| 4 September 2008 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 15 Council Members Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President Services - absent, apologies Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes chaired the meeting. Avri Doria welcomed Zahid Jamil, the new CBUC representative. Item 2: Review/amend the agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008 . Chuck Gomes complimented the group on the template for constituency input and suggested that the idea could be carried forward in the Policy Development Process (PDP) revision. C. Afilias implementation of its AGP Modification Service (effectively the same as the approved consensus policy) D. AGP Budget Provision Avri Doria, noted that the Bylaws had been updated to include absentee voting. An email sent to the Council list explained that Issues Reports and policy decisions forwarded to the Board as well as any elections during meetings, as opposed to those using ballots, could now be voted on by absent councilors.The General Counsel has approved two possible implementation means. 2 . a. After the meeting, the Secretariat will send out a message to the Council list that there is a motion qualifying for an absentee vote and invite councilors who were absent to request a ballot. Avri Doria clarified that a request for a ballot was a directed ballot to a known email address and thus a validation that it was the specific person who voted. Item 5: Discussion/Decision Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Olof Nordling recapitulated the background to the motion. Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) Whereas: On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008; and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed; and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP Resolved: 1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads: A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period Be amended to read: The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name. 2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads: A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). Be amended to read: A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy. 3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads: No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP. 4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP. 14 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Tony Harris, Robin Gross, Jon Bing, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes (two votes each) 1 vote against: Ute Decker (one vote) 2 Abstentions: Kristina Rosette: (one vote) gave as reason that she had not had an opportunity to discuss fully with the IPC constituency The motion passed. The final voting result will be published when the absentee votes are registered. Norbert Klein will be included among the absentee votes due to connectivity issues. Item 7: Whois Hypotheses Study Group The motion on Whois Hypotheses was moved by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross with Mike Rodenbaugh's friendly amendment accepted. Whereas: On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ ) Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008 The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG. Council representatives including liaisons are asked to: ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible. Passed unanimously by voice vote Olga Cavalli, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed: Whereas: In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting "that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions" In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO "provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate" In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008 The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the following members of the drafting team: Olga Cavalli (NomCom appointee & chair), Clint Crosby (IPC), Glen de Saint Gery (ICANN Staff), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Tony H arris (ISPCPC), Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Staff), Marika Konings (ICANN Staff), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tim Ruiz (RC), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), and Ken Stubbs (RyC) The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Denise Michel referred to the Board resolution and the key decisions taken at the ICANN Board meeting on 28 August 2008. The Board's consideration and discussion of the GNSO Working Group's proposal is ongoing and closure on the remaining issues is expected during the next scheduled Board meeting on 30 September 2008.There was a significant amount of discussion about the stakeholder groups and the appropriate number of Councilors that should be seated for each group. Resolved. On balance the Working Group report addresses many challenges facing the community in a way that is consistent with the overarching goals of the GNSO improvements package and the BGC GNSO review Working Group that developed it. Resolved. The Board endorses the direction of the Working Group report and supports the bicameral voting structure of the new Council. The Board supports the establishment of one house described as the contracted party house in the report and directs that this house initially will have three representatives from each stakeholder group, registrars and registries plus one voting Nominating Committee appointee. The second house described in the report as the non-contracted party house will be composed of six representatives from each stakeholder group, commercial and non-commercial plus one voting Nominating Committee appointee. Resolved. The Board accepts the Working Group proposal to seat one voting NCA representative in each of the two houses as noted. The Board also directs that a third independent nom-com appointee representative continue to serve on the Council. Resolved. The Board directs the GNSO Council to work with ICANN staff on an implementation plan for Board approval that creates a transition to this new structure by the beginning of calendar year 2009. The Board requests that existing constituencies confirm their status with the Board during the intervening time period and requires constituencies to formerly confirm their status every three years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article 10 Section 5 Subsection 3 of the ICANN bylaws. This will be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principals of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness set forth in the ICANN bylaws. The Board also encourages new constituencies to submit requests for certification especially during this transition period. Resolved. The Board appreciates the significant amount of work performed by the Working Group and extends its sincere appreciation to Working Group members and then it lists all of the Working Group members for their efforts in this matter. Philip Shepherd commented that the Consensus Working Group recommended that each house chose its representation in terms of the number of people based on certain brackets specified in the report and asked why this recommendation had been rejected. Avri Doria queried whether the recommendation had proposed a range and left the decision to the Board and asked Rob Hoggarth, the author of the report, to clarify. Denise Michel commented that the Board was mindful of the implementation challenges the Council numbers presented and wanted a smooth, quick transition, possibly coinciding with the natural election process of many constituencies at the end of the calendar year. Kristina Rosette noted for the record that it was the view of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) that its support of the virtual consensus proposal was very heavily dependent on the Board seat allocation criteria and to the extent that it may have been represented to the board that the decision to not accept that recommendation at this point would be an acceptable exception; the IPC vigorously disputes that characterization. Chuck Gomes emphasised the importance of the threshold issue that was interrelated in the decisions of the Working Group's total package. Denise Michel further clarified that the resolution referred to a 'focused implementation plan' that will address the Council's transition, restructuring and other elements contained in the Board Governance Committee set of GNSO improvements, rather than the Council's High Level Plan under discussion. Constituency compliance with the principals of representativeness, openness and transparency will also be addressed in the focused implementation plan mentioned above. Action Items: Avri Doria recommended scheduling a meeting of the GNSO Planning team for the week 8 - 12 September 2008 Avri Doria proposed contacting the Registrar Constituency Chair about registrar participation in the GNSO Planning team. Item 10: Travel Policy Tim Ruiz proposed an amendment to the motion "to approve the person designated as the number one party to fund for each constituency." Avri Doria did not accept the amendment as friendly and called for a vote on the amendment. Concern was expressed regarding: the insufficient time to discuss the issue, that need as a criteria was not clearly defined, and the conflict of interests of councilors who were being funded being allowed to vote on the motion. The Registry constituency, did not support the motion as presented because the constituency believed that financial need should be demonstrated for anyone other than the constituency's first choice, but approved support for the Nominating Committee appointees and the Council chair. However raising the ethical issues with the ICANN General Counsel was suggested, subsequent to taking a vote on the motion. Avri Doria, seconded by Tony Harris proposed: Whereas: On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance, and That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway. 1. The names in the following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008: Name Constituency/NCA - Reason - Class of travel 2. The level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GNSO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and exceptions may be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive on time for meetings on 1 November 2008. 3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thursday of ICANN week as members of the NomCom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds. The GNSO Secretariat is authorized to cover those expenses from the old DNSO/GNSO budget. The motion passed. 8 votes in favour: 6 votes against: 1 Abstention: Jon Bing (one vote) Avri Doria left the call and handed the Chair to the vice- chair, Chuck Gomes Item 10: Discussion with Patrick Sharry about ALAC Review Discussion on recommendation 12, page 71 The ICANN bylaws are very explicit in that no one is prohibited from being part of a GNSO constituency because they belong to another constituency. Councilors were encouraged to submit comments to the ALAC Review public comment forum. Next GNSO Council Teleconference will be on 25 September 2008 at 12:00 UTC. |
GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes
Last Updated:
Date