Minutes GNSO Council Meeting 10 May 2012
The meeting started at 15:03 UTC.
List of attendees:
NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard, David Taylor, Zahid Jamil, Brian Winterfeldt , Osvaldo Novoa – absent, apologies
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Joy Liddicoat – absent, apologies proxy to Bill Drake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer
David Olive - VP Policy Development
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Brian Peck - Policy Director
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Alex Kulik - System Administrator
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor – absent, apologies
Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates:
- No updates noted
1.3 Review/amend agenda
No changes noted
1.4. The minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 12 April 2012
were approved on 30 April 2012.
1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
Stéphane van Gelder reminded the Council to consult the GNSO Pending Projects List.
Item 2: Consent agenda
There were no items on the consent agenda.
Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations
Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names.The motion before Council is to set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups.
Jeff Neuman noted that the Registries Stakeholder Group was not in favour of moving forward with the motion and expressed the following concerns:
- the motion is perhaps premature given the current changes in the gTLD space with new Registries coming into existence
- there is overlap with other initiatives currently underway that touch on "best practices"
- the Council currently has a full workload
Yoav Keren, on behalf of the Registrars Stakeholder Group requested a deferral of the motion to the next Council meeting to provide the Stakeholder Group with more time for reflection.
Motion deferred to the GNSO Council meeting on 7 June 2012.
Item 4: Update on the new the Policy Development Process (PDP)
Marika Konings provided Council with an introduction to the revised GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and explained its new features in detail.
In the discussion that followed, it was pointed out that the new PDP is more flexible and allows groups to work at the pace of the milestones set in the charter, but the milestones that are the required elements in the Policy Development Process (PDP) should be taken into account. Estimates of the shortest time a PDP could take were from 9 to 12 months if there is consensus and the topic is not complicated, however, the public comment period has been lengthened and may impact the process. As a result of the revised Policy Development Process (PDP) ICANN Bylaws have been modified with regard to the GNSO Council voting threshold and linked to that a small modification to the Annex A, which states that the public comment period should be in line with the ICANN standards. If a fast track PDP would be needed, nothing prevents the Council from consulting with the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation to look into the possibility of such a model.
Stéphane van Gelder thanked Marika Konings and mentioned Tom Hodgson, who created the graphic design, for the presentation.
Item 5: International Olympics Committee/Red Cross Names Drafting Team (IOC/RC DT)
A drafting team, that originated from the Board Resolution, to discuss GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names, chaired by Jeff Neuman, was created informally after the GNSO wrap-Up meeting in Dakar. The drafting team, in response to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) proposal, specifically only addressed the top level recommendations because there was an immediate urgency for those while second level protections could, in theory, be incorporated into the registry agreement. The drafting team developed a set of recommendations that were approved by the GNSO Council on March 26, 2012.
On April 10, 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program Committee and granted it all of the powers of the Board to exercise Board-level authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The Committee met on 10 April 2012 and resolved not to update the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook at this time with the recommendations.
On April 12, 2012, the GNSO Council approved a motion requesting an Issue Report on protection of names and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201204 20120412 - 2
As a point of clarification, neither the drafting team nor the Council has responded to the GAC proposals at both the top and second level received on September 11, 2011.
Since the Costa Rica meetings the drafting team has received presentations by the Olympic Committee and the Red Cross, which addressed specific questions and resulted in constructive dialogue. There are different reactions about the continuation of the drafting team, namely the members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group are of the view that the work should be documented, the group wraped-up and ultimately reconstruct a new group under a Policy development Process (PDP) while other members who included a Registry, ALAC, IPC and the Nominating Committee representative all said that they believe the work has been valuable and the drafting team should continue taking into account that the Council still needs to respond to GAC Proposal on second level protections. Jeff Neuman, as the Drafting Team Chair, recommended that it is necessary to respond to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in a thoughtful manner that addresses their proposal whether the drafting team or as the Council of the whole undertakes this task.
Discussion highlighted the following points:
- The GNSO must take some formal action to respond to the GAC on the top level as well as the second level protections before the first new gTLD goes live.
- Attention was drawn to a new type of relationship or collaborative effort between the GAC and the GNSO that has been created
- A response could outline the process being undertaken and the option of whether a Drafting Team or a Working Group will do the work.
- Presenting the work of the drafting team to date would be very useful
- It would be more appropriate to form a formal group for further ongoing work, as opposed to the drafting team, an informal group which is more appropriate to provide a response in a relatively short time frame .
- The drafting team will continue to evaluate the facts it receives and make substantive recommendations at the second level.
- A timely response to the GAC of what has been done to date is needed.
- Due to the controversy, the drafting team has been delayed in its work and it will not be possible to have a full response by the Prague meetings, but a status update should be provided to the GAC.
Council did not reach consensus on the second level protection nor on a progress report.
- Stéphane van Gelder suggested that Jeff Neuman, the chair of the GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names drafting group, inform the group on behalf of the Council to continue their work.
- Stéphane van Gelder ask Jeff Neuman to draft a couple of sentences to the Heather Dryden, the GAC chair with an update on the Council position.
- Include a discussion of the continued work on the second level in the agenda for the next Council meeting.
Item 6: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group( JAS WG)
Kurt Pritz was absent so not able to provide the Council with a status update in person but provided the following written statement on the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS)
The GNSO Council approved an extension of the JAS charter on 22 September 2011 in order to complete other reports (Milestone 2 report) that have since been completed, and to request that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109. We continue to review implementation details with the JAS – either the entire JAS or a sub-group selected by the JAS. Most notably, JAS members have recommended that the community play a role in in the planning for the recruitment, training and operation of the "SARP," the review panels that will evaluate financial assistance applications. This planning includes the idea that the SARP include a Community Member Representative or CMR. Additional information can be provided to the GNSO to augment information provided by the JAS. A report on the details can be made directly to the GNSO Council and ALAC if the Council indicates such a preference.
Jeff Neuman reminded Council that the Registry Stakeholder Group absolutely supported the program to provide financial aid to applicants and support competition so any discussion is purely on procedural issues.
The following points were highlighted the discussion:
- The revised JAS charter and the Final Report were approved by the Council, thus the role of the JAS group was to monitor the implementation process and report back to the GNSO if there was anything that needed to be addressed.
- A GNSO Council motion provided for the JAS Working Group to remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation which indicates the justification for the continued existence of the JAS group.
- The communication between the JAS group, still in existence, and the Council needs improvement.
In the absence of Kurt Pritz, the Council agreed to defer further discussion to the next Council meeting and send appropriate questions to Kurt Pritz.
Item 7: Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements - The WHOIS Access recommendation
In the interest of time the item is deferred to the next Council meeting on 7 June 2012.
Item 8: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data WG
In the interest of time the item deferred to the next Council meeting on 7 June 2012.
Item 9: Any Other Business
9.1 Discussion on recent Board announcement to alter ICANN meeting Friday schedule.
Discussion highlighted the following points:
- Disbanding the Board meeting on Friday is perceived as ignoring the underlying fundamental issue of the Board's lack of transparency. The community is not given a good flavor of the Board members. It is difficult for the Nominating Committee which appoints/reappoints Board members to appreciate and judge their performance.
- The communications around the decision to end the ICANN meetings on Thursday were insufficient.
- Council supported sending a message to the ICANN Board requesting greater transparency and thanking them for the more detailed summaries and explanations of the votes at meetings as well as suggesting other mechanisms, including transcripts or even open Board calls at times that would increase transparency.
Wendy Seltzer volunteered drafting a message to the ICANN Board
9.2 Discussion on ALAC proposal for ICANN Academy.
Stéphane van Gelder volunteered to be part of the group and develop a few main points that the Council can agree on before submitting them to the working group
Bill Drake mentioned that he, together with another NCUC member, volunteered to participate in the group.
9.3 URS update in draft budget - should the Council write to the Board to request that it be involved?
Kurt Pritz provided the following written update with regard to the Uniform Rapid Suspension:
There is a budget line item identified as "URS Summit"
Implementation work conducted on the URS to date indicates that the implementation will not attain the cost target of $300-$500 in URS fee per case. This is based on discussions with WIPO staff, direct communication with the IPC, and examples understood from the ICM registry and Nominet. Because the fee target is a primary goal of the URS, additional work and study should be undertaken to determine if amendments to the program might attain the fee goal and retain the safeguards and other features of the program. This study must be undertaken by a community group. While the scope of the effort is not yet defined, it was necessary to reserve resources for the work in the ICANN's FY13 budget. The line item in the budget is the placeholder for those resources while the best way to accomplish the work can be designed. Again, the work will be done through a bottom-up, community discussion similar to the work done to create and review the URS in the first instance. The timing of the budgeting process required that we create the line item before planning for this work could be drafted and worked through the community.
- Council agreed to send a message to Steve Crocker Chairman of the Board and the ICANN Board.
- Wendy Seltzer volunteered to assist with the text.
Stéphane van Gelder apologized to Marika Konings, Steve Sheng and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben who were on hand to give updates and mentioned that, in the interest of time, the updates on Items 7 & 8 would be carried to the next Council meeting on 7 June 2012.
Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:00 UTC.
The next GNSO Council meeting will be on Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 20:00 UTC.