Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Minutes GNSO Council Public Meeting San José 14 March 2012

Last Updated:
27 August 2012

Agenda and Documents

The meeting started at 20:10 UTC. (14:10 local time)

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, Ching Chiao, Jonathan Robinson  
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Osvaldo Novoa, John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Mary Wong
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Lanre Ajayi

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

David Olive - VP Policy Development
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
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
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 Recording

14:00- 15:00 GNSO Council Public Forum.

Presentations by Stakeholder and Constituency Group Leaders.

  • Registries Stakeholder Group – Keith Drazek

Keith Drazek, the alternate chair of the Registries Stakeholder Group, reported that the stakeholder group had productive discussions in particular with the ICANN board regarding the impact of the new gTLDs on the Registries stakeholder group, the GNSO, ICANN and the ICANN community and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

  • Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) – Konstantinos Komaitis

Konstantinos Komaitis, chair of the Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), reported fruitful discussion on policy issues, strategizing for the future and improving involvement within the ICANN process as well as an event in Toronto similar to the San Francisco summit.

  • Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC).– Alain Berranger

Alain Berranger, the acting chair of Non-for -Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC), reported that they were actively engaged in outreach to the international NGO community and had 250 participants at a webinar in December 2011. Positive discussions between the NCUC and the NPOC resulted in a joint statement to the Board. A new constituency has to understand the subculture, and it cannot give up on the principles of its formation, but it has to contribute to the changing of the institutional subculture.

  • Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) – Marilyn Cade

Marilyn Cade, chair of the Business Constituency, reported that the Business Constituency had been warmly welcomed in Costa Rica and have had the opportunity to interact with local Costa Rican business colleagues. The constituency has published a newsletter which provides a graphic portrayal of ICANN and the GNSO's organization.

  • Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) – Steve Metalitz

Steve Metalitz, chair of the Intellectual Property Constituency, (IPC) noted that it had been a productive meeting but two factors made it very challenging, namely 1) low compliance to the 15 days required for documents before a meeting, 2) the RAA amendments did not meet the deadline for publication.

  • Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) – Tony Holmes

Tony Holmes, chair of the Internet Service providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP), reported a rather unique constituency meeting.  Part of the meeting was run in both English and Spanish due to the presence of the local ISP community and thanks to the Spanish-speaking ability of some ISP members.

The impact on the ISPCP of the implementation of the gTLD program was well debated and will be further discussed in the constituency. The ISPCP's suggested at the last public meeting that it would be more appropriate to have advance notice of any issues the Council wished to have the constituencies' views on rather than merely providing reports at the meeting.

Item 1: Administrative matters

  • Roll Call

1.2 Statement of interest updates
Ching Chiao noted that his employer, dot Asia, is involved in one of the gTLD applications.

1.3 Review/amend agenda
No changes were noted.

1.4. The GNSO Council minutes for the meeting on 16 February 2012 were approved on 6 March 2012.

1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested that the latest updates on Applicant Support arising from the meetings in Costa Rica should be added to the Pending Projects list.

Item 2: Consent agenda

The following item was approved on the consent agenda

• Approval of sending the Recommendations Report on IRTP B Rec 8 to the Board.

Action Item:

The Chair will send the report to the ICANN Board

Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report

As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see

Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP, as a motion on this was deferred from the Feb 16, 2012 Council meeting.

Wendy Seltzer proposed an amendment to the motion to make it clear that the consideration of 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. The Staff Report encourages broader discussion, and it would help to answer the nagging concern that thick WHOIS for new gTLDs has been implemented unilaterally in the Guide Book with no policy process.
The amendment was not considered friendly

Council voted on the following amendment:

Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further investigation of 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not."

…..specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs as well as 'thick';

The amendment failed by roll call vote.

Voting results:

Contracted Parties House:
7 Votes against
Non Contracted Parties House:
7 Votes against, 6 votes in favour

Stéphane van Gelder seconded by Yoav Keren as amended by David Taylor proposed a motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois which was deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see;

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see;

Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see;

Whereas, the Final Issue 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.

Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means.

Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois; (see

Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval.

Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

The motion carried by roll call vote.

Voting results.

Contracted Parties House:
7 Votes in favour
Non Contracted Parties House:
7 votes in favour, 6 Votes against

Item 4: Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Drafting Team charter

Joy Liddicoat, seconded by Carlos Dionisio Aguirre proposed a motion to approve a Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group

Whereas on 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see;

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.


The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group be initiated no later than 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.


The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Voting results:

Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT)

Jonathan Robinson seconded by Jeff Neuman proposed a motion to approve Cross Community Working Group Principles that had been deferred from the Council meeting on 19 January 2012

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, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups;

Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups:


Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups;

Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.

The motion carried by roll call vote.

Voting results:

Contracted Parties House:
7 Votes in favour
Non Contracted Parties House:
12 votes in favour, 1 abstention

Rafik Dammak: Reason for abstention:

"My abstention is not against the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) in principle but against what is proposed and the fact that we are trying to fix an inexistent problem and which may end to undermine the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) model."

Item 6: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names

Stéphane van Gelder commented that a GNSO Drafting Team had been working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of Red Cross (RC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names under the new gTLD program and that Council must vote on whether to approve the charter.

Rafik Dammak requested a deferral of the motion and read the following statement on behalf of the NCSG.

"NCSG finds it's impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy development process in this way at the time when the multistakeholder process on the Internet are being challenged, and this proposal is both questionable on the merits and contrary to ICANN's processes.

Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer the vote at least until the public comment period is closed.

Here are the reasons for our deferral.

One of the most parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to explain their views.

Public comments constitute a quintessential part of the ICANN ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when they make a decision before all have been received?

The council should not hold a vote in something as important as the (indiscernible) creation of new form of reserved names, especially ones that singles out some international organization for special consideration while injuring others without full comment.

The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague, Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC, in a recent comment. Mr. Metalitz said in trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge in the Affirmation of Commitments to employ the specific consultation procedures that provide detailed explanation of the basis for decision, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration, and to continue the access and improve the processes by which ICANN's receives public input, including adequate explanation of decision taken and the rationale thereof.

We could not agree more with this statement with our fellow stakeholder groups, the IPC.

The community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this issuing and examine other proposals such as those from Portugal earlier this week as well as the proposal from the not-for-profit operation constituency that are intended to create more fair and less arbitrary standard for reserved names. The NCSG policy committee believes that is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote and thus requests deferral on this vote."

Stéphane van Gelder noted that the statement was against the motion and requested that the Council, through the Standing Committee on implementing GNSO improvements examine the issue of 'deferrals' in the GNSO Operation Procedures
Jeff Neuman noted that a deferral was a courtesy and since the Council was not dealing with an existing rule he requested a vote to ascertain if the Council wanted to override the deferral.

Council discussion followed which is available at :

After the discussion Rafik Dammak, on behalf the Non Commercial Stakeholder repeated his request for deferral of the motion.

Action Items:

  • Motion deferred to the next Council meeting
  • Schedule an expedited Special Council meeting at the end of the public comment period to vote on the motion.
  • Request the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvement Implementation to examine the issue of deferring Council motions.

Item 7: Fake Renewal Notice DT Final Report

Mikey O'Connor provided the Council with an update on the Fake Renewal Notice Drafting Team's Final Report.

Mikey O'Connor went on to provided the Council with an update on the DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA WG)

Item 8: Update on Consumer Trust WG

Steve DelBianco provided the Council with an update on the Consumer Metrics Working Group, the draft Advice Letter defining Consumer, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, & Competition, the  proposed metrics and three year targets; all designed to measure the effectiveness of the new gTLD program by a future Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Review team.

In the interest of time the updates on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Final Issue Report and Status of Negotiations, the WHOIS survey and the revised GNSO Policy Development Process were postponed.

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council Public meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 00:00 UTC. (18:00 Local time)

The next regular GNSO Council meeting will be on, 12 April 2012 at 11:00 UTC.
See: Calendar