Note: The latest status update date is provided for each item.
Special Trademark Issues (STI) update - David Maher - 23 December 2009
The Special Trademark Issues (STI) review team has completed the first stage of its work, and, through a message from Margie Milam, has sent draft recommendations from the team to the GNSO Council.
Several minority positions have been or will be filed with the draft, including statements from the Business Constituency, from the ALAC, from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and a joint statement from the NCSG and the RySG.
In general:
- "There is a consensus 1 among the members of STI that though this was not a rights protection mechanism, the creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse (TC) to be operated by an arms-length contractor, would be a beneficial implementation tool for rights protection mechanisms, such as sunrise or TM Claims, and therefore should be included in the New GTLD program, except as indicated below. The STI recognizes that a Trademark Clearinghouse could serve as a convenient location to store registered trademark information in a centralized location on behalf of trademark holders, and could create efficiencies for trademark owners, as well as registries which will benefit from having one centralized database from which to interact to obtain the necessary trademark information to support its pre-launch rights protections mechanisms."
1 This is not a unanimous consensus as a result of the BC Minority Position referenced in Annex 4. - "There is consensus among the members of STI that creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure would be a beneficial rights protection mechanism for inclusion in the New GTLD program. The STI recognizes that the URS could provide trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited process in instances of clear cut instances of trademark abuse, provided that the procedure includes appropriate safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names."
- The agenda of the STI team was set by the GNSO Motion (20091028-3) and the letter from the Chair and CEO of ICANN to the Council dated 12 October 2009. The agenda called for development of consensus on the two subjects referred to above. This agenda excluded certain subjects raised by the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), namely, the Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) and the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). Accordingly, the STI team recommendations may not fully respond to issues raised in connection with these subjects.
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies Part B (IRTP B) - Michele Neylon - chair - Update remains the same - 21 December 2009
We have been "meeting" every 2 weeks
We are still working our way through the charter questions and some of the community feedback
We would hope to be able to have a clearer idea of our status and possible timelines etc., in late January / early February. To attempt to do so now would not be either sane or advisable
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies Part B (IRTP B) - Tim Ruiz - Working Group Liaison to GNSO Council - 5 January 2010
The IRTP Part B Working Group held an open Working Group meeting in Seoul at which it reviewed the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Their goal was to determine whether they could devise possible modifications in response to Question A in their charter, “whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed.” The Working Group also solicited public comment on the issues the group addresses. The comment period closed in October, and the group has reviewed the comments received (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/). The Working Group will now turn its attention to the Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements it has received.
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) - Michele Neylon - co-chair - Update remains the same - 21 December 2009
The group has been trying to deal with its charter questions and to that end Marika had been conducting a survey of some of the largest registrars to get a "feel" for how they handle domains post-expiry. The group has been discussing the results of the survey and also the input from the other stakeholder groups
Salient points to date would appear to be that a lot of the issues may be due to end users ignoring notifications etc.,
Some group members feel strongly that there are issues to be addressed, while others feel that the WG is in danger of going outside scope
In terms of times / dates - I'm not aware of any being discussed so far.
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) - Tim Ruiz - Working Group Liaison to GNSO Council - 5 January 2010
Following the ICANN meeting in Seoul, ICANN Staff continued to gather information for the registrar survey which is intended to help inform the deliberations of the Working Group. The survey reviews current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The final results have now been posted at
https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/ and were on the agenda to be discussed by the group on today's call. (5 January 2010)
Following the finalization of the registrar survey, the Working Group will need to review the results in further detail to determine how these may potentially influence its response to the charter questions.
JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Group - Edmon Chung - 17 December 2009 - no update
- ccNSO in the process of appointing co-chair
- Some discussions being started on mailing list
- Identified IDN TLD acceptance as a potential item of common interest
- kick off discussion between co-chairs and chairs of GNSO/ccNSO planned
International Registration Data (IRD) Working Group - Edmon Chung - co-chair - 17 December 2009 - no update
- Bi-weekly phone conference being established
- Co-chairs identified: Myself from GNSO, Jeremy Hitchcock from SSAC
- Continuing from staff initial study
- Context of other WHOIS studies along with IRD being considered (i.e. what should be done by this group versus other items)
- Schedule and scope of work to be laid out
Internationalized Domain Names Group (IDNG) - Edmon Chung - co-chair - 17 December 2009 - no update
- Conference calls conducted and planed
- Identified a potential item for council discussion: acceptance and process for application of a confusingly similar TLD string
- Will redraft potential special IDN gTLD track WG for consideration
Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group (WG) - Greg Aaron - chair - 21 December 2009
The RAPWG is still targeting February 12th for the publication of its Initial Report, in advance of the ICANN meeting in Nairobi. I hope to present the findings in the Initial Report to the GNSO Council at Nairobi. It will be the RAPWG’s Initial Report, and so any recommendations in it will be subject to revision after the public comment period etc. As staff begins the room scheduling process, please let me and Marika know what might be available especially on Monday or Tuesday. RAPWG will probably want to offer an open meeting at Nairobi in order to present the findings in the Initial Report to interested members of the community.
Geo Regions Working Group - Olga Cavalli - 23 December 2009
There will be a wide Survey to understanding the relevance and use of Regions in ICANN.
No teleconference has happened so far after the face to face meeting held in Seoul.
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Sub-team A (Registrant Rights Charter) - Beau Brendler coordinator - update remains the same 23 December 2009
RAA WG team A met December 14, its second telephonic meeting. In that meeting we agreed:
- That Michele Neylon of Blacknight, an Ireland-based, registrar, would co-chair the WG.
- That to proceed at best possible efficiency and speed, a plain English/plain language document "translation" would be needed of both the existing potential RAA language on consumer bill of rights provisions, and of the staff document compiled by Margie Milam. Margie agreed to expedite this process by, it is hoped, the first week of January.
- Concurrent to this process, the at-large community (and others interested) would compile an "aspirational" document (or "wish list") of possible additions to future versions of the RAA. We did this in an attempt to address concerns from some members of the at-large that RAA WG team A was simply engaging in a stenographic process, and concerns from other members of the community that an accurate document based on current RAA language needs to be produced immediately.
- I agreed to brief the at-large community at its Dec. 22 meeting to encourage members of the community to contribute to the aspirational list.
- As a group we agreed that we would, assuming we receive the plain english documents, re-convene on Jan. 4 with the goal to produce both the consumer rights document, and separately the aspirational list, by the first week of February.
As for a f2f in Nairobi, I think we should probably coordinate that with Steve Metalitz.
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) subteam B (identifying issues for possible RAA amendments) - Steve Metalitz coordinator - 24 December 2009
RAA subteam B met on December 14 and began discussion of a revised composite document of proposed amendment topics prepared by staff. It was decided that, for the benefit of the GNSO council as recipient of our report, we would try to allocate amendment topics into two tiers of higher or lower priority for consideration. This discussion will continue on the list and at our next meeting, scheduled for January 5.
ccNSO update - Olga Cavalli - 23 December 2009
I will participate in the next conference call to be held on January 5th. There may be news to share with GNSO after this meeting.
Travel drafting team - Olga Cavalli - 23 December 2009
As it has been already requested by Glen, names of constituencies and stakeholder groups representatives that will participate in the Kenia meeting and will be funded by ICANN must be informed to ICANN Staff as soon as possible.
GNSO Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team - Olga Cavalli - chair - 23 December 2009
The work team meets weekly in teleconferences
A methodology for GNSO projects prioritization is being developed and defined, with the assistance of Ken Bour and Liz Gasster from ICANN Staff.
A list of projects has been defined, each has a abbreviation for its identification.
A two dimension x y chart will be used.
WT is testing the methodology in two phases, one with individual ratings and the next will be done in small groups.
Operations Sreering Committee (OSC) - Chuck Gomes - OSC chair - 23 December 2009
No OSC activity has occurred since the 17 Dec Council meeting. The OSC is waiting for additional recommendations from the three OSC WTs. The next anticipated set of GNSO Improvement recommendations is expected from the Communications & Coordination WT regarding GNSO website improvements.
OSC Constituency & Stakeholder Group WT progress report - Olga Cavalli - chair - 23 Decemebr 2009
The toolkit recommendations has been approved by GNSO Council.
Other draft documents will be reviewed by the whole working team in special teleconference sessions with simultaneous updates in the wiki page.
Documents will be reviewed one by one.
Draft documents that will be reviewed are:
- Framework for participation in any ICANN Constituency that is objective, standardized, and clearly stated
- Creating and maintaining a database of all constituency members and others not formally a part of any constituency
- Recommendations for operating principles that are representative, open, transparent and democratic.
Meetings of the work team take place every two weeks.
OSC Community Coordination Communications Work Team - Mason Cole - chair - no update
The CCT produced a draft set of recommendations in late October and submitted the draft to the OSC for consideration and feedback. This week, the OSC provided substantial feedback on the draft. Staff is in the process of incorporating their comments and will provide the CCT with an updated draft document.
The recommendations have been separated into two categories: one dealing strictly with technology-related communications methods, the other addressing all other areas of GNSO communication considered by the CCT.
The CCT will likely reconvene in the very near future to discuss further revisions. At present, there is no available estimate for delivery of the final set of recommendations.
OSC GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) - Ray Fassett - chair - 23 December 2009
The next teleconference meeting of the GCOT will be January 6, 2010 at 17:00 UTC. The results of our last Work Team meeting, December 16, were as follows:
Action Items:
- Ken Bour will revise his draft document “GNSO Ops Procedures-COI & Proxy Voting-REVISED REDLINE (KBv1).doc” to include language to make material conflicts of interest broader than for financial or economic reasons. He also will follow up with ICANN Legal staff on their comments on the draft.
- The Work Team will consider the draft of the Statement of Interest/Declaration of Internet document with comments from ICANN Legal staff for discussion at the next meeting. (See attached document.)
Discussion Summary:
The Work Team continued discussion on abstentions and, in particular, the issue of when abstentions are allowed, what is a material conflict of interest, and when would an abstention warrant a change in the denominator in the case of a vote. The Work Team also discussed the issue of proxy voting and determined that it may be possible to include in its recommendations procedures for when proxy voting may be allowed. The discussion centered on the definition of a material conflict of interest and whether the examples in the draft document circulated by Ken Bour (see above) were too narrow as they only addressed economic or financial conflicts. Work Team members agreed that there could be other reasons for a material conflict of interest. Ray asked Ken to adjust the language in the draft document to broaden the definition and possibly include further examples. Ken agreed to try to provide a revised draft prior to the meeting on 30 December and also to follow up with ICANN Legal staff on their comments.
PPSC Policy Development Process work team (PDP-WT) - Jeff Neuman - chair
To be added
PPSC Working Group model work team (WGWT) - J. Scott Evans - chair - 24 December 2009
The WGWT is continuing to work to finalize a draft Charter Drafting Guidelines and Model Working Group Operating Manual. We have now consolidated these documents into one document and we are hoping to put this combined document out for public comment by the end of January. We have also been discussing several questions we received from the PDPWT on the role of the GNSO Council in dealing with Working Group outputs. We have had both online and telephonic discussions of these issues and hope to report back to the PDPWT by mid-January. Our goal is to have a final set of recommendations (that have been vetted through a public comment period) by the Nairobi meeting.
Constituency/Stakeholder Group Update Report For 23 November GNSO Council Meeting - Rob Hoggarth - Update remains the same - 21 December 2009
Renewed “Re-confirmation” Efforts For Existing GNSO Constituencies -
The Board adopted a concept of “re-confirming” the charters and operational mechanisms of each GNSO Constituency every three years (see - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm). The initial Constituency re-confirmation process was slated for earlier this year, but the process took a back seat as the Board focused its efforts on evaluation and approval of the new GNSO Stakeholder Group structures and approval of the processes and recommended Bylaws changes necessary for seating the new GNSO Council. Now that the Board has generally resolved those issues, it has set a deadline of March 2010 for formal re-submission of any revised re-confirmation proposals by the existing GNSO Constituencies and has directed the ICANN Staff to assist constituency leaders in developing those submissions (see - 30 October 2009 Board Meeting Resolutions - Consent Agenda Item 1.3).
The GNSO Constituency Operations Work Team is also continuing to make progress on a set of recommendations for review by the Operating Steering Committee. A document may be completed by the work team next month and that work product could be combined with the re-confirmation effort. Staff will reach out to community leaders to discuss these matters shortly after the upcoming holiday season.
The Commercial and Business Users Constituency and the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency have now provided their charter updates to reflect the new Stakeholder Group structures.
Potential New GNSO Constituencies Remain Under Consideration – ICANN Board members conducted substantial discussions in Seoul regarding the proposals for four new GNSO Constituencies. At its 9 December meeting the Board decided to “not approve” the proposed charters for the potential new CyberSafety, City TLDs and IDNgTLDs constituencies. The proponents for those potential constituencies can revise and re-submit their proposals in the future. The proposal for a new Consumers Constituency remains “pending.” The latest public documents regarding the proposals are located here - http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm. The process also remains available for other interested parties to develop proposals for new GNSO Constituencies and to submit them to the Board.
Permanent Stakeholder Group Charters – When the Board approved the four (4) new GNSO Stakeholder Group structures earlier this year it acknowledged that the charters for the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group were to be transitional/temporary and that permanent charters were to be developed over the course of the coming year. The Board is already examining some options being considered by the community for what permanent charters might look like. Based on discussions in Seoul, the Staff will be working to develop opportunities for dialogue and further community discussion of these important matters.