Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

GNSO Council Minutes 5 August 2010

Last Updated:

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 15:03 UTC.

List of attendees:

Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting - absent, apologies

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder
Adrian Kinderis - absent, apologies
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Caroline Greer; Edmon Chung- joined after the voting
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis - absent, apologies

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG):, Jaime Wagner, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor; Mike Rodenbaugh joined after roll call.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - absent, apologies, Zahid Jamil-absent
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Mary Wong, William Drake;
Rosemary Sinclair - absent apologies
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

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

David Olive - Vice President, Policy Development
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 - absent apologies
Marika Konings - Policy Director - absent apologies

Invited Guests:
Ken Bour - Consultant
Kristina Nordstrom - ccNSO Consultant

For detailed information of the meeting, please refer to:

  • MP3 Recording

    The meeting was not audiostreamed due to technical difficulties

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
No updates

1.3 Review/amend the agenda

Any Other Business: Council Meeting dates after October 2010

1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures

15 July meeting approved 28 July 2010.

Item 2: OSC GNSO Improvement Recommendations

Olga Cavalli, seconded by Debbie Hughes proposed a motion to approve the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) and Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) Deliverables (29 July 2010)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 23 June 2010 meeting in Brussels, accepted a set of deliverables submitted by the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) and the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT);

WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum completed between 28 June 2010 and 18 July 2010 and a Staff Summary and Analysis has been published;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the these deliverables as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period; and

WHEREAS, there were no public comments submitted that would amend any of the GCOT or CSG-WT recommendations.


RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the following set of five GCOT deliverables, without further modification:

RESOLVED FURTHER, that Staff has incorporated the above Sections and Chapters into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) (, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the following CSG-WT deliverable, which is organized into two sections as follows:
o Sections 2.1 & 2.2: Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, which Staff has incorporated into a new Chapter 7.0 in the above-referenced GNSO Operating Procedures; and o Section 2.3: Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to provide Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above to GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies for use in amending their charters, as appropriate;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the GCOT and CSG Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

The resolution was adopted unanimously by voice vote.

Analysis of the vote:
The motion carried unanimously in the Contracted Parties House by voice vote.
Absent: Adrian Kinderis, Edmon Chung, Terry Davis

The motion carried unanimously in the Non Contracted Parties House by voice vote.
Absent: Zahid Jamil, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Rosemary Sinclair.

Wendy Seltzer, due to connectivity issues, was dropped off the call at the time of the vote and did not vote.

2.5 Action Items:

  • Ken Bour will provide a cheat sheet for new voting procedures
  • Glen de Saint Géry will distribution the Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operating Procedures
  • Staff will distribute a package of materials forS takeholder Groups and Constituencies regarding charters

Item 3: Whois Studies

Tim Ruiz, seconded by Wendy Seltzer proposed a motion regarding the WHOIS studies

On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for WHOIS Studies requested by Council on 04-Mar-2009 (See Motion 3 at 04 mar 2009 motions). This report included a Staff analysis for two of the four study areas – WHOIS Misuse, and WHOIS Registrant Identification. A full Staff analysis of the feasibility and cost of the third and fourth study areas, WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse and Reveal, is still outstanding:

According to the above report the estimated costs of the first studies is significant, approximately $300,000 and likely significantly more once the outstanding analysis is completed. While ICANN has allocated some budget for WHOIS studies, that sum is likely insufficient to fund all proposed studies at this time.

Considering such costs, the time to complete each study, and other resources involved, Council will be better able to make a fully informed decision as to which, if any, studies to pursue once the Staff analysis of all four study areas is complete and delivered to Council.


Council thanks Staff for its work so far in producing the requested analysis of these studies and requests Staff to complete its analysis as soon as practical.

Council shall defer votes on any WHOIS studies until all are ready for simultaneous consideration and prioritization, when responses to RFPs for all four studies have been received and analyzed.

The motion failed in both Houses.
Analysis of the voting results:

Contracted Parties House (CPH):
2 Yes votes- Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder
2 No votes - Caroline Greer, Chuck Gomes
3 CPH Council members absent: Adrian Kinderis, Edmon Chung, Terry Davis
Non Contracted parties House (NCPH):
4 Yes votes - Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Debbie Hughes, Wendy Seltzer
6 No votes - Mike Rodenbaugh, Jaime Wagner, Olga Cavalli, Bill Drake, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak
3 NCPH Council members absent: Zahid Jamil, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Rosemary Sinclair

David Olive committed to checking whether the amount of money set aside in the budget for the Whois studies had to be used before the end of FY11 and whether the studies have to be done by that time.

Mike Rodenbaugh seconded by Terry Davis as amended by the Registries stakeholder group, proposed a motion to pursue the Whois Misuse Study.


In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (

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 would 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 reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.

On 5-Nov-2008, the Council 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. 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. 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.

On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council.
(See Motion 3 at 04 mar 2009 motions).

On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies.
This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose.

At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS, stating:

First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:

  • the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
  • the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."

The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (

The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies.


Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. (

Further resolved that ICANN staff is requested to ensure the study reaches out to a global set of consumer and data protection, regulatory and law enforcement organizations, including the range of government organizations who would have reason to compile and keep records of Whois misuse,

Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to protect the confidentiality and privacy of Registrant Whois data collected for this study, according to best practices including encryption, and Registrants and all groups contacted be informed of this protection.

Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to include in the study analysis all individual elements in the Whois data which descriptive study surveyed sources identify as having been misused; data elements identified by these surveyed sources will not be discarded or therwise eliminated on the grounds that the actual data source is unclear or that online search verification discloses multiple possible sources of the data.

Further resolved that ICANN staff will extend the time of the Experimental Study from 90 days to a minimum of 6 months to better track the results of the data harvesting.

The motion failed in the Contracted Parties House and was carried in the Non Contracted Parties House.
Analysis of the voting results:

Contracted Parties House (CPH):
2 No votes- Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder
2 Yes votes - Caroline Greer, Chuck Gomes
3 CPH Council members absent: Adrian Kinderis, Edmon Chung, Terry Davis
Non Contracted parties House (NCPH):
8 Yes votes - Mike Rodenbaugh, Jaime Wagner, Debbie Hughes,Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Olga Cavalli,
1 No vote - Kristina Rosette
1 Abstention - David Taylor
3 NCPH Council members absent: Zahid Jamil, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Rosemary Sinclair

1 abstention, David Taylor, IPC reason for abstaining:
"I disagree with moving forward without a guarantee that there are sufficient funds available for all the studies which we need"

Action Item:

Staff is directed to move ahead with Study 3 before finalizing the Study 4 RFP.

Item 4: September meeting date September 16 (scheduled date) vs. September 8?

Chuck Gomes GNSO Council chair, proposed moving the scheduled GNSO Council meeting from 16 September 2010 to Wednesday, September 8 at 15:00 UTC. to ensure quorum at the meeting.

Tim Ruiz formally voiced his objection to moving the meeting.
Kristina Rosette requested that there be no voting on any issue for which absentee voting is not permitted during the Council meeting on 8 September, even though the new Council procedures which allow for voting in the case of absences will be in operation.

Action Item:

The Secretariat is to make the announcement.

Item 5: Prioritization of GNSO work

An Adobe Connect poll was conducted regarding possible next steps for the GNSO Prioritization work.

The results are as follows:

7Spend no more time on prioritization
2Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term
0Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process
1Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process
8Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4)

It should be noted that the Adobe Connect poll did not allow for a combination of responses and councillors were encouraged to describe their 'other' options on the Council mailing list.

Action Item:

The results will be sent to the Council list where further discussion can take place

Item 6: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS & Whois Policies Review Teams

Councillors were reminded of the key dates in the endorsement process:

  • 29 July - End of application period
  • 19 August - Due date for SG input (SG primary endorsements + additional candidates supported for diversity purposes)
  • 26 August - Council meeting
  • 8 September - Council meeting (see agenda item 11.2 below)
  • 12 September - GNSO endorsement slate due to Selectors

Chuck Gomes mentioned that a late application from Lee Eulgen had been accepted by Rod Beckstrom and Heather Dryden. Since the Council raised no objection, the Intellectual Property Constituency members were encouraged to ask Lee to provide the outstanding GNSO additional information to complete his application.

Item 7: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG

Stéphane van Gelder reported that the Vertical Integration Initial Report is currently open for public comment until 12 August 2010. The Initial Report includes a chart describing the results of a poll that was conducted by the co-chairs for each of the proposals under consideration. No proposal or principle has yet achieved consensus support.The group is continuing to meet during the public comment period and the goal is to publish a revised Initial Report by August 18 so that the council can be in a position to consider that report at its next meeting on August 26, 2010 in order to prepare recommendations prior to the Board's Retreat in September.

It was noted that the poll caused confusion in the group and was not supported by all the working group members.

Item 8: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report

Action Item:

Poll the group regarding the regular time of the meetings and date of the first meeting.

Item 9: Cartagena Planning

The group of volunteers, led by Wendy Seltzer to develop suggested improvements to the running of the GNSO Public Council meetings and the group, led by Stéphane van Gelder to work on the GNSO Council interaction with the Board were encouraged to provide their input by 15 September 2010.

Action Item:

Stéphane van Gelder requested a mailing list to facilitate exchanges in the group on GNSO Council/Board interaction.

Item 10: Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter

Chuck Gomes is awaiting information from Chris Disspain.

Item 11: Audio-casting of Council meetings

An explanation and apology for the technical failure of the Audiocast will go out to all the lists to which the audio casting option was distributed.
Wendy Seltzer commented that the audio cast would have been a useful backup to a spotty cell phone connection.

Item 12: Other Business

12.1 Follow-up on GNSO Improvements motion

The Council agreed to forming a standing committee open to the GNSO community whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams.

Action Item:

Send out a call for volunteers to the standing committee

12.2 Dates for council meetings after October 2010

Action Item
A doodle poll will go out to establish dates for Council meetings through to the end of the year 2010 and possibly the first meeting after the Cartagena meetings.

12.3 Kristina Rosette enquired whether staff had any information on what the UDRP update encompasses on the ICANN Board agenda. No one was able to provide information.

Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:03 UTC

Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday, 26 August 2010 at 20:00 UTC.
See: Calendar