GNSO Council Minutes - 17 December 2009
Proposed agenda and documents
The meeting started at 15:00UTC.
List of attendees:
Andrei Kolesnikov NCA – Non Voting
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Tim Ruiz
Absent with apologies: Adrian Kinderis
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Chuck Gomes, Caroline Greer, Edmon Chung
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Terry Davis
Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Mike Rodenbaugh, Jaime Wagner
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer - Mary Wong and William Drake joined after the roll call.
Absent with apologies: Rosemary Sinclair
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli
GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers
Alan Greenberg – ALAC Liaison
Han Chuan Lee – ccNSO Observer
Invited Working Group Chairs
David Maher - Special Trademarks Issues (STI) chair
Jeff Neuman - Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team chair
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Policy Director
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
For detailed information of the meeting, please refer to:
Item 1: Administrative Items
1.1 Chuck Gomes welcomed David Maher, the STI drafting team chair and Jeff Neuman, the PPSC PDP Work Team chair to the Council meeting.
1.2 Update any Statements of Interest
1.3 Review/amend the agenda
- Agenda approved
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the following Council meetings per the new Council Operating Procedures:
Item 2: Motion to approve GNSO Improvements Recommendations for a Constituency/Stakeholder Group Toolkit of Services
Motion to approve the Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups as amended on 4 December 2009, made by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Olga Cavalli
Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in consultation with the GNSO Council, a “tool kit” of basic services that would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 located at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf, p. 46.);
Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182);
Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes contained in the BGC Report;
Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;
Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to the OSC for review;
Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations;
Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting;
Whereas the implementation of the toolkit has process and budgetary implications;
RESOLVED, the Council approves the recommendations
and directs Staff to:
1) share the recommendations with the Board;
2) post the document on the GNSO web page at
3) estimate the cost of the services;
4) estimate what funds might be available;
5) prioritize the list of services in cooperation with the Council;
6) develop specifications for providing the services, including requirements for their use and procedures for requesting them; and
7) notify applicable GNSO organizations of the services, specifications and procedures for requesting them.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Absent at time of voting: Adrian Kinderis - Registrar Stakeholder group, Mary Wong and William Drake - Non Commercial Stakeholder Group.
Item 3: Special Trademark Issues (STI) Review Team
The Council received a summary of the report from David Maher, the STI drafting team chair.
The following motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team was proposed by Stéphane van Gelderand seconded by Debra Hughes and amended by Kristina Rosette on 16 December 2009. In response to section 3.3 of the The GNSO Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions be posted 8 days in advance of meetings, the Council approved an exception to this requirement for this motion.
Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter
(http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf) to the GNSO Council requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program;
Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO Council created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the staff implementation models of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System that were proposed for inclusion in the Draft Application Guidebook;
Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its members;
Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended by the STI review team;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative proposal on an expedited basis;
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the overall package of recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described in the STI Report are more effective and implementable solutions than the corresponding staff implementation models that were described in memoranda accompanying the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf)
and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a public comment period that will end on 26 January 2010 to allow the ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook.
The motion carried unanimously by a roll call vote of all Council members present.
Contracted Party House - 6 votes in favour
One absent - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis
Non Contracted Party House -12 Votes in favour
Mary Wong - NCSG voted by email during the meeting due to technical issues.
One absent - NCSG - Rosemary Sinclair.
Item 4: Action on Issues Report regarding vertical separation of Registries and Registrars
In the interest of time, Margie Milam did not complete the overview of the Issues Report.
The following motion to delay a decision regarding the initiation of a Vertical Integration PDP was proposed by Chuck Gomes on 11 December 2009 and seconded by Bill Drake and Jaime Wagner. In response to the section 3.3 of The GNSO Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions be posted 8 days in advance of meetings, the Council approved an exception to this requirement for this motion.
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council requested that Staff prepare an Issues Report on Vertical Integration at its 24 September 2009 meeting;
WHEREAS, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration has been delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 December 2009;
WHEREAS, in light of the approaching year-end holidays and the numerous important issues pending before the GNSO Council, the Council desires to have ample time to evaluate the recommendations contained in the Issues Report;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the Council acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report, thanks Staff for its efforts to produce the report, and agrees to delay consideration of the decision on whether to launch a PDP on the topic of vertical integration until January 2010.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Absent at time of voting:Adrian Kinderis - Registrar Stakeholder group,
Mary Wong - Non Commercial Stakeholder Group, Terry Davis - NCA, Mike Rodenbaugh and Zahid Jamil - Commercial Stakeholder Group. (dropped off the call)
Council members are encouraged to involve their stakeholder groups in discussing this issue and to provide input on the Council mailing list in preparation for the next Council meeting on 7 January 2010 and at a specially convened meeting for that purpose if it is decided to schedule such meeting.
Item 5: Prioritization of GNSO work
Olga Cavalli. provided the Council with a Status Report on possible prioritization methods being tested.
Item 6: Status updates
Please refer to the status updates in this link.
Denise Michel provided Council with an update on the Board meeting held on 9 December 2009.
In the interest of time, the chair encouraged staff to provide, via the Council mailing list, further information regarding the Board's determination not to approve the CyberSafety Constituency (CSC), the City TLD Constituency and the IDNgTLD Constituency.
Kurt Pritz provided Council with an update of assumptions and interdependencies affecting the project planning for new gTLDS.
The two key dependencies are 1) the GNSO Council vote on the Special Trademarks Issues report and 2) the decision on whether there will be an Expression of Interests (EOI) round.
The Expression of Interest (EOI ) straw man proposal, which will be published shortly, arose from public comments received. The Board has not made a final decision whether it will be mandatory in terms of the first round, but it is likely that staff will make such a proposal.
It is considered that this will trigger important decisions such as:
- a fee level that does not act as a barrier
- conditions for refunds
- vertical integration
The EOI will probably add further costs but it is not likely to delay the final implementation.
Target deliverables for the March 2010 ICANN meeting in Nairobi:
- Publication for comment of excerpts to the Draft Applicant Guide-book that include the following
- Revised models of Trademark Protections based on the GNSO Council vote and the ensuing public comment period
- Post delegation dispute models that need more work
- First phase of the renewed Economic Analysis
- Malicious conduct - possible high security zone verification plans and centralised access to zone data
- Process for amending the Registry agreement, including vertical separation
- Aspects of Operational Readiness
Version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guide-book is expected by the June 2010 ICANN meeting in Brussels and will include
- The Final Economic study
- Resolution of the three character and variant management issues
- Finalization of Operational Readiness requirements
Council's attention was drawn to the IDN Implementation Working Team Final Report
that recommends that the GNSO and the ccNSO do policy work with regard to the following two issues related to single-character IDN top level names:
1) selection of scripts for which single character IDN TLDs should be allowed;
2) method for allocation of single character IDN TLDs.
Councilors are encouraged to solicit input from their stakeholder groups on the report in preparation for discussion at the next Council meeting on Thursday, 7 January 2010.
6.5 Questions and comments on the written status updates
In the interest of time, Council members were encouraged to review and comment on the Council mailing list on the written status updates sent in advance of the meeting by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams.
Item 7: Any Other Business
7.1 Request for Policy Process Steering Committee( PPSC) Working Team face-to-face meeting
Jeff Neuman, chair of the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team presented Council with a request for a PDP WorkTeam face-to-face meeting and explained the rationale for the request.
In response to section 3.3 of The GNSO Council Operating Procedures requirement that motions be posted 8 days in advance of meetings, an exception to this requirement was not granted by the Council because the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC) objected.
See Mike Rodenbaugh's email received and read out during the meeting.
The following points arose during the Council discussion:
- There are no defined GNSO procedures for processing such requests.
- Staff informed the Council that funding would come from GNSO Improvement funds.
- Views were expressed that funding should be distributed equally across all the GNSO Improvements work teams.
- Some Council members saw the completion of the PDP as a priority, while others did not share that view.
- Not all Council representatives had had the opportunity to fully discuss the request with their members.
The CBUC in the Commercial Stakeholder Group, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Registrar Stakeholder Group stated they were opposed to the request.
The ISPCP and IPC in the Commercial Stakeholder Group,and the Registry Stakeholder Group supported the request.
Jeff Neuman requested the following: if the request was not approved, that a tool be made available to facilitate remote collaboration more effectively than the current Adobe Connect product.
Denise Michel said that Staff would explore this and keep the Council updated.
Chuck Gomes to send a message to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team capturing the discussion and outcome of the request for a face to face meeting.
7.2 Staff update on plans to ensure safety and security in Nairobi
Chuck Gomes reported that he was awaiting confirmation from ICANN staff to share with the Council a security update he received.
Councilors are asked to forward the AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report
to their stakeholder groups and be prepared to discuss the issue in the meeting on 7 January 2010.
Item 8: The updated GNSO Project Status List
Council members are reminded to review the updated GNSO Project Status List and comment on the Council mailing list.
In the interest of time, questions and comments should be sent via email to the Council mailing list.
Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:57 UTC.
Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 7 January 2010 at 20:00 UTC.