Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

Minutes of the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Toronto 17 October 2012

Last Updated:

Agenda and Documents

The Meeting started at 19:00 UTC
Coordinated Universal Time 19:00 UTC:
12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Toronto/Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 08:00 Wellington next day)

MP3 Recording

15:00- 16:00 GNSO Council Public Forum

Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60 minutes)

Registries Stakeholder Group
Keith Drazek, the Registry Stakeholder Group alternate and incoming chair at the conclusion of the Toronto meeting reported that good progress was made on issues around the trademark clearinghouse and thanked the ICANN staff, Board members and the community for their involvement in the dialogue.

The new TLD applicant group (NTAG), recently formed to provide an opportunity for new gTLD applicants to participate in policy discussions in the Registry Stakeholder group, held a meeting during the week which was well attended.

Tribute was paid to David Maher, the outgoing chair, for his long and excellent service to Registry Stakeholder Group.

Registrars Stakeholder Group
Highlights from Matt Serlin, Registrars Stakeholder Group chair

The aim is to have a negotiated Registrar Accreditation Agreement for public comment in the first part of 2013.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group held bylaw revision discussions in view of the changing landscape due the new gTLDs.

Special thanks and appreciation was expressed to Mr. Stéphane van Gelder, as an outgoing Registrar Councillor and GNSO Council chair, for his stewardship of the Council over the last two years.

It was noted that the article 29 letter was based on what the Registrars had previously proposed and anything beyond that would be more appropriate for the Policy development Process.

In response to a question about the cooperation between the Registrar and the Registry stakeholder groups it was noted that there are similarities between them as far as the way contracts are negotiated and enforced however, the business perspectives are different but the cooperation between the two parties will keep on evolving.

Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
David Cake, the interim chair of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency reported that the NCUC held a successful policy conference on the Friday before the meeting and a similar event is planned for Beijing .

Among the topics discussed were:
- concerns about changes to the URS that may occur in the implementation phase
- how human rights concerns could fit into the ICANN process.
- trying to ensure means to protect privacy concerns in all Whois discussions.

Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
Alain Berranger
reported that the group concentrated on outreach efforts to international not-for- profit organizations that have not engaged in the past with ICANN and designed a two-year NPOC outreach strategy.

Two committees have been formed to further this work, a Program and an Evaluation committee.

Lively discussion has taken place on the protection of INGOs and NGOs in general with regard to the upcoming Policy Development Process (PDP) considerations.
NPOC, in collaboration with the NCUC will be presenting at the IGF in Baku.
Membership issues were discussed with the NCSG executive committee. There are currently 50 members, the bulk of newer members being from developing countries and emerging economies.

NPOC is planning robust involvement in WSIS World Summit on Information Society 2012 in Geneva in partnership with the Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation.
A successful panel discussion on the subject of multistakeholder models was held in collaboration with At-Large colleagues.
Due to visa issues some African members were unable to attend.
Lori Schulman, the vice chair who is resigning, was thanked for her work and efforts.

Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC)
Marilyn Cade drew attention to the scheduling challenges and the need to rationalize the planning of the schedule and the timing of meetings.
The Business Constituency held numerous meetings to cope with the expanding workload that can be divided into three areas:
- ICANN Governance
- Security, Stability and Resilience
- GNSO Policy

A house meeting was held in conjunction with the Commercial and Non-commercial stakeholder groups and two topics were discussed: 1) the elections and 2) outreach and participation. Discussions were focused around a non-contracted party house inter-sessional meeting.

Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM’s) were discussed in collaboration with the Intellectual Property Constituency with the focus on the need to develop informational material for registrants on how to use RPMs.

BC members will be actively engaged in the African and Latin American strategies being undertaken by ICANN.
There has been an increase in the number of businesses coming to ICANN meetings for the first time.

Both, the face and the space of the Internet is changing, the impact of the new gTLDs may be one example of the change, so strategic thinking is needed about what the organization will look like in the future and how change can be brought about with a sustainable and a flexible enough approach to serve as well in the next 15 years as it has in the last 15 years.

Comments from the floor highlighted the emerging theme to link thinking of policy development alongside operational impacts and the implications for implementation which should be part of the planning for the future meetings.

Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)
Steve Metalitz drew attention to the large number of participants attending the IPC meetings that challenged the available space and requested a very large meeting room for future meetings. In addition scheduling challenges need attention and it was suggested that there should be segments during the ICANN meeting when no plenary activities are scheduled, so affording constituencies and stakeholder groups time to meet with each other.

Among the topics discussed were the WHOIS Review Team report, improvements to the rights protection mechanisms at the second level and compliance.

David Taylor was thanked and commended for his service as a member of the GNSO Council. Petter Rindforth was welcomed as the new GNSO Council member.
It was announced that Kristina Rosette will become the new IPC President shortly.

Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP)
Tony Holmes reported that the ISPs had a busy series of meetings and met with some of the groups who have a direct impact on the work of ISPs such as the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, the DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA WG) and the ICANN team working on the replacement WHOIS protocol, as well as meeting with the Nominating Committee.
Topics discussed included:
- the proposal for the inter-sessional meeting,
- the impact of new gTLDs on the constituency structure.

Scheduling challenges were emphasised, especially the need for ensuring a confirmed schedule, that does not change, at least three weeks before a meeting.

Discussion from the floor highlighted:
- Concern that the Council did not meet with the GAC and the ccNSO.
- Conflicts that stakeholder meetings caused during the GNSO meeting sessions over the weekend.

List of attendees:
NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Yoav Keren, Mason Cole

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao,

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Zahid Jamil - absent, proxy John Berard, John Berard, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, David Taylor, Brian Winterfeldt, Osvaldo Novoa

Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Rafik Dammak, Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Wendy Seltzer, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Joy Liddicoat – temporary alternate Milton Mueller

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,
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director,
Berry Cobb – Policy consultant
Steve Sheng – Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor

Lyman Chapin – Whois Review Team

Item 1: Administrative matters
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
No Updates

1.3 Review/amend agenda
- ATRT announcement, call for volunteers.

1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 13 September 2012 approved on 9 October 2012.
1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List

Councillors are encouraged to review the main changes and provide comments and/or questions on the Council mailing list.

Item 2: Consent agenda
Olof Nordling
reported that with regard to the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) it is the prerogative of the selectors to both select the composition and the size of the review team. For the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) the selectors were consulted in order to find a particular structure, but now every review team is independent. It doesn't predicate what will happen with the next one.

Item 3: Consumer Trust
In light of discussions during the GNSO working sessions over the weekend John Berard withdrew the motion he proposed.

Action Item:

The advice letter sent back to the working group for modifications to reflect the changing nature and the landscape of the TLDs.

Item 4: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse

The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended that an Issue Report evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. The Final Issue Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 September 2012, recommends the initiation of a PDP (see

The motion was withdrawn.

Item 5: RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting

John Berard, seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed a motion to request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the ‘need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports’;

Whereas the RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that ‘the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes’

Whereas the GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested 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;

Whereas the ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see;

Whereas the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and Mikey O’Connor volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented;

Whereas Mikey O’Connor submitted his proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see;

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012.


The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in:

In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.

The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
(Issue report threshold: 25% of each house, or majority of one house).

Item 6: Protection of IOC/RC names at the second level

Jeff Neuman provided the Council with a brief update on the work undertaken on the issue of second-level protections for the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross names.

Item 7: Policy Development Process (PDP) on International Governmental Organizations

Jeff Neuman, seconded by Mary Wong proposed a motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.

Whereas ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs in a public comment forum that opened on 4 June, 2012, and closed on 26 July 2012;

Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly;

Whereas the Final Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS was published on 1 October 2012;

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.


Resolved, the GNSO hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate (ii) whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for the names of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and (ii) if so, to develop policy recommendations for such protections.

Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
(PDP threshold: 1/3rd of each house, or 2/3 of one house).

Item 8: Thick Whois PDP WG Charter

Milton Mueller called for an amendment to the charter to include wording that that explicitly calls out the human rights issues involved.

The GNSO Council direct the replacement of the current provision on impact on privacy and data protection in the charter with: 'Impact on rights: how would ‘thick’ Whois specifically affect internationally agreed rights, e.g. rights of others, privacy, freedoms such as expression and association, as well as adherence to data protection regulations, taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data?'

The amendment did not carry.

Refer to the voting results:

Jeff Neuman seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed a motion to approve the Charter for the ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group

Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois 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 GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 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.

Charter –

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote

Action Item:

Appoint a Council liaison to this group.

Item 9: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTP Part C) Working Group (WG)

Stéphane van Gelder, seconded by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and as amended by Mary Wong proposed a motion to adopt the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter questions:

  1. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
  2. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
  3. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.


RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed in the IRTP Part C Final Report

RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy. If the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part C Working Group.

RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG, namely:

  • Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
  • Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
  • Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
  • Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
  • Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;

Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
(Approval of consensus policy PDP threshold: Supermajority (2/3 of each house, or ¾ of one house and a majority of the other)).

Item 10: Internationalized Registration Data Working Group

Ching Chiao, seconded by Rafik Dammak proposed a motion to initiate an Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).

WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data.

WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration

WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a motion to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board.

WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to the ICANN Board to deliver the Final ReportWHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter, the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and registry. ,

RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and 3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards.

The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
 (Issue report threshold: 25% of each house, or majority of one house).

Item 11: WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Report

Lyman Chapin informed the Council that the survey evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. The Interisle Consulting Group has completed this survey and Lyman Chapin provided an overview of the final report. The initial results have been reported, and explored in a community webinar held on 13 August.

Item 12: Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
Deferred to the GNSO Council Wrap-Up session on Thursday, 18 October 2012.

Item 13: Whois Review Team Final Report

Brian Winterfeldt reported that the group was close to producing a final letter and were incorporating additional feedback received.

Action Item:

Further discussion should take place on the Council mailing list.
Further discussion deferred to the GNSO Council Wrap-Up session on Thursday, 18 October 2012.

Item 14: Thanks to outgoing Councilors

Stéphane van Gelder thanked the outgoing Councillors, Mary Wong, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Carlos Aguirre and David Taylor for their years of effort, dedication, work, and courage, in helping the GNSO and the community at large work through important policy issues.

David Olive, Vice President of Policy Development support, presented gifts to the parting councillors and the esteemed Council chair, Stephane van Gelder. David Olive noted that in addition to celebrating Jeff Neuman’s birthday, it was also the tenth anniversary of the GNSO and with that, asked all those who might have been in Amsterdam in 2002, to stand up to celebrate the tenth year.
Stephane van Gelder paid tribute to the two vice chairs Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Jeff Neuman leaving the leadership team and thanked them for their excellent work serving the Council.

Item 15. Any Other Business

15.1 Alan Greenberg noted that the Expired Registration Recovery Policy Implementation Plan is posted for public comment and reminded the community that on Sunday, 14 October, the ALAC celebrated the fourth anniversary of requesting the Issue Report.

15.2 David Taylor, on behalf of the Council thanked Stéphane van Gelder for his guidance and each councilor presented him with a small car.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 22:00 UTC.

The next GNSO Council meeting will take place on Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 11:00 UTC.
See: Calendar