GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2011

Last Updated: 13 December 2011
17 November 2011

Agenda and Documents

The meeting started at 20:03 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- – absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert – absent, apologies proxy to Mason Cole

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

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

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

David Olive - VP Policy Development - apologies
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director - apologies

MP3 Recording

Item 1: Administrative matters

1.1 Roll Call

1.2 Statement of interest updates
Updates were received from the following Councillors.

Lanre Ajayi, Wolfgang Kleinwâchter, Joy LiddicoatThomas Rickert, Brian Winterfeldt , Osvaldo Novoa and Yoav Keren.

1.3 Review/amend agenda
There were no comments or changes to the agenda.

1.4. The minutes for the previous Council meetings, 26 October minutes 26 October new Council minutes,  per the GNSO Operating Procedures will be approved on  23 November 2011.

Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List

Stéphane Van Gelder noted the changes to the Pending Projects list. Staff remarked that it was a challenge to keep up with the workload and it was important to regularly review the list of Pending Projects.

  • GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change).
  • Other activities: 10 (11 - Deleted: RAP, request to ICANN Compliance complete)
  • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
  • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).

Item 3: Outreach Task Force Charter

The motion, deferred from the Dakar meeting, was originally made by two Councillors who have since left the Council, Olga Cavalli and Debbie Hughes.

The Commercial and Business Users Constituency and Jeff Neuman's request for a deferral of the motion was not approved.

Council approved Bill Drake and Joy Liddicoat as the new sponsors for the motion.

Bill Drake, seconded by Joy Liddicoat  proposed the motion to approve the Outreach Task Force Charter

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;

WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Report recommendations;

WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups;

WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011;

WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document "Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO

WHEREAS, at its meeting on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council accepted the document and directed staff to submit the document for 45 days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum;

WHEREAS, at its meeting on 19 May 2011 the GNSO Council determined that as there were no public comments that required changes to the document the work of the OSC with respect to the global outreach program recommendations was complete and directed staff to seek volunteers to form a Outreach Task Force Charter Drafting Team (OTF DT);

WHEREAS, an OTF DT was formed and it drafted a Charter that it presented to the GNSO Council Chair on 08 September 2011;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council Chair sent the Draft Charter to the GNSO Council and asked Councilors to share the document with their respective groups and to provide comments by 10 October 2011;

WHEREAS, on 18 October 2011 the OTF DT provided to the GNSO Council a revised Draft Charter based on comments it received;


RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Draft Charter []], thanks the OTF DT for its efforts on this important initiative, and dissolves the OTF DT;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council requests staff to seek volunteers for Chair and Vice Chair of the OTF.

The Motion failed.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
Seven (7) Abstentions
Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Jeff Neuman with proxy for Ching Chiao, Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Mason Cole with proxy for Thomas Rickert.
Non Contracted Parties House:
Nine (9) votes in favour:
Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor, Mary Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Lanre Ajayi.
Three (3) Abstentions: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Zahid Jamil, and Osvaldo Novoa
One (1) vote against: John Berard.

Reasons for Abstentions:
The reason for the Registries Stakeholder Group abstaining was expressed by:
Jeff Neuman: "The reason I abstained is that there are good arguments on both sides. From what it sounds like, Zahid strongly believes that there could be a clarification added and that once that clarification is added that it can be approved. WE very much want to see this outreach effort go forward and thus I would have preferred a deferral to actually get the motion on the table that everybody feels comfortable with. But unfortunately the deferral was not approved and I didn't want to vote no, so that was the only choice I felt I had."

Mason Cole: "Exactly the same as Jeff and I would underline again that I agree about the importance of outreach but abstained for the same reasons that Jeff did."

Stephane Van Gelder: "My reasons are that I believe there was a strong desire by some to have just a little more time to consider the motion itself. And I don't think that deferring it for one meeting would have made much difference to the outcome. So I think we should have entertained that request for a little more time in these exceptional circumstances. "

Zahid Jamil noted that he joined Jeff Neuman and Stéphane van Gelder in their reasons for abstention.

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: "Yes, in addition to what has been said in my view there is room for improvement in this charter because it goes far beyond point which was intended for GNSO outreach."
Osvaldo Novoa provided the same reason for abstaining as Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.

Action Item: The Adobe Connect chat room indicated that Zahid Jamil proposed forming a small group assisted by Staff (Julie Hedlund) to produce a new motion that would include specific revisions to the charter. The volunteers for the group are: Zahid Jamil, Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Jeff Neuman, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, John Berard.

Item 4: UDRP

Mary Wong, seconded by Joy Liddicoat proposed a motion on the review of the Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed;

WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received;

WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore;

WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011;

WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable;

WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate;

WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and

WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources;

Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review;

RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and

RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate.

The motion failed.

Voting results:
Contracted Parties House:
Seven (7) Votes against

Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Jeff Neuman with proxy for Ching Chiao, Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren, Mason Cole with proxy for Thomas Rickert.
Non Contracted Parties House:
Seven (7) votes in favour:
Mary Wong, Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Lanre Ajayi
Six(6)votes against: Brian Winterfeldt, David Taylor, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Zahid Jamil, John Berard, Osvaldo Novoa.

Since the above motion failed, a second motion on this issue made by Jeff Neuman and seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben with a proposed friendly amendment by David Taylor was deferred to the next Council meeting at the request of Jonathan Robinson.

Item 5: Dakar Board resolution on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments RAA

5.1 Margie Milam provided the Council with an update on Registrar Accreditation Agreements Amendments.

Item 6: Best Practices to address abusive domain registrations

Marika Konings provided the Council with a brief update on the next steps with regards to the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. Following the initial suggestion to put it out for public comment as discussed in Dakar, which was not supported by all, it was suggested that the Council could also consider whether a Working Group should be created as a result of the discussion paper and if so if a Drafting Team should be formed to create the charter for such a Working Group. It is now up to the Council to decide on next steps.

Stéphane van Gelder encouraged Councillors to discuss the issue on the Council mailing list.

Item 7: Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting

Marika Konings reported that following the Council's request, SSAC has responded and that it declines taking on this work however noting that it would be willing to undertake further analysis if more data regarding these or other alleged abuses is available'. There have been some discussions with ccNSO members during the GNSO – ccNSO Council meeting in Dakar as the issue of Cross-TLD registration scam is also an abuse that affects ccTLDs. Marika suggested that possible ways forward would be to request the Fake Renewal Notice drafting team to look at this issue, continue discussions with the ccNSO on possible joint approaches and/or decide not to take any further action at this stage noting that at any point in time, should further data or information become available, the GNSO Council could reconsider these issues. She agreed to share these suggestions with the Council mailing list to encourage GNSO Council discussion and consideration of next steps.

Item 8: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team

John Berard reported that the team consisted of Adrian Kinderis, Jonathan Robinson and Jeff Neuman. The constituency/stakeholder group comments in Dakar did not give the impression that the intent of the session was understood and did not yield the benefits that team hoped they would. Moving forward, a replacement for Adrian should be found and Councillors are encouraged to provide ideas to John, Jonathan and Jeff, and anyone else who wishes to join the group, to help make Public Council meetings more dynamic.
Please contact any of these Councillors if you are interested in contributing to this group.

Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes)

9.1 The Council approved Avri Doria from the Non Contracted Parties House and James Bladel from the Contracted Parties House as the co-chairs of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTPC) Working Group.

Marika Konings reported that the Working Group, which had had two meetings, had broad representation from the different constituencies and stakeholder groups; many from the previous ITRP B Working Group and that the next step would be to develop a work plan to submit to the Council pursuant to the Working Group Guidelines.

9.2 Edmon Chung, asked the GNSO chair to notified the Council that they can expect a motion on the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Group (JIG) at the next Council meeting on 15 December 2011.

9.3 Councillors were reminded that if there is strong opposition to the proposed Council dates and times for the next six months, this should be made known to the  by 25 November 2011.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 21:56 UTC.

The next GNSO Council meeting will be on Thursday, 15 December 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
See: Calendar