GNSO Council Public meeting in Cartagena Minutes 8 December 2010

Last Updated: 11 January 2011
Date: 
08 December 2010

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 14:00 COT (19:00 UTC).

List of attendees:

Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jeff Neuman alternate for Caroline Greer who was absent with apologies
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis - remote participation

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): , Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; Mike Rodenbaugh;
John Berard alternate for Zahid Jamil who was absent with apologies
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): William Drake, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, Rosemary Sinclair and Rafik Dammak remote participation.
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer

ICANN Staff
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Policy Director

For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:

Audiocast (archive):

Transcript

Presentations

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest

Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, Councilors were polled regarding
disclosures of interest regarding the following meeting topics:

  •  
    • The main issues for this meeting are:

      ◦GNSO Prioritization
      ◦Election Procedures for Council Chair & Vice Chairs
      ◦Whois Studies
      ◦Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain
      ◦Disclosure of Interest Procedures

1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
Updates of Interest statements were received from:

1 3 Review/amend the agenda

Adrian Kinderis asked for clarification about the purpose of the public participation in the public GNSO Council meetings. It was suggested that this topic be raised at the GNSO Wrap-up session and discussed further off-line in the interest of time at the current meeting.

1.4.The GNSO Council 28 October 2010 meeting minutes were not yet updated for approval.

Item 2: GNSO Project Decision Making

Olga Cavalli referred to the email summary sent to the Council list that a small group would work together informally.

Item 3: Elections of Council Chair & Vice Chairs

Stéphane van Gelder was elected as chair of the GNSO Council.

Jeff Neuman was elected as vice chair from the Contracted Party House

Olga Cavalli will serve as interim vice chair for the Non Contracted Party House until such time as the house has elected a vice chair.

Election procedures

Highlights from the discussion emphasised the need for the new Council to review the Election procedures:

  • there needs to be greater precision in the election procedures
  • simple, clear procedures for the rounds of voting and the percentages needed
  • need to better define the chair and vice chair terms in the GNSO Operating Procedures
  • explore having the election of the chair undertaken by the incoming Council members
  • rely more on trust in one another to be able to reach procedures by discussion rather than spelling out to the last "T" what must happen in every circumstance.

4. New gTLD Applicant Guidebook

a. Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)

The proposed amendment by Wolf Ulrich Knoben, seconded by Jaime Wagner to the motion made by Rafik Dammak and seconded by Bill Drake for the JAS WG charter extension in response to an ICANN Board resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items consisted of removing the following paragraph from the motion as set out below.

c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.

Resolved:

1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives:

a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered;

c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;

d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship.

e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship.

f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties.

g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding

h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated.

i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.

Discussion highlights:

Much of the discussion focused on the proposed amendment to remove work item c, regarding the framework for a foundation to manage from the proposed extended charter objectives.

Both the Registries and the Registrar Stakeholder Groups expressed concerns regarding the extent of the objectives in the charter and viewed some of the items as beyond the GNSO's scope.

The Registries Stakeholder Group stressed that they did support the need to look at the issue of funding and assisting other applicants.

Avri Doria, co-chair of the group commenting from the audience, indicated that there was ALAC approval and the Board's encouragement for the group to continue working and the group could continue its work.

The amendment and the motion were deferred to the next Council meeting.

Action Item:
It was suggested that a group of volunteers, not necessarily Councillors, work on the motion and deal with the issues and submit a revised motion eight days in advance of the next Council meeting.

Volunteers:
Jeff Neuman, Tim Ruiz, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Avri Doria

b. Vertical Integration Policy Development Working Group (VI PDP WG)

Stéphane van Gelder, seconded by Terry Davis and Andrei Kolesnikov proposed a motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars.

Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of the first phase of its deliberations;
Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I);
Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD registries;
With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and
Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN’s Board of Directors;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks the Co-Chairs, Mike O’Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this PDP.

WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO’s) and Advisory Committee (AC’s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law;
WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010;
AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community;
RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and Constituency provide feedback as soon as possible on the CWG's recommendations to the Council.

The motion carried by roll call vote.

Voting analysis:
Contracted Party House:
7 votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Jeff Neuman, Edmon Chung, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Stéphane van Gelder, Terry Davis.
Non Contracted Party House:
11 votes in favour: Jaime wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Rosemary Sinclair, Debbie Hughes, Rafik Dammak, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli.
2 votes against: David Taylor, Kristina Rosette

Kristina Rosette provided the reason for voting against the motion: The IPC is voting against this motion because, frankly, we don't think it should ever have had cause to occur in the first place because the Board voted to allow the vertical integration cross-ownership contrary to its previously stated positions and despite the lack of consensus among the GNSO charter PDP VI working group.

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben provided an individual opinion from both ISPC councillors regarding the process:
As councillors, we are not satisfied with the way the council managed the topic of vertical integration. The council establish and chartered a working group on vertical integration and received an interim report with no consensus on any recommendation. The council, claiming its role of being the manager of the policy development process, was not even able to comment on whether it would see further chances to come to conclusions or not and just forward this interim report to the board. As a result, the council seems to be very surprised that the board took a decision on the topic of vertical integration. We personally appreciate in general that the board is capable to act with regards to such an essential question. Also, some of our community has reservations to the decision made.Our concern is that the council's role as manager of the PDP maybe we can in the future, if more topics come up, where the council may be not in the position to provide guidance to the board. We, therefore, urge the council and ourselves to take this seriously in order to avoid this kind of scenario.
What I would like to point out is not I wouldn't only criticize, it is our intent here to make this council more sensitive but you may lose awareness by the Board with respect to important topics.

Action Item:

Jeff Neuman noted for the record that the issue should be reviewed by the PPSC's Policy Development Process work team (PPSC-PDP) because currently a majority of both houses is not needed that to initiate a PDP. Thus the outcome was not a surprise as the issue did not receive a majority of both houses.

c. Recommendation 6 Community Working Group (Rec6 CWG) Report

Margie Milam provided a brief overview of the report.

Mary Wong, seconded by Bill Drake and further amended by Mary Wong, proposed motion on recommendations made recently by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the draft AGB.)

WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO’s) and Advisory Committee (AC’s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law;

WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010;

AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community;

RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;

RESOLVED FURTHER, the Council recommends that each Stakeholder Group and constituency provide feedback as soon as possible to the Council, on the CWG recommendations.

The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Voting analysis:
Contracted Party House:
7 votes in favour: Chuck Gomes, Jeff Neuman, Edmon Chung, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Stéphane van Gelder, Terry Davis.
Non Contracted Party House:
13 votes in favour: Jaime wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Rosemary Sinclair, Debbie Hughes, Rafik Dammak, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli, David Taylor, Kristina Rosette.

5. Joint IDN Working Group (JIG) Recommendations re. New Top Level Domains

Edmon Chung referred to the update submitted to the Council list on 5 December 2010.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10250.html

Next Steps: The Final Report is scheduled to reach the Council for further actions to be taken in Jan 2011. Then for the Council to resolve to send the report on to Board and Staff for further action on the subject and to incorporate the recommendations.

Commenting on the success of the JIG as a joint working group, Edmon noted that when the group was chartered, a clear process was established that a final report would be produced and feedback from the respective Councils, the ccNSO and the GNSO would be sought.

6. Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement

Deferred to next Council meeting on request of the Registrar Stakeholder Group..

7. Recommendations re. Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)

In the interest of time deferred to next Council meeting.

8. Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Charter

Julie Hedlund provided an overview of the draft charter.

Chuck Gomes, seconded by Jaime Wagner proposed a motion approving the draft charter of the Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG)

WHEREAS, at their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting in June 2010 the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global domain name system (DNS);

WHEREAS, this issue is considered to be of common interest to the participating Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, and should be preferably undertaken in a collaborative effort;

WHEREAS, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO agreed to establish a Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG), in accordance with each organization's own rules and procedures and invite other AC's to liaise and engage with the DSSA-WG in a manner they consider to be appropriate;

WHEREAS, a Drafting Team of the Chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO, along with interested representatives from those organizations, produced a Draft Charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 15 November 2010 at: http://ccnso.icann.org/working groups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves this Draft Charter and encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups, and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the Draft Charter.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

10. GNSO Improvements

Philip Sheppard, chair of the Operations Steering Committee provided a brief Report. Council will be receiving a draft of the revised statement of Interest process. Several suggestions were made on the global outreach program recommendations and the report has gone back to the Constituency Stakeholder work team (CSG). A communication on absentee voting, abstentions and proxy procedures will be sent to the to Council shortly prompting responses and any learnings used in the current procedures to identify specific problems.

Jeff Neuman, chair of the Policy Process Steering Committee, provided a brief Report slides 45- 49

Rob Hoggarth provided a Staff overview of the Constituency & Stakeholder Group Charters
The Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) has ratified a permanent charter document which has been submitted to the Board for consideration and has been posted for public comment.
The Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) is continuing discussions with the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board.
The Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups are pursuing revisions to their charters.
The Intellectual Property (IPC) and the Commercial and Business Users Constituencies have completed revisions to their charter documents.

The GNSO Website is scheduled to be refreshed in March 2011.
A check list will be distributed to the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies asking them which Toolkit of Services they will be needing.
Audio casting: On average, two to seven remote participants were actually making use of the audiocast at GNSO Council teleconferences. The IT staffing resources needed are minimal, running charges are nominal and most of the effort went into developing the capability itself.

Naresh Ajwani provided an overview of the Cyber Cafe Ecosystem Constituency
In India there are 180,000 Cyber Cafes who are like many ISPs. The uniqueness of Cyber Cafes lies in the fact that they are a complete ecosystem of Internet service provider, access, content, commerce and users. It is a place where physical and virtual coexist.

Amber Sterling provided an overview of the Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC)
The NPOC shall focus on the impact of DNS policies and their effects on the operational readiness and implementation of noncommercial missions and objectives. NPOC members rely on the Internet and DNS policies to provide valuable services to their communities.

Chuck Gomes, seconded by Jeff Neuman and as amended by Mary Wong proposed a motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters.

Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan)
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf;

Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the improvements;

Whereas the Council intended the charters of the committees (and their attendant work teams) to be temporary and not to extend beyond the 2009 annual ICANN meeting without specific action by the Council;

Whereas the Council has now twice extended the terms of those committees to allow the GNSO community implementation recommendations work to continue (see - http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm and
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10mar10-en.htm);

Whereas the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and notes that those committees and their teams are diligently continuing their work;

RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the ICANN public meeting in June 2011.

RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery.

RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011, to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

11. Recognition and thanks for outgoing Councilors

Chuck Gomes thanked and acknowledged the work of the the outgoing councillors, Mike Rodenbaugh Commercial Business Users Constituency, Terry Davis the Nominating Committee Appointee, all the members of the Registries Stakeholder Group, Caroline Greer and Edmon Chung.

12. Recognition and thanks for ICANN Staff support in 2010

Chuck Gomes recognised and thanked the ICANN Staff for their administrative and policy support: Glen de Saint Géry, Gisella Gruber-White -administrative, David Olive, Liz Gasster, Rob Hoggarth, Marika Konings, Karla Valente, Julie Hedlund, Margie Milam, Denise Michel, Steve Sheng, Ken Bour as well as dozens of other staff members from the ICANN executive team to liaisons to other SO and AC support personnel who have also provided support to the GNSO.

13. Welcome to New Councilors

Chuck Gomes welcomed the following new councillors in the Non-Contracted Party House, John Berard (Commercial Business Users Constituency) in the Contracted Party House from the Registries Stakeholder Group, Ching Chiao, Jeff Neuman and Jonathan Robinson and the Nominating Committee Appointee, Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.

14. Other Business
Chuck Gomes thanked Greg Aaron and Mikey O'Connor for their leadership on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group.

15. Open Microphone

Comments were made by:

Paul Foody on the delay of new gTLDs

David Cohen: With more delays looming for gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs getting a first-mover's advantage on languages, will ICANN be introducing a fast-track process for non- controversial IDN gTLDs?

Ken Stubbs suggested deferring items to two meetings later with the holiday season approaching which would give stakeholder groups and constituencies longer time for consultation.

Scott Seitz from dotGAY and Constantine Roussos from dotMusic were encouraged to submit their comments on on new gTLDs to the public comment forum.

Marilyn Cade expressed concern that the arrival of very significant amounts of money through the use of an auction process for the allocation of registries may result in so much money that it threatens ICANN's not-for-profit status.

Stéphane van Gelder paid tribute to Chuck Gomes as it was his last meeting on the council as chair and his last open Council meeting.
"We just want to say thanks very much, Chuck, well done for all the years of service. We really appreciated working with you. I'm sure we will see lots more of you. I certainly hope so. It has just been a pleasure. Thanks very much."

Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 18:30 COT.

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 13 January 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
See: Calendar