Council Resolutions

2005

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December

2006

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | September | October | November | December

2007

January | February | March | April | May | June | August | September | October | November | December

2008

January | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December

2009

January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September

20090924-1

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes 3 September 2009.

20090924-2

Motion Requesting an Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership - absentee ballots allowed

Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD process states: “Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars;”

Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators may call into question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and registrar functions is based;

Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests that changes in these assumptions might be justified;

Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical integration, but instead implicitly suggest that the status quo be left in place;

Resolved: the GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of an Issues Report for delivery within 45 days on future changes in vertical integration and cross-ownership between gTLD registrars and registries, to assist in determining whether a PDP should be initiated regarding what policies would best serve to promote competition and to protect users and registrants.

The motion passed with 11 Council votes in favour. (The threshold for the creation of an Issues Report is 25%.)

Nine Live Council votes: Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC), Olga Cavalli(NCA) (one vote each)

Terry Davis (NCA) and Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC) - absentee ballots (one vote each)

Six Council votes against:

Live Council votes: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC) (two votes each)
Adrian Kinderis (RC) - absentee ballot (two votes each)

Four Councillors abstained (7 votes):

Live Council Abstentions: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (RyC), (two votes each) Avri Doria (NCA) (one vote)
Jordi Iparraguirre (RyC) - absentee ballot (two votes)

Three Councillors did not vote:
Carlos Souza (NCUC), Ute Decker (IPC), Tony Holmes (ISP) (one vote each)

20090924-3

Amendment to Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

In the following Motion to Approve the Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition originally submitted on 15 September and amended on 17 September, add the following to step 9 of the Plan:

“As the first substantial item on the agenda of 28 October, the new council members will discuss and vote on the updated Council Operating Procedures. Approval of the Procedures will require a majority of the voting members of each house for approval. Any amendment that results from comments submitted, will need to be voted on prior to the vote on the Procedures and will also require a majority of the voting members of each house.” Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

Whereas:

• On 27 August 2009 the ICANN Board approved Bylaws Amendments Related to GNSO Restructuring (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf) in support of the transition to a new GNSO Council to be seated during the ICANN annual general meetings in Seoul in October 2009.
• Article XX (Transition Article), Section 5, item 5.e of the Bylaws Amendments reads, “The three seats currently selected by the Nominating Committee shall be assigned by the Nominating Committee as follows: one voting member to the Contracted Party House, one voting member to the Non-Contracted Party House, and one non-voting member assigned to the GNSO Council at large.”
  The Bylaws Amendments were approved too late in the 2009 Nominating Committee process to allow the three Nominating Committee seats to be assigned by the Nominating Committee.
• Article XX (Transition Article), Section 5, item 6 of the Bylaws Amendments reads, “The GNSO Council, as part of its Restructure Implementation Plan, will document: (a) how vacancies, if any, will be handled during the transition period; (b) for each Stakeholder Group, how each assigned Council seat to take effect at the 2009 ICANN annual meeting will be filled, whether through a continuation of an existing term or a new election or appointment; (c) how it plans to address staggered terms such that the new GNSO Council preserves as much continuity as reasonably possible; (d) the effect of Bylaws term limits on each Council member.”
• Article XX (Transition Article), Section 5, item 11 of the Bylaws Amendments reads, “As soon as practical after the commencement of the ICANN meeting in October 2009, or another date the Board may designate by resolution, the GNSO Council shall, in accordance with Article X, Section 3(7) and its GNSO Operating Procedures, elect officers and give the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections.”
  The GNSO Council desires to: i) Maximize continuity in the transition from the old to the new Council; ii) minimize the complexity for Stakeholder Groups in selecting Councilors; and iii) respect the rights of GNSO Stakeholder Groups to elect their Council representatives in ways that best meet their needs while complying with the ICANN Bylaws.
• The GNSO Council Operations work team prepared draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures and the Operations Steering Committee forwarded those for Council consideration on 17 September 2009.

The charters for the GNSO Policy Process and Operations Steering Committees (PPSC and OSC) are scheduled to end at the ICANN Annual Meeting in Seoul.

The GNSO Council approves the following plan:

1. It is recommended that all Councilors who will be seated in the 28 October public GNSO Council meeting should be selected and the GNSO Secretariat provided with their contact information not later than 30 September 2009. If that is not possible, then best efforts should be made to do so as soon as possible after 30 September to facilitate travel and lodging arrangements in Seoul.
2. Each Stakeholder Group may determine the term dates for its respective Councilors provided those dates are compliant with the ICANN Bylaws and their respective charters[1]; any terms that are changed from the previously defined dates strictly for the purpose of seating the bicameral Council shall be considered full terms with regard to complying with Bylaws term limit requirements.
3. Each House will elect a vice chair for the new bicameral Council:
   1. Nominations must be completed not later than 23 October 2009.
   2. Elections must be completed not later than Tuesday, 27 October 2009.
   3. Election requires a simple majority vote.
4. The new bicameral Council will be seated in the public GNSO Council meeting on 28 October 2009, at which time the service of the previous Council will end.
5. The GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) will be tasked with developing a timeline for use by Houses in the elections of vice chairs starting in 2010, which will be added to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures once appropriately approved after the meetings in Seoul.
6. The nomination procedure for GNSO Council Chair will be as follows:
   1. The GNSO Secretariat will call for nominations from existing Councilors for GNSO Council Chair on 7 October 2009.
   2. The nomination period will end on 21 October 2009.
   3. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the Council not later than 23 October 2009.
7. 7. Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities. If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair’s election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws
8. 8. The existing GNSO Council will approve a draft of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures (previously called the Rules of Procedure of the GNSO Council) for public comment and ICANN Staff will post them for a 21-day public comment period as soon as possible; such draft will include a revision of those areas of the existing Rules necessary for seating the bicameral Council. The Council also notes that there are several placeholder items in the current version of the recommended Operating Rules and procedures that will need to be addressed by the GNSO Council Operations work team (GCOT) after Seoul.
9. 9. As much in advance of the meeting as possible, the agenda for the 28 October 2009 Council meeting will be prepared by the existing Council under the leadership of Avri Doria as chair and shall include but not be limited to the following two action items:
   1. Approval of the Council Operating Procedures necessary for seating the bicameral Council;
   2. Election of chair.
10. 10. The Council requests that the Nominating Committee be tasked with assigning all three Nominating Committee Appointees (NCAs) to Council seats beginning after the 2010 ICANN Annual Meeting. For the period starting on 28 October 2009 and continuing only through the 2010 ICANN Annual Meeting, the following procedure will be used to assign NCAs to Council seats:
    1. ICANN Staff should ensure that a Statement of Interest is received from Andrei Kolesnikov and sent to the Council not later than 30 September 2009.
    2. Not later than 30 September 2009, new and existing NCAs will make best efforts to collaborate and provide their input to the GNSO Council regarding their recommendations for assigning NCA Council seats. Such input should include any seating assignments that any of the NCAs would individually be uncomfortable taking along with their reasons.
    3. Taking into consideration the input from the NCAs, if any, both GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups should attempt to reach agreement on the seating for each of the three NCAs for the first year of the new bicameral Council and communicate the results to the Council not later than 7 October 2009.
    4. If the GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups are unable to reach agreement, then the new, inexperienced NCA will take the non-voting Council seat and random selection will be used to assign the other two NCAs to Houses before the Council meeting on 8 October 2009.
    5. In the meeting scheduled for 8 October 2009, the Council will acknowledge the results of this process and confirm that it was properly conducted.
11. The Council requests ICANN Staff support to fulfill this plan, including but not limited to scheduling and arranging for any needed teleconference calls.
12. The charters for the GNSO Policy Process and Operations Steering Committees (PPSC and OSC) are extended until the end of ICANN’s first general meeting in 2010.

GNSO COUNCIL RESTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Notes:

1. Those individuals who are term-limited are marked with an asterisk.
2. This column reflects Staff-suggested dispositions only. Subject to certain structural realities (see Notes 4 and 5 below), the decisions regarding which seats and representatives continue, become vacant or are otherwise subject to re-election are completely in the hands of the individual Stakeholder Groups or Constituencies.
3. All election/allocation results must be communicated to the GNSO Secretariat no later than 30 September 2009.
4. Three seats from the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) are being eliminated in this new structure. The three seats indicated as possible eliminations are for illustration purposes only. That final determination of which seats are impacted by the change should be made by the CSG Executive Committee.
5. Under the terms of the Transitional Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Charter, the NCUC leadership will make the determination regarding the upcoming NCSG seat vacancy and the Board has the responsibility to appoint the individuals to Councilor positions 4, 5 and 6.
6. After the Board’s decision on the Bylaws amendments package currently scheduled for its 27 August meeting, it is hoped that the Nominating Committee will be in a position to recommend which Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) should be assigned to each of three specific positions on the Council; one NCA serving as a voting member of the Contract Party House; one NCA serving as a voting member of the Non Contract Party House; and one NCA serving in a non-voting capacity to “preserve the independent presence on the Council.”
7. Tony Holmes advised Council on 27 August that Maggie Mansourkia would be filling Greg Ruth’s seat on the Council until Seoul.

The amendment and the motion passed by voice vote.

Councillors present at the time of the vote:

Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC), Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC), Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (RyC), Olga Cavalli (NCA).

One abstention - Avri Doria (NCA), Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA)
“I abstain because I am referred to in the motion.”

20090924-4

Motion to approve Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Charter

Whereas:

• There have been increasing community concerns that the current WHOIS service is deficient in a number of ways, including technical areas as
  noted in recent SSAC reports, such as accessibility and readability of WHOIS contact information in an internationalized domain name (IDN) environment.
• On 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published a report titled SAC037 “Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data” (SAC037) located at
  http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac037.pdf.
• On 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolutionrequesting 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.
• In the 26 June resolution, the Board directs the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group to solicit input from interested constituencies
  including ccTLD operators and the ccNSO during its discussions to ensure broad community input.
• ICANN Staff in cooperation with members of the GNSO Council and SSAC developed a draft charter for said working group as attached.
• The GNSO Council:
• Approves the IRD WG draft charter, and
• Encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the IRD WG 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.

Internationalized Data Registration WG Draft Charter 15 Sep 09.doc
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/internationalized-data-registration-wg-draft-charter-27sep09.pdf

The motion was passed by voice vote.

Councillors present at the time of the vote:
Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC), Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Olga Cavalli (NCA).

One abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA)

20090924-5

Motion to hold a closed breakfast meeting in Seoul:

• one hour before the regularly scheduled meeting, 08:00 - 09:00, on Sunday, 25 October 2009.
• during which there will be no recording, transcription or remote participation
• the declared reason for closing the meeting is to allow the GNSO Council members, incoming and outgoing, liaisons to the Council and Policy staff to know each other better and share concerns

The motion passed with 11 Votes in favour

Philip Sheppard (CBUC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia (ISP), Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each)Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (RC), Chuck Gomes (RyC) (two votes each)

Two Votes against:
Mary Wong, William Drake (NCUC).

Avri Doria abstained (NCA)

20090903-1

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes 13 August 2009

20090903-2

Fast Flux Hosting Motion
Proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tim Ruiz

Whereas:

On 30 May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and chartered a Working Group, comprised of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, in collaboration with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use fast flux hosting;

Whereas the Working Group was asked to consider ten questions, specifically:

• Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
• Who would benefit from the cessation of the practice, and who would be harmed?
• Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
• Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
• How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
• How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
• What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry / registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
• What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
• What are some of the best practices with regard to protection from fast flux?
• Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making;

Whereas the Working Group has faithfully executed the PDP, as stated in the By-laws, resulting in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 13 Aug 2009;

Whereas the Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy;

Whereas the Working Group has developed and broadly supports several recommendations, and outlined possible next steps;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations and the Final Report;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

• To extend our sincere thanks to the Working Group members, to the Chair James Bladel, to the Council Liaison Mike Rodenbaugh, and to two members of the ICANN Policy Staff, Marika Konings and Glen de Saint Géry, for their efforts in bringing this Working Group to a successful conclusion;
• To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux; and
• The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux; and
• To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions; and
• To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a “best practices facilitator" within the community; and
• To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts; and
• To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
• To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.

The moton passed with 21 Votes in favour (absentee ballots allowed)

Councillors who voted:

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, William Drake, Olga Cavalli, Mary Wong (one vote each)

Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)

One Abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) Avri Doria stated the following reasons for abstaining

“Due to Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern.”

Councillors absent: who did not vote

Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis (one vote each)

20090903-3

Motion on the joint ALAC/GNSO Drafting team

Proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh

Whereas

• On March 4 2009 (Resolution 20090304-2)the GNSO council committed to “drafting a registrant rights charter" in cooperation the ALAC and
• As part of the same resolution (20090304-2) the GNSO council committed to creating a “drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable”

Resolved

• The GNSO accepts the charter defined in
  http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/raa-drafting-team-charter-03sep09-en.pdf
  with the deliverables and milestones as set out in that charter and invites the ALAC to participate as a partner in this effort.
• The drafting team, at its next meeting, will pick a pair of coordinators, one each from the At-Large Community and the GNSO
• With charter amended as: Replace under Charter (B) item 3 - replace ‘amendments’ with ‘topics.’ to read “Propose next steps for considering such topics”

The motion passed by voice vote.

Councillors present at the time of the vote.

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Maggie Mansourkia, William Drake, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes, Olga Cavalli.

Two Abstentions:

Avri Doria - Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA), reason for abstaining

“Due to Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern.”

Maggie Mansourkia - ISP, reason for abstaining “I have not studied or know really anything about the topic.”

20090813-1

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes 23 July 2009

20090723-1

Approval Of GNSO Council Minutes

GNSO Council minutes 28 May 2009
GNSO Council minutes 9 July 2009

20090723-2

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
(IRTP) Part B Working Group (WG)

Proposed by Tim Ruiz, seconded by Chuck Gomes.

Whereas

On 24 June 2009 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part B and, decided to create a PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; and,

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

Resolved

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz confirmed as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Part B WG.

The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part B WG 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

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:

a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see
also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);

b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;

c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;

d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);

e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

To inform its work, the WG should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance Staff to understand how elements of the
existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that are applicable to the above questions are enforced. The WG should also request compliance
Staff to review any policy recommendations it develops and provide advice on how the recommendations may best be structured to ensure clarity and enforceability.

Working Group processes:

While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the guidelines at the following link will apply to this WG:
working group process
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_june_09_motions

Milestones

WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T

Initial Report: T + 170 days"

First comment period ends: T + 190 days

Preliminary Final Report: T + 220 days.

Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP), William Drake (NCUC), Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each)

Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, (RC) Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (RyC) (two votes each)

Absent Councillors: Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Greg Ruth (ISP), Mary Wong, Carlos Souza (NCUC), Adrian Kinderis (RC).

20090723-3

Motion for the formation of the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG):

Proposed by Edmon Chung, seconded by Chuck Gomes

WHEREAS

GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs;

The Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June 2008, describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology;

Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan had included implementation considerations for IDN TLDs; and,

Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs can be identified, including issues where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table implementation at the root zone), and where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs as a reservation for ccTLDs);

RESOLVED:

To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) based on the Draft Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-charter-21jul09.pdf

The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP), William Drake (NCUC), Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each)

Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, (RC) Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (RyC) (two votes each)

Absent Councillors: Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Greg Ruth (ISP), Mary Wong, Carlos Souza (NCUC), Adrian Kinderis (RC).

20090709-1

Motion on By-Law Changes

Whereas

On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm

On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-bylaws-changes-re-gnso-27mar09.pdf

Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and

On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-restructure-08jun09.pdf

On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/by-laws-legal-12jun09.pdf

Resolved

The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO Council be amended to read as documented in:
http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean-30jun09-en.pdf

The Motion passed.

12 Votes in favour:
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries constituency) (two votes each)
Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote each)

3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency).

1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency).

Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker (Intellectual Property Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Terry Davis (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar constituency).

20090624-1

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter
Motion made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

This charter is based on the GNSO Council decision to create a PDP WG to recommend best practices and/or consensus policies regarding the issues defined in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report at:http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf

The full resolution of the Council on 7 May 2009:

Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);

Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR;

Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report;

Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP;

Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.
The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:
- that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy;
- that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, andrecovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced;
- and that it should specifically consider the following questions:

Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;

Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;

Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;

Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined).

Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter.

Charter

Whereas:
The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); and

The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaw;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

The Working Group initially shall:

1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced;

2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle;

3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery.

The Working Group shall then consider the following questions:

1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;

2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;

3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;

4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);

5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council.

The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy.

Working Group processes:

While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

Unanimous consensus position

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree

Strong support but significant opposition

Minority viewpoint(s)

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :

1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

* If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report.

This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.

The WG will have an archived mailing list.
The mailing list will be open for reading by the community.

All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public.
A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt@icann.org) with public archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/.

A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found athttps://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time itwas (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal.
Milestones

WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T

Initial Report: T + 150 - 170 days

First comment period ends: T + 170 - 200 days

Preliminary Final Report: T + 190 - 220 days.

Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

Motion passed unanimously by show of hands

20090624-2

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B
Motion by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

The GNSO Council, in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, resolved on 16 April 2009 to combine the issues outlined under the original issue set B, addressing three issues on undoing IRTP transfers, and some of the issues outlined in issue set C, related to registrar lock status into one IRTP Part B,

The GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B was submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009,

The Issues 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 will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report Part B.

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

27 Votes in favour:

Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis, Avri Doria (one vote each)

Edmon Chun, Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

Absentee votes in favour: Bill Drake, (one vote) Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes)

20090528

Approval of GNSO Council Minutes

GNSO Council minutes 16 April 2009
GNSO Council minutes 7 May 2009

20090507-1

Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) as amended:

Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);

Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to PEDNR;

Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report;

Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP;

Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of registrar transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP Part C PDP.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.

The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:

- that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy;

- that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA
provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and that it should specifically consider the following questions:

. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;

. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;

. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;

. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined).

. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter.

A roll call vote was taken.

The motion passed. 25 Votes in favour.

Cyril Chua, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

[Absentee ballots were sent to eligible Councillors.

Greg Ruth, Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (two votes)

There were 5 absentee votes in favour:

Philip Sheppard, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (two votes)

Absent from voting: Greg Ruth, Tony Holmes (1 vote each)

20090507-2

Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,

and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment,

and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations,

and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community,

and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group to encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes,

Resolved,

The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past.

The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared for these consultations. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this would be possible.

Motion passed by voice vote.

One 'nay vote' was heard.

Present at the time of voting:
Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Mary Wong, Terry Davis, Avri Doria, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes.

Absent at the time of voting:
Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Adrian Kinderis, Olga Cavalli.

20090416-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 19 February 2009
Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 26 March 2009

20090416-2

Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP)

Proposed by: Mike Rodenbaugh
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing
(1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars,

(2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing," and

(3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars;

Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009;

Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council:

(1) Carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes;

(2) Suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and,

(3) Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD.

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes.

To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact.

Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar.

Footnote:
From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: 'Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the result of

(i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or

(ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure:

(a) The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD.

(b) ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar.

Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.'

In favour: 24 votes

Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

Absentee ballots received from
Greg Ruth, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Souza, Ute Decker (one vote each) Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each)

2 councillors did not cast votes counting for 3 votes One vote was received after the vote closed.
One councilor did not vote

20090416-3

Motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address

Proposed by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh

WHEREAS,
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified IRTP issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list,

Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations from the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery,

The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under PDP B and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs,

The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below in one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues report,

RESOLVED,
Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council requests the creation of an issues report on the following
issues:

a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm).
(Issue #2)

b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar. (Issue #7)

c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9)

d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied). (Issue #5)

e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG)

(Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering in the Transfers Working Group list. Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.)

Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion.

In favour: 24 votes.

Philip Sheppard, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, William Drake, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)

Absentee ballots received from
Greg Ruth, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Carlos Souza, Ute Decker (one vote each) Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each)

2 councillors did not cast votes counting for 3 votes One vote was received after the vote closed.
One councilor did not vote

20090416-4

Motion on Travel Funding

Proposed by Stéphane van Gelder
Seconded by Philip Sheppard

Whereas:

At its meeting of September 25, 2008 the GNSO Council created the Travel Drafting Team (TDT) to work on proposals to optimize the allocation and the management of Travel Funding for the GNSO Constituencies.

At a meeting held during the Mexico ICANN meeting in March 2009 between the TDT and members of ICANN staff, the TDT requested that all GNSO Constituencies receive Funding Slots for each of their elected Councillors at each one of the three yearly international ICANN meetings, with the understanding that it would then be up to each Constituency to allocate these slots according to their own internal processes.

That request stemmed in part from the recognition of the significant, and ever increasing work loads, that GNSO Councillors face. Work which they carry out as unpaid volunteers.

Since that meeting it has been identified that an amount of funds left over from the DNSO are available for use should the Council wish to provide additional Travel Funding to those GNSO Constituencies that no longer have enough credits left for their three slots for the final meeting of the fiscal year 2009, in Sydney.

The funds identified are in the amount of 19,963.79 USD.

Resolved:

That the DNSO funds be distributed evenly across all six GNSO Constituencies in time for the Sydney meeting in June, with the express purpose of providing additional Travel Funding for those persons nominated by each Constituency as recipients to be of said Travel Support.

Motion passed by voice vote, 2 nays.

20090304-1

WHOIS Motion
Proposed by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette

GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies.

Whereas:

In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )

Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies.

This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).

On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for consolidating and considering further Whois studies.

On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special meetings on Whois studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council would then ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council would decide which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This ‘Whois Study Drafting Team’ is tracked on a wiki page at whois discussion.

The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC.
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility.5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified.The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.

The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration of the remaining studies.

Resolved:

Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as possible, noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the requirements in stages.

Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html

Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to generate spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html

Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by public display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data.http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html

Study 11.
Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will detract from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html

Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11) Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when compared with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other sites perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and non-private registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html

Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html

GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or prevented by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.

GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations.

Group E (Studies 3 & 20)
Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html

Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay information requests to and from registrants/licensees. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html

Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6)
GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal entities are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are operating domains with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10) Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html

Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the identity of registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html

GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy service users are legal persons.

GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are registered using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes.

Council further requests that Staff refer to original study submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/ ), for statements of how study results could lead to an improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/study needed, including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample size.

Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses.At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses.
Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that, based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups designated in this resolution.

Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once it has been approved.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote:

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre (Registry constituency); Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC).

Absent: Edmon Chung (Registry constituency), Ute Decker (IPC).

20090304-2

Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion

Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette

Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;

Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and

Whereas,

The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments;

The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and

The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009;

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later than July 31 2009; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009.

Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
27 Votes in favour

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each; Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC) one vote each.

Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06402.html

20090219-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 18 December 2008
Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 8 January 2009

20090219-2

MOTION on Registration Abuse Policies Charter

Proposed by Kristina Rosette
Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh

Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy".

Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report.

Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse.

Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the
Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and
organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the
Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City.

CHARTER

Scope and definition of registration abuse - the Working Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an illustrative categorization of known abuses.

Additional research and identifying concrete policy issues - The issues report outlines a number of areas where additional research would be needed in order to understand what problems may exist in relation to registration abuse and their scope, and to fully appreciate the current practices of contracted parties, including research to:

'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse policies were established'

'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt with in those registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific [policies] in place ''Identify how these registration abuse provisions are [...] implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse'.

In addition, additional research should be conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers,
registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so on.

The Working Group should determine how this research can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a Request for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other options.

Based on the additional research and information, the Working Group should identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council.

SSAC Participation and Collaboration

The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in the Working Group; (ii) consider in further detail the SSAC's invitation to the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse contacts; and (iii) make a recommendation to the Council about this invitation.

Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on Registration Abuse Policies - In order to get broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of concerns from community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to organize a workshop on registration abuse policies in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The Working Group should review and take into account the discussions and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in its deliberations.

The working group established by this motion will work according to the process defined in working_group_process.
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process

20090129-1

Election of GNSO Council vice chair

Council approved the election of Chuck Gomes as the GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with that of the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected.

20090129-2

Motion to approve Operation Steering Committee (OSC) charter
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Olga Cavalli

Whereas:

• The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting.

• That Plan called for the creation of an Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to oversee efforts to enhance the GNSO’s structure, constituencies, and communications.

• The OSC was formed and held six teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 21 January 2009.

• The OSC reviewed and modified the draft OSC Charter prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommended that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 22 Dec 08.

• The Council discussed the charter in its 8 January 2009 meeting and two Councilors suggested edits.

• All OSC members approved the charter with the proposed edits as found at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?operations_steering_committee_osc.

Resolve:

• The GNSO Council approves the OSC Charter and directs the OSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

20090129-3

Motion to approve Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Charter
Motion proposed by Tim Ruiz, seconded by Greg Ruth

Whereas:

The GNSO Council reviewed and accepted the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its 16 October meeting.

That Plan called for the creation of a Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) to oversee efforts to revise and enhance the GNSO’s Policy Development Process.

The PPSC was formed and held three teleconference meetings and conducted various online discussions as of 7 January 2009.

The PPSC reviewed and modified the draft PPSC Charter prepared by the 'GNSO Improvements Planning Team and recommends that the Council approve the revised draft Charter dated 7 January 2009 and contained at the committee’s wiki site at: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc.

Resolve:

The GNSO Council approves the PPSC Charter and directs the PPSC to proceed in fulfilling the terms of that Charter.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

20090129-4

Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg

Whereas:

• On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board.

• In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders.

• The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council.

• The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic.

• The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009.

Resolve:

• The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to:

- Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical

- Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board’s request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations.

- If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue.

- Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above.

• The Council directs the Council Chair to:

- Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January

- Inform the Board that the GNSO:

---Is awaiting information from the ALAC.

--- Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At- Large community to develop a recommendation.

--- Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote

20090108-1

The GNSO Council confirmed the election of Avri Doria, 24 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 person did not vote, as the GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2009 for the period until the newly structured GNSO Council is seated and a new chair is elected.

20090108-2

Motion on gTLD Implementation
Proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Tony Harris

Whereas:

Implementation Guideline E states, "The application submission date will be at least four months after the issue of the Request for Proposal and ICANN will promote the opening of the application round." (See Final Report, Part A, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc43798015 )

The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire.

The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the 'Communications Period'.

It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages).

Resolve:

The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following:

Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6.

ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment.

The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP).

As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include:
Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant
Guidebook (RFP) * Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.

20090108-3

Motion on Aniticipated GNSO and ccNSO implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Adrian Kinderis with friendly amendments from Mike Rodenbaugh and Edmon Chung

Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009,

Resolve

1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and

2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following:

i) follow security and stability requirements such as those contained in gTLD Registry contracts, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards;

ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.

20081218-1

GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions.

The Council confirmed the election results of the two GNSO representatives, Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions.

20081218-2

Motion on the GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report
Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post- Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf

On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08)

Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report,

Resolve:

The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until 29 January 2009 to allow for the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below;
ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later than 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report:

- In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding
"how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP",
the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads,
"On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be
investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'."

* Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C?

* What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?

* What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C?

- In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends
". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ."

* How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP?

* What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?

- Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to
cancel the name earlier)."

* Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not?

* Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal?

If not, why not?

-Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads,
"In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement."

* Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not?

* Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement?

If not, why not?

20081218-3

Motion on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh with a friendly amendment by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated,

Resolved:

That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically:

- 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings
A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of
registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse.

- 9.2 Identify specific policy issues
Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant.

- 9.3 Need for further research
As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed -
e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required?

The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the council will take the by-laws required PDP vote.

20081218-4

Motion on GNSO Travel Process
Motion proposed by Philip Sheppard and seconded by Stephane Van Gelder

Whereas:
Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel.

1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available.

2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nominating committee delegates or GNSO chair travel.

3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient.

20081120-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 25 September 2008
Approval of GNSO Council minutes of 16 October 2008

20081105-1

Motion on the extension of Public Comment Periods during ICANN meetings
Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Zahid Jamil and Kristina Rosette

Whereas, ICANN's meetings require the full attention of GNSO Councilors and many other GNSO participants.

Whereas, ICANN has many ongoing public comment periods of significant interest to many GNSO Councilors and participants.

Whereas, ICANN's typical comment periods are already difficult for many members of the ICANN community, particularly those that must consult with members of their Constituency and/or member organization(s).

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days, any public comment periods which overlap with any of the seven days of an ICANN meeting.

20081105-2

Motion on a GNSO Liaison to ccNSO
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Philip Sheppard and Robin Gross,

As the GNSO and ccNSO have agreed to exchange liaisons,

The GNSO approves the appointment of Olga Cavalli, a Nomcom appointee, as the GNSO Liaison to the ccNSO until the end of the 2009 annual meeting or until she leaves the council, whichever comes first.

20081105-3

Motion on the Issues report on Registration Abuse Policies
Motion proposed by Avri Doria,and seconded by Chuck Gomes

The GNSO acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report on Registrations Abuse Policies, and

Thanks Staff for the report and its timely delivery

The GNSO resolves to begin discussions of the issues report and the possible initiation of a PDP at its next regular meeting.

20081105-4

Thank You Motions

In recognition of the service to the ICANN community the following council members have provided over the years,

In recognition of the many hours of meetings and preparation for meetings,

In recognition of the many miles and hours flown to attend a week's worth of meetings three times a year,

The council expresses its gratitude to the retiring GNSO Council members:

Jon Bing - 2 years
Robin Gross - 4 years
Tom Keller - 5 years
Norbert Klein - 3 years

Thank You Motion #2 for someone who isn't leaving
Whereas every year, we thank retiring GNSO Council members for their service,

And in recognition of the fact that there is one person who rarely gets public thanks, but without whom we could not function as a Council,

The GNSO Council wishes to gratefully extend its continuing thanks to Glen de Saint Gery for being the sprit behind the GNSO and for the many many many things she does.

This thanks is extended with the hope that Glen will remain the force behind the council for many years to come.

20081016-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008

20081016-2

Motion on Amendment to the Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) moved by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Avri Doria

Whereas:

* On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;

* The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment identifying a possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the Registrar of Record";

* The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the drafting group for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9;

Resolved:

1. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).

Be amended to read:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

20081016-3

Motion on Geographic Regions (carried forward from 25 September) moved by Olga Cavalli, and seconded by Tim Ruiz and Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions"

In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate"

In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008

In the 4 September 2008 Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008

The Council reviewed the GNSO Comments in its meeting on 16 October 2008.

Resolve:

The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments.

The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board.

20081016-4

CccNSO Liaison to GNSO Council - GNSO Council letter to ccNSO Council chair
Avri Doria, seconded by Adrian Kinderis, moved the motion

Whereas:

The GNSO has decided in the past on its interest in exchanging a liaison with the ccNSO and has communicated this interest to the chair of the ccNSO, and Initial discussions were held in Paris during the joint meeting between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the exchange of liaisons between the GNSO council and the ccNSO council
The GNSO in earlier discussions had approved the idea in principle of exchanging liaisons, and the Chair of the ccNSO sent a formal note to the GNSO chair indicating that the ccNSO Council was interested in an exchange of observers.

Resolve:

The Chair of the GNSO send the following to the chair of the ccNSO:

Dear Chris,

On behalf of the GNSO council, I thank you for your note on behalf of the ccNSO council regarding the exchange of observers. The GNSO council reiterates its interest in cooperation on issues of mutual interest and in the ongoing exchange of information between the GNSO and the ccNSO.
The GNSO council is in agreement with an exchange of observers on the basis you proposed. Specifically: "Both the GNSO observer to the ccNSO Council and the ccNSO Observer to the GNSO Council shall not be considered a member of or entitled to vote on the Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the Councils."

The GNSO council will select a representative shortly and welcomes the participation of the representative to be selected by the ccNSO council. I will notify you and the ccNSO secretariat once the GNSO council has completed its selection process.
Best Regards

20081016-5

Motion on the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria,

Whereas:

The ICANN Board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN Staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO".

Such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation

The ICANN board in resolution 2008.06.26.13 endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group

The ICANN board in its meeting on 1 October 2008 approved resolutions 6 through 15 relating to the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Working Group and the specific topic of GNSO Council Restructuring,

Resolved:

The GNSO will develop a plan for GNSO Council restructuring implementation that is separate and distinct from the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan as directed in resolution 2008.10.01.15

The GNSO Council approves the Framework defined in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan dated 24 September 2008 as prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan (as updated)

The GNSO Council requests that constituencies, NomCom appointees, the ALAC and the GAC identify representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Plan by 24 October 2008 if possible, but not later than 31 October

Kickoff meetings of the Steering Committees be held during the ICANN meetings in Cairo (1-7 November 2008) with teleconference capability for any who may not be able to attend in-person.

20080925-1

Motion proposing an Issues Report on aspects of Registry-Registrar Agreements

Whereas:

1. ICANN's mission is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS, and to develop policy reasonably related to that mission.

2. Various forms of DNS abuse, in isolation and/or in the aggregate, cause a less secure and stable DNS.

3. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements and appended registry-registrar agreements contain a provision such as Section 3.6.5 of the.info Registry Agreement, Appendix 8 : 3.6.5. (Registrars) acknowledge and agree that Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by Afilias or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute.

4. Afilias, the dotInfo Registry Operator, per its recent RSTEP request, has sought to clarify and implement its specific abusive registration policy with respect to this provision. This request has been approved by ICANN.

5. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements, notably the Verisign contracts for .com and .net, have no such provision. Other gTLD registry agreements do contain such provision, but the registry operators have not developed or have inconsistently developed abusive registration policies.

The GNSO Council resolves to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff within 30 days with respect to the following:

1. To identify and describe the various provisions in existing and previous gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements which relate to contracting parties' ability to take action in response to abuse.

2. To identify and describe various provisions in a representative sampling of gTLD registration agreements which relate to contracting parties' and/or registrants rights and obligations with respect to abuse.

3. To identify and describe any previous discussion in ICANN fora which substantively pertains to provisions of this nature in any of these agreements.

4. To request an opinion of ICANN Staff as to which aspects of registration abuse policies as discussed above may be within the scope of GNSO policy development.

20080904-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008

20080904-2

Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP)
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;

and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008;

and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed;

and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP

Resolved:

1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads:

A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period

Be amended to read:

The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name.

2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).

Be amended to read:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads:

No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.

Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads:

A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

20080904-3

Whois Hypotheses
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross. Friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh accepted.

Whereas:

*On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )

*Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted

*Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ )

ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008
On 28 March 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a group of volunteers (Whois Study Group) to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted, on 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (Whois Hypotheses WG) to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits and to deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council () The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26 August 2008
(https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).
Resolve:

The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG Council representatives including liaisons are asked to:
1) forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable;
2) be prepared in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion; and
3) in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 to start development of a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies, that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance to justify having ICANN staff prepare cost estimates.

ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible.

20080904-4

Motion regarding GNSO Comments re. Geographic Regions Community-Wide WG
Motion proposed by Olga Cavalli seconded by Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions"

In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate"

In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions

The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 August 2008

Resolve:

The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the following members of the drafting team: Olga Cavalli (NomCom appointee & chair), Clint Crosby (IPC), Glen de Saint Gery (ICANN Staff), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Tony Harris (ISPCPC), Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Staff), Marika Konings (ICANN Staff), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tim Ruiz (RC), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), and Ken Stubbs (RyC)

Council representatives are asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008.

20080904-5

Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo
Motion proposed by Avri Doria seconded by Tony Harris

Whereas:

On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance, and That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway.
Resolved:

1. The names in the following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008:

Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC Complies with ICANN policy Economy Walton, Clarke RrC Constituency 1st choice Economy

2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GNSO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive on time for meetings on 1 November 2008.

3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thursday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds. The GNSO Secretariat is authorized to cover those expenses from the old DNSO/GNO budget.

20080807-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 17 July 2008

20080807-2

The GNSO Council unanimously confirmed the appointment of Paul Diaz as chair for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP working group.

20080717-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 29 May 2008.

20080717-2

Whereas

On 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part A to be referred to as IRTP PDP Jun08 and, decided to create an PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP and, has reviewed the charter found at IRTP PDP-A WG Charter

Resolved

The GSNO Council approves the charter and associated time lines and appoints Mike Rodenbaugh as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG 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.

20080625-1

Whereas,

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

The PDP regarding Clarification of Reasons for Denial has reached the deliberation stage, following the issue if a Final Report dated 9 April 2008, and a drafting group was launched by the Council on 17 April 2008 to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed (numbers 5, 7, 8 and 9 in the IRTP),

The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report dated 4 June 2008, proposing new texts for denial reasons number 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within the proposed PDP for Issue Set C as per the Council resolution of 8 May 2008, in order to assure consistency with related aspects to be covered by that PDP,

The proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 are drafted as follows:

Denial reason 8 "The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name"
Denial reason 9 "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the Registrar of Record, has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy"

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To consider denial reasons number 5 and 7 within the context of the foreseen PDP for Issue Set C, while withdrawing them from the current PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial,

To request that ICANN web staff post the proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to Council with a summary of the comments received, for the Council's consideration and decisions as to recommending a change of these IRTP provisions in line with the proposed texts.

20080625-2

Whereas,

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

An issues report GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" was issued on 23 May 2008,

The Issues 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 will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report on Part A.

20080625-2a

Whereas:

The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report - Part A

The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaws,

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to address the three issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

That a charter will be drafted for this working in 14 days and that this charter will contain the required work items, milestones especially those related to bylaws mandated constituency reviews and public comment periods, and guidelines for WG procedures. This charter will be discussed and decided upon at the next GNSO council meeting following the release of the charter.

20080625-3

Whereas:

On 27 March 2008 the Council resolved to form a group of volunteers to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS'; develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008

On 16 April the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN Board recommendations for future studies of WHOIS

On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report to the Council offering two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS should be conducted

There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted.

Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, it should be useful to

1) understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested,
2) determine which of those hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful direction with regard to Whois policy, and
3) to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative view points with regard to Whois policy.

Resolved:

To reconvene another group of volunteers, which may include members of the earlier group and/or new volunteers to:

Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and that request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses.
Deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council within 6 weeks.
The Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing.

20080625-4

Whereas,

The PDP WG has been formed on Fast Flux, and

The Fast Flux PDP charter requires the election of chair or co-chairs and the appointment of a council liaison, and

Mike O'Connor has been suggested by a joint meeting of the GNSO council and the Fast Flux WG, and Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered to serve as council liaison to the working group

Resolved:

Mike O'Connor is elected as chair of the PDP WG on Fast Flux and Mike Rodenbaugh is appointed GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG on Fast Flux.

20080625-5

Whereas,

On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front Running to the GNSO council, and

On 8 May 2008 council created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research effort and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and

On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response to the question asked during the 8 May Council meeting, and whereas this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and

Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for the AGP will affect front running,

Resolved:

The council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as current research efforts are completed.

20080529-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 8 May 2008.

20080529-2

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;

Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting:

In this context, the term “fast flux” refers to rapid and repeated changes to A and/or NS resource records in a DNS zone, which have the effect of rapidly changing the location (IP address) to which the domain name of an Internet host (A) or name server (NS) resolves.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

Charter

The Working Group initially shall consider the following questions:

Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?

Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?

Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?

How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?

How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?

What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?

What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?

What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux?

Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.

The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. The Working Group report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the WG or policy recommendation for constituency and community comment and review and for council deliberation

Working Group Processes:

While the development of guidelines for Working operations, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree
Strong support but significant opposition
Minority viewpoint

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :

Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the Council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the Council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO Council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.

The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

The Council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO Council every 6 months for renewal.

Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)

With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated

Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released.

20080508-1

The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 27 March 2008 and 17 April 2008.

20080508-2

The GNSO Council resolved to create a drafting team to look at questions such as:
- How is the problem defined?
- How prevalent is the problem?
- Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
- Are there rules within the RAA that can be used?

The goal is to bring a recommendation to the Council on whether to request an Issues Report or more extensive research effort and to define the terms of the report.

This team should bring its report in time for deliberations in Paris by 7 June 2008 or sooner if possible.

Team is open to constituency members. Liaisons are invited to participate.

20080508-3

Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal
activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;

Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to
reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report.

Version Français

Versión Español

Русский

العربية

20080508-4

Whereas:
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,

An IRTP working group examined possible areas for improving the existing policy and delivered its outcome in August 2007 in a report posted at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf and this report provided a list of potential issues to address for improvement of the transfer policy,

In September 2007 a working group was tasked by the GNSO Council to assign priorities to the remaining issues in the report (i.e., those not addressed in the PDP underway regarding four reasons for denial of a registrar transfer) resulting in the prioritized issue list contained in that group’s report at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf,

In its meeting on 17 January 2008 the GNSO Council requested a small group of volunteers arrange the prioritized issue list into suggested PDPs,

The small group delivered its recommended PDPs on19 March 2008 in its report at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf,

Resolve that five PDPs be initiated in the order suggested by the small group and shown here:

* First part of issue only

Resolve that the recommendations of the small group be approved to not initiate PDPs at this time for issues 11, 13, 14, the second part of 15, and 17.

Resolve that the Council asks the staff to produce an Issues report of the Items listed under A - New IRTP Issues.

Resolve Council will review the progress of these PDPs every 60 days with the goal of moving the process along as quickly as possible.

20080417-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 March 2008

20080417-2

The GNSO Council approved the creation of a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers.

Drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council.

20080417-3

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on
the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

20080327-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 31 January 2008

20080327-2

The GNSO Council resolved to confirm the election results of Rita Rodin in ICANN Board seat number 14.

20080327-3

Whereas:
On 31 October 2007 the Council passed a motion to “. . . initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council” (resolution 20071031-3)

On 6 December 2007 the Council initiated the formation of a group of volunteers to develop a proposed “format to solicit what studies should be undertaken”

On 20 December 2007 the Council reviewed and discussed the WHOIS template developed by the group and approved it with one additional column under potential sources of data, asking proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data

From 8 January through 15 February 2008 a public comment period was held soliciting suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted

A report titled ‘Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS’ and dated 25 February 2008 summarized the study suggestions and comments received during the public comment period

1. Review and discuss the ‘Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS’

2. Develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council

3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008.

20080327-4

Whereas
Council members are from time to time disenfranchised from voting by the current ICANN by-laws, Council requests the Board to adopt the following change to the bylaws drafted by the ICANN general council's office to permit absentee voting in certain specific circumstances.

Add to: ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE X: Section 3. 8

c. Absentee voting. Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on whether to initiate a PDP, forward a policy recommendation to the Board, or fill a position open for election may vote by absentee ballot. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours after the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days.

20080306-1

Amendment on the language in 1a of the included draft motion

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the
AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted
during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

20080306-2

Amendment which removed the original #2 from the draft motion

The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

20080306-3

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with
respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");

Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to
update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses.

The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.

2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via
submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.

3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended
Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.

4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope
that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008.

20080306-4

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;

Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz
registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;

The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:

1.The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”).
Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:

a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that
exceed (i) 10% of that registrars net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or
(ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.

b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of
extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.

c.In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.

2.Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;

i.How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

ii .Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,

b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any
ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

20080306-5

Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.

20080306-6

The GNSO Council resolved to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report presented by Edmon Chung to the IDNC as the GNSO response.

20080306-7

The GNSO Council resolved to extend the deadline for the submission of constituency statements on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP to Friday 14 March 2008.

20080131-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 3 January 2008

20080117-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 December 2007

20080117-2

Avri Doria was elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period, 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2009.

20080103-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 31 October 2007
Approval of GNSO Council minutes 6 December 2007

20080103-2

Whereas a GNSO drafting team proposed a message relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs

Whereas Chuck Gomes proposed an alternate Message to Draft 0.3 distributed by Avri relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs

Council resolved that:

Chuck Gomes will spend 2 days processing any editorial changes suggested on the Council mailing list. On 6 January 2008 a final version will be posted on the mailing list. If there are no substantive objections to the wording, the message will then be forwarded to the Board by the Chair.

20080103-3

Whereas the GNSO council remains concerned about funding the council members to attend future ICANN meetings

Resolved that the letter drafted in be sent to the CEO of ICANN and to the COO of ICANN.

20071220-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 20 November 2007.

20071206-1

The GNSO Council moved a motion to approve the Nominating Committee job description as agreed upon by the Council and set forth in the document.

20071206-2

The GNSO Council submits a formal request to the ICANN Board for increased GNSO participation on the IDNC working group as stated in the charter that was approved by the ICANN Board.

20071206- 3

The GNSO Council approves two candidates to join the IDNC working group, namely, Edmon Chung (gTLD Registry constituency) and Charles Sha'ban (Intellectual Property constituency) with alternates Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee appointee) and Cary Karp (gTLD Registry constituency).

20071120-1

Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;"
and

Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft Intergovernmental (IGO) Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue;
and

Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is drafting and expects to distribute not later than 28 November a revised proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 December 2007 meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development process.

20071120-2

Whereas the Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers has been released and discussed

The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by the Staff.

20071031- 4

Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005.

Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development.

Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy.

Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007.

It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours.

20071031-3

WHEREAS;
1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group Final Report
and;

2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community,
and;

3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group,
and;

4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and;

5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and;

6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer
protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO.

THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council;
1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and;

2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN’s Board of Directors, and;

3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions:
1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements
2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;
3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and
4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council .

4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion.

20071031-2

Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:

1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution.

2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this
resolution.

3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.

20071031-1

Whereas the Issues Report on Domain Tasting has been released and discussed
and
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting,

the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,

The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names
registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period.

20071011-3

The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles.

20071011-2

The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles

20071011-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 30 August 2007
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 September 2007
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 September 2007

20070920-1

i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and;

ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration,

Be it resolved that;

i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and;

i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council
i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory.

ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report.

20070906-3

Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work,

Therefore:

The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report.

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,
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf
and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the 'study to date' by October 4.

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.
See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf.

e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on “Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records” outlined in September, 2006.
See http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006.pdf

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.
Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
Section 7 d. Collection of Information.
Specifically

"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."

**Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007

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.

20070906-2

Whereas the GA list sent a request to the GNSO council for approval of its new list rules,

and whereas
"the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists,"
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X
and the GA list is one such open forum,

Resolved:
The GNSO chair will send a message to the GA List stating the following:

The GNSO council acknowledges the GA List's charter request and thanks the participants for consulting with the GNSO council on this issue.

Given the Council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, the Council encourages the GA
List's movement toward self moderation and supports the GA List in implementing the mailing list rules
(found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm)
indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:

The Announce list is and should remain solely for the sole use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items.

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:

An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.

The GNSO council, and its chair, cannot accept any responsibility for the internal governance of an organizational movement on the GA List at this time and restricts the council's actions to issues concerning the moderation of the GA List as determined by the by-laws.

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.

20070906-1

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
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.

20070830-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007

20070809- 5

The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of recusal when using a proxy.

20070809-4

The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain name tasting to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council by 4 October 2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007. In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify that 'small' in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives from among each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee appointees and the Advisory Committees.

20070809-3

The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 20 August 2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report on 23 August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 2007.

20070809-2

The GNSO Council supports by a supermajority vote the recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to the ICANN Board.

20070809-1

Approval of the
GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007

20070627-4

Motion of Thanks to Bruce Tonkin

Whereas Bruce Tonkin served as DNSO Names Council chair beginning on August 29, 2002 and continued as GNSO Council chair until 7 June 2007,

Whereas on 8 June 2007, Bruce Tonkin’s second term as chair of the GNSO Council came to a close as he took his seat on the ICANN Board to which the Council elected him,

Whereas Bruce maintained neutrality as chair while still representing the Registrars Constituency,

Whereas Bruce demonstrated a calm demeanor in successfully keeping the Council on track during long deliberations on extremely divisive issues,

Whereas Bruce combined his leadership abilities, technical expertise, industry experience and relationship skills with extremely long hours of hard work to leave an imprint on the GNSO that will be missed greatly,

Whereas Bruce provided exemplary service in his role as chair of the Introduction of New gTLDs PDP Committee that has been working for the past one and one half years demonstrating a way in which the GNSO can effectively tackle a very large challenge involving many complex competing interests and many policy issues,

Whereas Bruce’s accomplishments are exemplified by the respect he generated not only in the GNSO but in the ICANN community as a whole,

Therefore, the GNSO Council expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Bruce for his outstanding service to the GNSO and for his willingness to continue to serve the community as an ICANN Director.

20070627-3

The GNSO Council thanks the Staff for the Issues Report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations.

The council accepts the recommendation that a PDP not be initiated at this time, and that the staff continue as proposed in the issues report on page 16.

The council requests that the staff report back to the council within 3 months. The council will reconsider creating a PDP at that time.

20070627-2

The GNSO Council resolves:

1) To acknowledge the Issues Report on Domain Tasting;

2) To create a small, ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain tasting, including but not limited to examination of questions posed on page 30 of the issues report, and to draft terms of reference for a possible GNSO policy development process in a timely way;

3) To direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP;

4) To consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting, and to consider whether to launch a policy development process on domain tasting at the September 2007 GNSO Council meeting.

20070627-1

The GNSO Council voted Chuck Gomes as vice chair.

20070607-2

The GNSO Council ratified the results of the GNSO Council chair election and congratulated Avri Doria as the new GNSO Council chair.

20070607-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 24 May 2007

20070524-3

Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required.

Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.

Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.

Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention
(http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).

The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.

The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.

20070524-2

The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed.

20070524-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007

20070412-4

The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council,
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007.

Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG

Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added.

General Tasks
1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon
2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories:
a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report
b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Geographical and geopolitical names
ii. Controversial names
c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG
i. Three character names at the third level
ii. Registry specific names at the second level
iii. Other reserved names at the second level
3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs
4. Review IDN-WG Report
5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories
6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated
7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically
8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams

Tasks regarding Recommendations

1. ICANN/IANA reserved names
a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry.
a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly
iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN names
1. Provide examples
2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed
2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language
i. Provide examples as possible
ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
3. Single & two-character reserved names
a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to non-roman scripts
b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number.
c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels
g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels
4. Tagged names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’
ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level
iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’
iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide
v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
5. NIC, Whois and www
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
6. Geographical & geopolitical names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names
b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names
c. Consult with the GAC as possible
d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty
e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only
f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names
i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
7. Third level names
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope
8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable)
a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report
b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made
c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work
9. Other names at the second level
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope
10. Controversial names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names
b. Consult with the GAC as possible
c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names
g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary

Schedule
1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April
2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May

20070412-3

The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.

20070412-2

Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.
see revised charter as approved
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-charter-16apr07.pdf]

20070412-1

The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast.

20070328-2

The GNSO Council resolves:

1) To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note we have received and discussed their report, and thank the task force for their work

2) To create a working group of affected stakeholders:

- including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community participants,

- whose work is to be completed within 120 days

- that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved to address these issues, namely:

a. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not fulfilled.

b. how legitimate interests will access registration data no longer published via Whois,

c. whether a distinction should be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name.

20070328-1

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007

20070315-4

The Council endorsed the observer rules for working groups.

"Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."

To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with unregulated mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, organisation (if associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.

Where a person joins an already established working group, this will be on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been dealt with by the working group.

20070315-3

The Council extended the timeline for the working group on the Protection of the Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007.

20070315-2

The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the working group on "Protecting the rights of others
Background

There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an application process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry operators.

The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that Registered Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name, nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, infringes the legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is intended for resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party over the registration and use of an Internet domain name.

In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required to implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to prevent inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to registrants and third parties affected by registration, and effectiveness.

As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some discussion about what additional protections beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names.

Purpose:

The purpose of the working group is to:

(1) Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation should identify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The working group should establish definitions of terms used in this document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of the working group. These definitions would only be in the context of the document, and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal contexts.

(2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practices approach to providing any additional protections beyond the current registration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated into the material for the application process for new gTLD applicants. The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process (PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.

Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan

I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms

A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs)

B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms are designed to solve and new issues that may have developed

C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms

1. Eligibility

2. Rights bases or requirements

3. Submission process and costs of submission

4. Review of applications

5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism

D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection mechanisms

1. Eligibility

2. Rights bases or requirements

3. Review of applications

4. Allocation

E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between preventing the dispute and resolving the dispute

1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues identified in I.B.

2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive

3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate

4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues identified in I.B.

F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness

1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any evaluation in light of issues identified in I.B.

2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period

3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B.

4. Evaluate qualitative effectivess in light of issues identified in I.B.

G. Impact on registries and registrars

1. Resource allocation

a) Development of rights protection mechanism

b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism

2. Other considerations

H. Impact on other affect parties

II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties.

A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances

B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances

1. Submission

2. Review

3. Challenge

C. Level of Satisfaction

1. Prior Rights Owners

2. Registrars

3. Registries

4. Other Categories

III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms

A. Feasibility

Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns of IP owner and holders of other rights

B. Implementation Considerations

IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms

A. Alternatives

B. Evaluation

Suggested Working Group Membership

The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that would provide useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative.

* Owners of globally famous brands from different regions.
* INTA Internet Committee member
* Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist
* Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
* Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
* Registries with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
* Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
* Commercial financial institution representative (because of concerns over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and identity theft)
* IPC designee
* NCUC designee
* ISP designee
* BC designee
* WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing rights protection mechanisms)

1. Voting:

In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership

The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act.

Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline

The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:
1. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting.

Timeline:

The working group should conclude its work in time to provide a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007

20070315-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 1 February 2007

20070201-4

Council thanked Marilyn Cade, from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency whose term expired, for her outstanding service on the Council.

20070201-3

Council endorses the proposed election procedure and timelines for the ICANN Board seat # 13.
Call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council:
3 weeks for Nominations:
Opens on Monday 19 February 2007 closes on Monday 12 March 2007

Two weeks to verify and interview candidates
Monday 12 March 2007 to Sunday 25 March 2007

Start voting - first round
Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007

Start voting - second round
Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April

Start voting - third round
Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April

Announce results 24 April, or before if the voting is successfully completed.

Proposed dates for GNSO Council meeting to confirm results:
Thursday 26 April OR Thursday 3 May in time for the GNSO to give due notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual Meeting 2006, which would be 8 May 2007.

In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws
From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI

3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region.
[Note the other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Rita Rodin]

Templates will be available for Nomination and Seconding of candidates
All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member.

Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm

Section 3. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DIRECTORS

ICANN Directors shall be:
Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making;

Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN;

Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section;

Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet;

Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and

Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English.

Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies.

2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be
considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council
relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process.

3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8.

Section 5. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION
In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, the selection of Directors by the Nominating Committee and each Supporting Organization shall comply with all applicable diversity provisions of these Bylaws or of any Memorandum of Understanding referred to in these Bylaws concerning the Supporting Organization. One intent of these diversity provisions is to ensure that at all times each Geographic Region shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. The specific countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the Board, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time (but at least every three years) to determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the Internet.

Only GNSO Council members may nominate and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates

Accepting Nominations:
The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance.
The GNSO Secretariat shall convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list.

B. VOTING PROCEDURE
The voting will be "convention style" voting. This consists of sequential rounds of voting until a single candidate receives a majority of the votes on the GNSO Council.
(see: Appendix A Convention Style Voting
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm)
(There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.)

C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE ROUNDS OF CONVENTION STYLE VOTING
Start voting - first round
Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007

Start voting - second round
Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April

Start voting - third round
Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April

D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:

All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC),
Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote.

GNSO Council members who are candidates, will be replaced temporarily on the Council by a member chosen by the constituency affected and that person will have the right to vote.

E. COUNTING OF VOTES:
As provided in the ICANN bylaws,
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm, Article X, section 5.2.
each GNSO Council member representing either the registrars constituency or the gTLD registries constituency will be entitled to cast two votes in each round, and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote.

There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.

F. VOTING
Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot.

1. Ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address.
2. Ballots should be filled out and returned to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. They should not be copied to any e-mail list.
3. At the scheduled times, the Secretariat will announce the results of each round of balloting by sending a message to the <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mailing list. These announcements will include:
a. The number of votes received by each candidate;
b. The names of the GNSO Council members from whom ballots were received; and
c. The confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted.
Item 3(c) will allow each GNSO Council member to double-check that his or her ballot was properly understood, but will not allow others to determine how the member voted.
4. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is
closed.

G. DISCLOSURE OF THE VOTING
The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period.
The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at a Council meeting. Once that occurs, the GNSO Secretariat will prepare and post a full record of all voting, including how each member voted in each round.

H. DISCUSSION MAILING LIST DURING ELECTIONS
1. In accordance with a decision as noted in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-captioning.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-minutes.html
Public archiving of the GNSO Council list will not be stopped.
A separate archive and mailing list will be created for the purpose of managing elections going forward. This list will (a) exclude those Council members who are candidates; but include (b) any liaisons from the ALAC or GAC to the GNSO Council; and (c) the GNSO Secretariat.
The list recipients and archiving will be concluded at the end of the process.

This list name is elections-gnso@xxxxxxxxx and archives will be posted at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/elections-gnso/ following the conclusion of the election.

2. Messages posted to the list should be treated as confidential until the end of the elections. The GNSO Secretariat may, however, disclose them to the General Counsel's office to the extent appropriate to obtain
advice about how to handle procedural problems that arise during the voting process.

The Council list should continue to be used for normal policy development work.

Please note that the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel will not be recipients of the special election mailing list during this period, so they should be copied on any particular message that you wish to bring to their attention.

20070201-2

The Council approved the formation of the Working Group on Mechanisms to Protect Rights of Others, with a Statement of Work that will be revised to incorporate changes as indicated:

a. Document and evaluate practices that are currently in existence or have previously been used in the introduction of new gTLDs for protecting rights.
b. Identify the problems that the procedures are intended to solve
c. Establish definitions of terms used in the working group to ensure all members have a common understanding
d. Make recommendations to the Council regarding ways to protect the rights of others when new gTLDs are introduced
e. Add text from the Reserved Names working group (RN-WG) Statement of Work suggested by Chuck Gomes to bring this working group in line with regard to the formation, voting and membership:

Formation of the Working Group.
The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group.

1. Voting:
In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. “Straw poll voting” should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership
The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group.
Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.
Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act. Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline
The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:
1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25
2. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
3. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting.

20070201-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 18 January 2007

20070118-3

Chuck Gomes selected as the interim chair of the working group on reserved names.

20070118-2

The GNSO Council approved the Statement of Work for the Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN) with the modification in the timeline as proposed by Bruce Tonkin

I. Formation of the Working Group
The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approved statement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended to guide the work of the group.

1. Voting:
In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.

2. Membership
The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act.

Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).

The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).

3. Working Timeline
The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:

1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25
2. Complete its work and deliver written recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings
3. Respond to any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings.

As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO Council.

II. Purpose of the Working Group

The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations. This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs.

The treatment of reserved names is a matter of contract for existing gTLDs and will be a matter of contract for future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries, Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06 does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report to the Council regarding relevant recommendations.

III. Working Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach

A. To perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of reserved domain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following:

1. Review the present treatment and process for reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts - link provided in Background Section
2. Review any other discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.)
3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names - see Background Section
4. Review any relevant technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs -see Background Section and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB, SSAC,etc.) is needed and complete.
5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as needed, including legal and operational, to identify and review any existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names processes and procedures
6. Liaise with the ccNSO and the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessary

B. Proposed Working Approach for Working Group:

1. Initially, examine the sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names to consider breaking the broad topic into smaller parts
2. Estimate the complexity of issues associated with each of the sub-elements and briefly describe the elements of complexity (e.g., more controversial issues involving multiple stakeholder groups with competing views might be rated more complex; consultation with the GAC might be rated as more complex; etc.)
3. Prioritize the sub-elements according to these two factors:
   1. Estimated level of complexity (less complex to higher)
   2. Importance/relevance to complete any future policy work prior to the introduction of new gTLDs
   3. Other {to be developed}
4. Identify any sub-elements for which any needed policy work may be able to be completed in time for the introduction of new gTLDs and develop recommendations about how that might best be accomplished/launch development of recommendations
5. Identify the remaining sub elements and establish a working plan to address these, including considering parallel work tracks, if feasible and resources permit, versus sequential work.
6. Prepare and submit an interim report to the relevant PDP group and/or the Council so that any additional policy work needed could be started as soon as possible referencing the Time Line provided by the Council
7. Prepare and submit a final report regarding all of the above for both PDP groups and the Council upon conclusion of work.

Regular progress reports should be provided for both PDP groups and the Council corresponding to scheduled meetings of those groups and the Council.

IV. Example of Topics for Reserved Names

This section provides an example of a work plan outline for the work of the Working Group. It is provided as an initial resource for potential use by the Working Group and to attempt to help to launch the Working Group quickly, due to the pressures of time limitations. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor prescriptive. It should be assumed that the work will need to ask the question of how reserved names apply to IDNs at both second and first levels, as well as Latin character gTLDs.

1. Identify possible roles and purposes for reserved names at the top level and review and examine those roles and purposes, including how to address the role of reserved names in IDNs
2. Identify and develop proposals to address any policy issues that should be or are under consideration by the existing GNSO PDPs regarding policy considerations related to the role, use, reservation, and release and allocation of reserved names at the top and second level
3. Determine:
   1. The various roles that reserved names may play in new gTLDs in addressing controversial categories of names, including whether trademark names and country/geopolitical names should have initial or permanent reserved status; etc.
   2. Whether existing reserved names at the second level should automatically be included at the first level or
   3. Whether there is different treatment proposed for existing reserved names at the second level, in the first level
   4. Whether reserved name requirements need to be the same for all gTLDs and, if not, which ones might vary
   5. Whether there should be a procedure by which staff publishes new categories of reserved names before adding them to registry agreements
4. Discuss and review processes by which names could be put into reserved status at the top level
5. Discuss and propose processes by which names can be unreserved at the top level and made available for allocation, including discussion of whether there are unique treatments in allocation for names that are reserved
6. Discuss whether and how categories of names can be unreserved and allocated at the second level from the existing categories, including second level reservations in single character[1] and two character labels, and reservations for geographic and geopolitical names, to include examination of any existing technical concerns
7. Reconfirm whether there should be a process by which new names or categories are added to the reserved status in the second level (e.g., should we assume that all new strings allocated for operation as registries are reserved at the second level when they are awarded?)

Background Materials and Relevant Initiatives to take into account:

Background:

1) Existing Registry Agreements Reserved Names (Annex 6 and other examples) http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm

2) Relevant RFCs which discuss reserved names
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc./rfc2141.txt
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt

3) Status report on single letter names - to be provided

Relevant Initiatives:
(1) PDP 05: developing policy recommendations on new
gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05.
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/

(2) PDP 06
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/

(3) IDN Working Group
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm

Attachment 1:

Additional considerations:

For a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must Meet the following criteria:

(A) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;

(B) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;

(C) is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates;

(D) Will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or

(E) Implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.

20070118-1

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 6 December 2006

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 21 December 2006

20061221-1

Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period 21 December 2006 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2007.

20061206-2

Approval of GNSO Council minutes 16 November 2006

20061206-1

Bruce Tonkin elected as GNSO Council chair until the conclusion of the current election period.

20061116-5

The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board.

20061116-4

Procedural motion to vote on whether to vote on the Proposed

The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board.

20061116-3

GNSO IDN Working Group Charter

The IDN Working Group operates in the context of the following related activities within ICANN:

1. There is a President's Advisory Committee on IDNs which has been in operation since November 2005. Amongst other things this committee is tasked with analyzing the challenges relating to the technical implementation of internationalized top level domains and suggestions towards their resolution. IN particular the committee is supervising laboratory tests (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct06.htm).
2. There has been a working group of gTLD registries and ccTLD registries to create a set of technical Guidelines for the Implementation of IDNs at the second level. See http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm for version 2.1 of the Guidelines dated - 22 Feb 2006.
3. The GNSO has a Committee developing policy recommendations on new gTLDs, as part of a policy development process called PDP-Dec05. The policies developed for new gTLDs apply to new gTLDs that use the IDN standards. See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ for more information.
4. The ICANN staff have produced a draft issues report on IDNs dated 2 August 2006 available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tlds/issues-report-02aug06.htm.
5. The ccNSO has formed a ccNSO IDN working group. From the minutes of 23 Aug 06 the purpose of this group is to: consider what the ccNSO should do on IDN issues, what policy issues should be considered jointly with the GNSO, and liaise with the GNSO and prepare a report on the current status and future steps for the ccNSO on IDN issues.
6. External to ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has released a document (RFC4690) which provides a review and recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names.

The purpose of the GNSO IDN Working Group is to identify and specify any policy issues that should be considered by the GNSO via a policy development process that have not already been considered within PDP-Dec05. It should do this using the following steps:

1. review the draft recommendations on new gTLDs (which include IDN gTLDs) from the GNSO's Committee on new gTLDs
2. review the current status and outcomes from the laboratory tests,
3. review the ICANN staff issues report,
4. review the IAB document (RFC4690)
5. liaise with the ccNSO working Group to discuss any policy issues which they have identified

Note for a policy issue to warrant a policy development process it must meet the following criteria:

1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;
2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;
3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates;
4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or
5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.

Membership: Membership is open to any member of a GNSO constituency or the GNSO Council.

ICANN advisory committees may appoint liaisons to the working group.

Voting: Voting will be on the basis of 1 vote per member

Duration: The working Group must complete its work by the end of the ICANN meeting in Portugal on 26-30 March 2007, and provide a report to the GNSO Council.

Chair: The chair will be appointed via election from the existing members of the IDN working group established by the GNSO Council on 18 May 2006 to review the IDN issues report in the lead up to the ICANN meeting in Morocco.

20061116-2

Notice and comment on gTLD agreement approvals.

"With respect to any proposed agreement relating to generic top-level domains that includes provisions that would have an effect materially different from other past or current ICANN agreements or practices, including but not limited to gTLD registry and registrar agreements, ICANN will notify the GNSO Council and post the proposed agreement for public comment on the ICANN website at least twenty-one days (and if practical, longer) prior to any final approval of the agreement."

20061116-01

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes

20061019-01

Approval of the GNSO Council minutes

20060928-04

The GNSO Council resolves to direct staff to begin gathering the information data, conduct the research and pull together all the back ground and historical information that would be needed for the review and then recommend changes to the PDP.

20060928-03

The GNSO Council resolves:

To request the Board to delay any decision on the .biz .info and .org agreements until the ICANN Board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN meetings 2006 and to take into account the current outcome of the PDPFeb06 task force at that time.

Item 4: Proposed bylaws amendment to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals

- update from General Counsel on action with respect to the GNSO request of 18 August 05 regarding proposed changes to ICANN bylaws to improve transparency with respect to contract approvals

20060928-02

1. The GNSO Council resolves:

a) To instruct the PDPFeb06 task force to continue its work, to appoint an interim chair

b) To instruct staff to propose a work schedule in agreement with the interim chair and Task Force this week and carry it out

c) To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to list all ICANN agreements sections on consensus policy

d) To ask the General Counsel within 14 days to compare and contrast the PDP06 Terms of Reference with the so –called “picket fence” consensus policy areas and provide a without prejudice assessment of likelihood of in or out of scope indicating uncertainty as necessary.

20060928-01

• Approval of the GNSO Council minutes
  • http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-28sep06.html

20060720-03

"The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating:

(i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended;

(ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator);

(iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and

(iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them.

To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, the GNSO proposes the following steps:

(1) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain name for their customers.

(2) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of cctld registry or cctld registrar agreements with registrants, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the purposes for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants.

(3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current uses and abuses of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service.

(4) Supported by the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's, such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC, regarding the purposes for collecting Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values.

The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives."

20060720-02

"The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers.

In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:

(1) Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that supports the current definition may also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council.

(2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments.

(3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.

(4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.

Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report.

Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion.

20060720-01

• Approval of the minutes:
  • http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18may06.html

20060628-02

beloved member of the Internet and ICANN family, Liz Dengate Thrush, was killed last week in a tragic car accident that also took the life of three other members of her family.

Liz was a well known leader and contributor to the Internet, and many of the ICANN community knew Liz personally through her participation in ICANN's meetings, and her leadership in InternetNZ and in New Zealand.

Liz was the wife of Peter Dengate Thrush, a long standing contributor and leader in the global Internet community, and in the New Zealand Internet community, and an ICANN board member.

The GNSO Council, on behalf of the GNSO, sends heartfelt condolences to Peter Dengate Thrush, to Liz's and Peter's children, Clare, Phoebe, and Henry, to the families of Liz and Peter in their tragic loss and to Liz's many loving friends, for the tragic loss of Liz and other members of their family.

20060628-01