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

GNSO Council Meeting Minutes 21 July 2011

Last Updated:
18 August 2011

Agenda and documents

The meeting started at 11:03 UTC

List of attendees:

NCA – Non Voting - Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Andrei Kolesnikov - absent, apologies - proxy vote to Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Non-Contracted Parties House
Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Jaime Wagner, Zahid Jamil, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (joined late), John Berard, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, David Taylor(joined late).
Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Debra Hughes, Wendy Seltzer, Rafik Dammak, Bill Drake, Rosemary Sinclair,Mary Wong absent, apologies - proxy vote to Bill Drake
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Olga Cavalli

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

David Olive - VP Policy Development
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor
Julie Hedlund - Policy Director
Rob Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Margie Milam - Senior Policy Counselor
Marika Konings - Senior Policy Director
Alexander Kulik - System Administrator
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

Edmon Chung

For a recording of the meeting, please refer to:

Item 1: Administrative Items

1.1 Roll call of Council members and update of Statements of Interest

An updated statement of interest was recorded for Rosemary Sinclair and posted on the Council mailing list.

1.2 Review/amend the agenda

No changes to the agenda

1.3. The GNSO Council 22 June 2011 minutes were approved on 6 July 2011.

Item 2: Update to Pending Projects List

Stéphane Van Gelder noted the following changes to the Pending Projects List since the last Council meeting on 22 June 2011.

GNSO activities: 10 (9 – Open Council Meeting DT added).
Other activities: 9 (7 – GNSO toolkit of services removed, IRTP B rec 8, IRTP B rec 9 and IRTP C issues report added).
Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 – no change).
Outstanding recommendations: 2 (1 – IRTP B remaining recs added).

Item 3: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group - recommendation # 3

It was noted that currently Staff resources are saturated however, resource constraints should not dictate whether to approve proceeding with any new project. The priority of the project should determine whether some current work should be completed, or put on hold before the new work is initiated. Already two current projects, the Registration Abuse Best Practices paper and the UDRP Issues Report have overshot their deadlines because of the workload. Staff support is allocated to every group that the Council convenes and there is no differentiation made between a drafting team and a Working Group. Staff assists with and recommend that the groups produce charters which clarify their objectives and timelines.

Jeff Neuman noted that the recommendation is extremely important and should seriously be taken into consideration, but if there is something above and beyond what the council has asked for, then it needs to go back to the Council so that the Council can manage the workload rather than the Staff.

Jeff Neuman, on behalf of the Registry Stakeholder Group requested deferral of the motion noting the following comment:

  • Since the motion is directed at one Registry operator, Verisign, VeriSign specifically abstained from voting and the Registry's decision is not influenced by VeriSign.
  • The Registry Stakeholder Group consider that there are other more important issues and request the motion be deferred until there is a complete understanding of all the work on the horizon and the choices that Council is going to have to make in the next few meetings on which Policy Development Processes (PDPs) to initiate.
  • The Registry Stakeholder Group view the UDRP as a higher priority issue than Thick WHOIS.

The Council approved deferring the motion.

Item 4: Joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Names Working Group (JIG)

Rafik Dammak, seconded by Ching Chiao proposed a motion to extend the mandate of the Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO ( and the GNSO (; and

Both the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan and the new gTLD process have been approved by the Board of Directors, bringing into effect the JIG charter condition: Upon adoption of either the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan or the new gTLD process by the ICANN Board of Directors, the WG will be closed, unless both the ccNSO and GNSO Council extend the duration of the JIG WG.; and

The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs; and

The JIG has delivered a first report on Item 1 "Implementation of Single Character IDN TLD" to the ccNSO council and the GNSO council on 30 March 2011; and
The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council approved the report on April 7, 2011 and May 10, 2011 respectively; and

The final report on the first item of interest was delivered to the ICANN Board on May 11, 2011; and

Two issues of common interest remain from the JIG charter; and

The JIG WG has discussed and proposed the following target timeline for completion of the remaining items of common interest:

  • 2011 Jul/Aug: Stocktaking & Development Initial Report for #3 (Public comments Sep 2011)
  • 2011 Sep/Oct: Completion of Initial Report for #2 (Public comments Nov 2011)
  • 2011 Nov/Dec: Completion of Draft Final Report for #2 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012)
  • 2012 Jan/Feb: Completion of Draft Final Report for #3 (Public comments Feb/Mar 2012)
  • 2012 Mar: Finalization of Final Report for #2
  • 2012 Apr: Finalization of Final Report for #3
  • 2012 May-Oct: Implementation Follow up


The JIG Working Group is extended through 2012 to complete work items Two (2. IDN Variant TLDs) and Three (3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs ) from the original charter.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Action Item:
The GNSO chair will inform the ccNSO chair that the GNSO Council extended the JIG Charter.

Item 5: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR)

Tim Ruiz, seconded by Stéphane van Gelder proposed a motion on the adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas on 7 May 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) addressing the following five charter questions:

  1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;
  2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
  3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
  4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);
  5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 14 June 2011;

Whereas the PEDNR WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

Whereas the PEDNR WG considers all the recommendations listed below as interdependent and has recommended that the GNSO Council should consider these recommendations as such;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors:


1. Define "Registered Name Holder at Expiration" (RNHaE) as the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. If the domain name registration was modified pursuant to a term of the Registration Agreement authorizing the modification of registration data for the purposes of facilitating renewal but not at the explicit request of the registrant, the RNHaE is the entity or individual identified as the registrant immediately prior to that modification. (PEDNR Recommendation #1)
2. For at least 8 consecutive days, at some point following expiration, the original DNS resolution path specified by the RNHaE, at the time of expiration, must be interrupted1 by the registrar, to the extent that the registry permits such interruptions 1, and the domain must be renewable by the RNHaE until the end of that period. This 8-day period may occur at any time following expiration. At any time during the 8 day period, the Registered Name Holder at Expiration may renew the domain with the Registrar and the Registrar, within a commercially reasonable delay, will restore the domain name to resolve to its original DNS resolution path prior to expiration. Notwithstanding, the Registrar may delete the domain at any time during the Autorenew grace period. (PEDNR Recommendation #2)

1 DNS interruption is defined as total Internet service interruption except for an informational web page (only one IP on which only port 80 is active).
3. If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Wording in the policy must make clear that "instructions" may be as simple as directing the RNHaE to a specific web site. (PEDNR Recommendation #3)
4. The RNHaE cannot be prevented from renewing a domain name registration as a result of WHOIS changes made by the Registrar that were not at the RNHaE's request. (PEDNR Recommendation #4)
5. The registration agreement must include or point to any fee(s) charged for the postexpiration renewal of a domain name. If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name or the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. (PEDNR Recommendation #5)
6. The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications, or must point to the location where such information can be found. What destination address/number will be used must also be specified, if applicable. (PEDNR Recommendation #6)
7. Registrar must notify Registered Name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. One such notice must be sent one month or 30 days prior to expiration (±4 days) and one must be sent one week prior to expiration (±3 days). If more that two alert notifications are sent, the timing of two of them must be comparable to the timings specified. (PEDNR Recommendation #7)
8. Unless the Registered Name is renewed or deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification to the RNHaE, which includes renewal instructions, must be sent after expiration. (PEDNR Recommendation #8)
9. Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit registrant action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. (Recommendation #9)
10. With the exception of sponsored2 gTLDs, all gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). For currently existing unsponsored gTLDs that do not currently offer the RGP, a transition period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs must offer the RGP. As part of the implementation, ICANN Staff should consider the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal (see (PEDNR Recommendation #13)
2 An unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. It should be noted that this distinction is no longer used in the new gTLD program.
11. If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. (PEDNR Recommendation #14)
12. A transfer of a domain name during the RGP should not be allowed. (PEDNR Recommendation #15)
13. In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrars that ICANN has published web content as described in PEDNR Recommendation #16:
§ Registrars, who have a web presence, must provide a link to the ICANN content on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies.
§ Registrars may also host similar material adapted to their specific practices and processes.
§ Registrar must point to the ICANN material in a communication sent to the registrant immediately following initial registration as well as in the mandated annual WHOIS reminder. (PEDNR Recommendation #17)
Note: Some of these recommendations may need special consideration in the context of existing provisions in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or exceptions due to fraud, breach of registration agreement or other substantive reasons and the GNSO Council, therefore, recommends that such considerations are taken into account as part of the implementation of these recommendations, once adopted.


The GNSO Council recommends the following best practices for promotion by ICANN and the Registrar Stakeholder Group:

  • If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by postexpiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. (PEDNR Recommendation #10)
  • The notification method explanation (see recommendation #9) should include the registrar's email address from which notification messages are sent and a suggestion that registrants save this email address as a 'safe sender' to avoid notification emails being blocked by spam filter software. (PEDNR Recommendation #11)
  • Registrars should advise registrants to provide a secondary email point of contact that is not associated with the domain name itself so that in case of expiration reminders can be delivered to this secondary email point of contact. (PEDNR Recommendation #12)


The GNSO Council recommends that ICANN, in consultation with Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, will develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. Such material may include registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle and guidelines for keeping domain name records current. (PEDNR Recommendation #16).


ICANN Compliance is requested to provide updates to the GNSO Council on a regular basis in relation to the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed recommendations, either in the form of a report that details amongst others the number of complaints received in relation to renewal and/or post-expiration related matters or in the form of audits that assess if the policy has been implemented as intended. (PEDNR Recommendation #18)


The GNSO Council shall convene a PEDNR 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 meets the letter and intent of the approved policy. If the PEDNR Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new PEDNR policy recommendations, the PEDNR 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 a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to the members of the PEDNR Working Group.

The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Action Item:

GNSO Secretariat will issue call for volunteers for a PEDNR Implementation Review Team when the new policy is approved by the Board.

Item 6: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT)

Jeff Neuman, seconded by Carlos Aguirre, proposed a motion regarding the Public Comments on the Policy Development Process Work Team Final Report that was amended by Jeff Neuman

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;

( 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 PPSC established two work teams, including the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's policy development needs;

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report ( on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (see;

WHEREAS ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the comments received and posted it at


RESOLVED, the GNSO Council directs the PDP-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the PDP-WT Final Report as deemed appropriate. The PDP-WT should submit the updated version of the Final Report to the GNSO Council as soon as possible, preferably in time for consideration at its meeting in October 2011.

Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Action Item:

The Policy Development Process work team is scheduling follow up meetings to review the public comments and make any changes to the PDP-WT Final Report as deemed appropriate.

Item 7: Registration abuse (RAP)

Following recent discussions on the matter, the Council is being asked to consider a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG.

Marika Konings read the motion and commented that the objective of the motion is to bring closure to those recommendations for which no further action is needed / recommended and provide a clear indication of what is required before or when the Council will act on the other recommendations.
Currently all the recommendations are in one motion and the Council could consider splitting up the different resolve clauses or voting on them separately. The motion is presented for discussion only at this meeting, in order to give the Council and its Stakeholder Groups sufficient time to properly assess it.

Zahid Jamil on behalf of the Business Constituency, expressed concern with the following issues:

  • How the following clause: "RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Uniformity of Contracts; Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council declines to undertake further policy work on these recommendations at this time."
    would come across to the working group members after all the work that had been done, and proposed changing the language.
  • 'Fake Renewal' should be clarified and be more specific.
  • How cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, will fit in the scope of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)

Staff committed to work with members of the BC to revise the language and consult with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and indeed with all other councillors who wished to revise the motion.

Stéphane van Gelder noted that it was up to a councillor to make the motion for the next Council meeting if it is appropriate.

Item 8: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS)

Stéphane van Gelder noted that as part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 4.d):"The review of additional community feedback, advice from ALAC, and recommendations from the GNSO following their receipt of a Final Report from the JAS Working Group (requested in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for the Board's consideration at its October 2011 meeting in Dakar, Senegal), with the goal of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the opening of the application window."

At its Singapore wrap-up meeting, the GNSO Council identified the following timeline if the Board request is to be answered in time: For the Board to approve the JAS implementation plan in Dakar on October 28, the Staff must publish all documents for the Dakar meeting 15 business days before Dakar, so October 7. So that means the Council must approve the JAS Final Report at its September 8 meeting and there is the possibility of convening a special Council meeting in August to discuss the JAS Final Report.

Rafik Dammak reported that the JAS working group agreed to finish the Final Report before the end of August, and is working hard to meet the deadline, so that it can be presented for approval in time for the Council meeting on 8 September 2011. The additional Council meeting in August will not be necessary as there will not yet be a Report to discuss. In addition, the Staff is working in parallel with the working group on an iterative basis so there should not be a significant time gap from when the report is frozen to the time that the Staff has the implementation plan ready to present to the Board.

The Registry Stakeholder Group expressed concern with the timing, in that there was not enough time for the Stakeholder Groups/constituencies to fully discuss the report with their members from the delivery date at the end of August to the Council meeting on 8 September 2011.

Council proposed the following next steps:

  • Push back the 8 September 2011 Council meeting or convene an extra/special Council meeting in September to discuss the JAS Final Report.
  • Rafik Dammak was tasked with asking the JAS working group to consider holding a webinar when the Final Report is released to inform members of the community and provide the opportunity for them to ask questions of the group.

Item 9: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs

As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b): Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest.

Debbie Hughes stated that it was never the intent of the Red Cross to add to GNSO's workload especially in light of the discussions surrounding cross community work groups. The Red Cross made the request to the ICANN Board for special protection for its designations because it strongly believes that it furthers the global public interest of protecting innocent people from malicious conduct and ensuring the continued stability of the world's largest humanitarian organization as it tries to deliver its essential humanitarian services. A large portion of the Red Cross's revenues, come from donations and a significant amount of Red Cross's activities are coordinated through the Internet. The Red Cross has to spend an important amount of time and resources in enforcement activities to stop fraudulent behavior and the organisation believes that if the Red Cross names were reserved at the top and second level, illegitimate third parties would be thwarted from defrauding the Red Cross through illegitimate TLDs and websites. The Geneva conventions prohibit private entities from using the Red Cross names. Further the Red Cross's designations are specifically reserved for use by the Red Cross by the more than 194 governments that have ratified the Geneva conventions. There is national or federal legislation in many of these countries to protect the name. It is the Red Cross's understanding that the GAC is currently developing a proposal to protect these names from malicious conduct and that the plan is to present this proposal to the GNSO in time for the September 8 Council meeting.

Council discussions led to approving the following action items.

Action items:

  • The GNSO chair is tasked with sending an email to the GAC chair and enquiring as to how the GAC intends to respond to the Board's resolution mentioning that the next Council meeting is on 8 September 2011 and the Council expects to discuss the topic again at that meeting.
  • Put forward a position paper on the GNSO Council mailing list and in that way carry on the discussion in the Council.
  • Staff committed to provide Council with clarity on the following points:
    • how should these entities' names be handled at the second level in new gTLDs?
    • whether the motion referred only to protections at the top-level in future rounds or whether it is asking for protections at the second level in this upcoming round.
    • is a Policy Development Process (PDP) required to provide policy advice to the Board on the Red Cross/Olympic Names issue

Item 10: Interaction with ccNSO

In the interest of time Stéphane van Gelder proposed that this item be deferred to the next Council meeting in September 2011.

Item 11. Any Other Business

11.1 Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Working Group

Rosemary Sinclair reported that since the receipt of this request from the Board, the Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Silicon Valley ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting and there is a desire to form a joint working group with any of these Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) interested in participating in this joint effort to fulfil the Board request.

Two models are being proposed for the Working Group.

  1. A Joint Working Group including the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Government Advisory Committee (GAC) the GNSO and the ccNSO.
  2. A GNSO Working Group open to others to participate.

The purpose of the Working Group will be to define and suggest measures and goals for the terms in the Board resolution, but the outcome of the Working Group will be a report that will be made available to each of the SOs and ACs, and those entities would prepare their own advice and communicate that advice to the ICANN Board independently.
Rosemary Sinclair committed to send the proposed motion and working group charter to the Council mailing list after the meeting, so that it can be reviewed by the stakeholder groups and constituencies before the next Council meeting.

11.2 The GNSO Council chair election timeline discussion and to decide whether the SCI should come up with a revised process proposal for future elections?

Stéphane van Gelder noted that after the last GNSO Council chair election in 2010 he committed to prepare the election procedure and determine a course of action that everyone is comfortable with well in advance.

The proposed election document sets out two basic options:

Option 1 allows for voting in Dakar which would be a live vote during the open Council meeting with the new Councilors seated similar to the way the Board handles the proceedings with two meetings.
Option 2 allows for an electronic ballot before the Dakar meeting. The Council would be going into Dakar with a new Chair but would not have allowed the new Councilors to vote for their new leadership.

Comments from the Adobe Connect Chat Room transcript indicate that there was a strong preference for option one.

Stéphane van Gelder adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 13:09 UTC.

Next GNSO Council Public meeting will be on Thursday, 8 September 2011 at 20:00 UTC.
See: Calendar