GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 6 October 2011
The meeting started at 15:02 UTC.
List of attendees:
NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis absent, apologies – proxy vote to Tim Ruiz
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Andrei Kolesnikov
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor.
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Debra Hughes, Rosemary Sinclair, absent, apologies - proxy vote to Mary Wong
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer -absent
David Olive - VP Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Brian Peck – Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Alexander Kulik - System Administrator
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:
Item 1: Administrative Items
1.1 Roll call of Council members and update of Statements of Interest
1.2 Review/amend the agenda
1.3 The GNSO Council 22 September minutes were approved on 7 October 2011
Item 2: Update to Pending Projects List
Stéphane Van Gelder noted the following changes to the Pending Projects List since the last Council meeting on 22 September 2011.
- GNSO activities: 6 (10 - PEDNR, PDP-WT, OSC, GCOT, CSG removed - IRTP-C added).
- Other activities: 10 (9 - Thick Whois added)
- Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7- RAA removed - RC-IOC added).
- Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2-- no change).
Item 3: Whois Survey Drafting Team
A motion to approve the Charter for the Whois Survey Working Group WS-WG) was made by Wendy Seltzer, seconded by John Berard and amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
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 (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+-+Home),
and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/),
and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00);
Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;
Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs;
Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;
Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;
Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;
Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf
The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.
The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here:
In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council by October 2012.
The motion carried by voice vote.
(Note: Mary Wong who held the proxy for Rosemary Sinclair had not yet joined the call)
Item 4: Registration Abuse (RAP)
A motion to address the remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations was made by Zahid Jamil and seconded by Kristina Rosette.
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report;
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;
Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);
Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco.
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
1. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department 'to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).
Motion 1 carried by voice vote.
2. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed.
Motion 2 carried by voice vote.
3. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council's and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.
Motion 3 carried by voice vote.
4. RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation.
5. RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.
6. RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.
7. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.
9. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time.
10. RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time.
Motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 &10 carried by voice vote.
8. RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to
Motion 8 carried by roll call vote. (Majority of one House)
Contracted Parties House
6 Votes against: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis absent, apologies – proxy vote to Tim Ruiz, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
1 Vote in favour: Andrei Kolesnikov
Non-Contracted Parties House
13 Votes in favour: Jaime Wagner, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor. Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Debra Hughes, Rosemary Sinclair, absent, apologies - proxy vote to Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli
Item 5: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity
A motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system was made by Tim Ruiz seconded by Carlos Aguirre and amended by Tim Ruiz, Wendy Seltzer and John Berard.
WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and
WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:
1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number.
Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address.
2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar's respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.
3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention
(example: firstname.lastname@example.org) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours.
4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency's first contact with a registrar.
5. The Issue Report should include a freedom-of-expression impact analysis.
The Commercial and Business Users constituency asked for a deferral which was refused by Tim Ruiz who made the motion.
The motion carried by voice vote. (25% required for an Issues Report)
The following councilors identified themselves as voting against the motion:
Kristina Rosette, David Taylor (IPC), Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Debbie Hughes (NCSG).
Item 6: Amendments to RAA
As requested by the ISPCP constituency, the motion was deferred to the next Council meeting on 26 October, 2011. 2011. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
Item 7: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT)
The Registry and the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group requested that the motion be deferred to the next Council meeting on 26 October, 2011. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
Item 8: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs
As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b):
Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs:
Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest.
The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance:
During the Council's Sept 22 meeting, the following points were highlighted:
- A request to Staff to confer with ICANN General Counsel on the status of the advice that the GNSO receives from the GAC?
- This is a proposed topics to discuss with the GAC at the joint GAC- Council meeting in Dakar.
- Identify questions or requests for clarification and communicate these to the GAC well in advance of the joint meeting so as to have a meaningful and constructive discussion.
Margie Milam provided an update from Staff on the nature of GAC advice to the Council.
Discussion highlighted the following points:
- Concern was expressed that when the GAC says "Take into account," it may mean that the Council should heed and implement their advice, which may not always be the case, and will the GAC repeat the advice to the Board as though it was heeded and implemented by the Council. Further if the GNSO Council demonstrates that appropriate consideration is given to the advice, but perhaps it is not fully heeded or implemented, will this be taken into account by the GAC before they repeat that advice to the Board?
- Giving advice on Red Cross names should be separated from giving advice on whether a Policy Development Process should be initiated.
- With the imminent launch of the new gTLDs time is important if a Policy Development Process should be launched.
Item 9: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team - Final Charter (CCWG-DT)
Cross Community Working Group Charter
9.1 Council approved waiving the eight-day rule for presenting this motion to the Council in the appropriate timeframe.
A motion to create a GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG) was made by Jonathan Robinson and seconded by Carlos Aguirre.
Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;
Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs;
Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group;
Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and
Resolved further, that the Charter
is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Item 10: Review of proposed agenda for Dakar meeting
Discussion item on the GNSO's proposed agenda for the Dakar meeting week, including key points and meetings with other stakeholders and groups.
Jeff Neuman pointed out that the GNSO working sessions would start on Saturday morning at 10:00. The new gTLD session is likely to include an update on the JAS Report. The GAC session is scheduled earlier on Sunday afternoon.
Commenting on the schedule, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben will provide a written update and suggested that the Saturday 16:00-16:15 slot for the GNSO Improvements Standing Committee could be removed from the schedule. It was agreed that the slot would be left open for the time being. Mary Wong questioned whether thirty minutes was adequate time for the Reserved Names topic?
Jeff Neuman encouraged Councillors to provide comments and further input for the schedule directly to him.
10.2 Interaction with ccNSO
Reach out to the ccNSO informally and inform them that structured or individual participation in the Cross-community working group's activity would be welcomed, as well as bringing their attention to the Cross-community Working Groups meeting on Thursday from 09:00-10:00.
Update on the ccNSO's work on the Strategic Plan and Budget.
Stéphane van Gelder committed to communicating these topics to the ccNSO Council chair.
10.3 Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
Jeff Neuman reported that at its Singapore meeting, the Council decided to review the way it's Open Meetings are organized and as a result the following changes are being proposed:
- Make the meeting more interactive
- Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are being asked to provide the Council with updates about their activities during the first hour of the meeting followed by questions from the Council and the audience.
- Language for the Motions before the Council should be finalised before the meeting
Item 11: Best practices discussion paper (10 minutes)
Marika Konings reported that Staff has prepared a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices for registrars and registries and the question is now whether to open a public comment period and continue with the planned workshop on the topic at the Dakar meeting.
Discussion highlighted that the Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies need more time to review the report before opening a public comment period. There was strong support for a workshop on the topic in Dakar. Council is encouraged to be specific with their expectations regarding content when asking Staff to prepare an Issues Report or discussion paper.
Item 12. Any Other Business
Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 16:58 UTC.
Next GNSO Council Public meeting will be on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 in Dakar, Senegal at 14:00 UTC.