the guidelines, could be added in the report but wording would not be changed. Liz Williams confirmed that a full analysis of the public comments including Mawaki Chango's comment on paragraph H, line T in the Implementation Guidelines on page 22 of the Report Part A and all the other comments would be included for the board report. Mike Rodenbaugh requested clarification on paragraph I It was clarified that the guideline referred to a timeframe. Item 3: Vote on New gTLDs Vote in favour: Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing Total number of votes in favour: 4 Vote against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Sophia Bekele (each holding one vote), Total number of votes against: 17 Abstention: Tom Keller (holding 2 votes) Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Ross Rader. The motion did not carry. Mawaki Chango proposed a motion of separating Recommendation 2 from the rest of the recommendations. There was no second for the motion, thus there was no vote. The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains Avri Doria called for a roll call vote. Vote in favour: Vote against: Abstain: Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Ross Rader. (4 votes) The motion carried with a supermajority vote as defined in the ICANN bylaws, section 16 Councilor's comments on the voting: We feel like this forum, perhaps, was’t the best forum to deal with those concerns about abusive registrations since they need to deal with existing TLDs as well. We’re hopeful that our participation and our acceptance of these recommendations will result in Council and ICANN taking seriously our issues about abusive registrations in existing and new TLDs, and in the interest of consensus, we will support these recommendations." Kristina Rosette: Votes against Robin Gross: Abstentions Norbert Klein: Decision 1: A group made up of Avri Doria, Kristina Rosette, Adrian Kinderis, Chuck Gomes, Denise Michel, Craig Schwartz and Kurt Pritz is planning the workshop on New gTLDs in Los Angeles on Monday 29 October 2007. Constituency feedback will be requested on the draft schedule. With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections: Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies. Decision 2: With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections: Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies. 5.2 Motion to complete the WHOIS work Whereas the Whois Task force report has not yet been voted on as required by the by-laws, Whereas the Whois WG was created to collect further information as defined in its terms of reference, 1. Constituency Statements. (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (end Quote) 3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments into the Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - November 6, 2007 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public Meeting 7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007 Ross Rader, seconded by Tom Keller proposed the following amendment to the motion: Avri Doria explained that the three days would come out of the additional second public comment period. The Task force report had already received a public comment period. The amendment carried by Voice vote that "November 6, 2007" be replaced with "October 31, 2007" Therefore: Further, the GNSO council: a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group. b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2, d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far. e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on “Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records” outlined in September, 2006. f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows: 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process. 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007. "1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy."
3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007. 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007. 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting. 7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting. Therefore: The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007 Further, the GNSO council: a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group. b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2, d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far. e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on “Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records” outlined in September, 2006. f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows: 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process. 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007. "1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy."
3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007. 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007. 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting. 7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting. Item 6 Avri Doria, on behalf of the GNSO Council proposed a vote of thanks to Liz Williams. Avri noted that it was the last meeting where Liz Williams would be part of the GNSO Council team and expressed appreciation personally and on behalf of the Council for all Liz's excellent work. The motion passed with acclamation. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 16:36 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 20 September 2007 at 14:00 UTC.
|