| 6 September 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C - absent apologies
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C -
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 18 Council Members
(23 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff
John Jeffrey - General Counsel.
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Observers Miriam Sapiro - consultant
Liz Gasster - consultant
MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired this meeting
Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No updates Item 2: Discussion of New gTLDs 2.1 - review reports
Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Part A: Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Part B: Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-partb-01aug07.htm 2.2 - review public comments
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/
Liz Williams reported that the Final Report Part A and B, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
posted for the public comments, included the edits posted by individual Council members among whom were mentioned Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes, incorporated all the small group discussions and the final committee meeting on 6 August 2007.
The public comment forum ran from 10 to 30 August 2007
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10aug07.htm
There were 81 comments in all and a synopsis of the comments was posted at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00082.html The issues fell into three categories.
1. The first category related to recommendations 6 and 20 with similar language about the way in which morality and public order issues and their lead objection process would be handled. 2. The second category of comments were general ones related to the process and urging ICANN to move towards having a robust and objective application process available as quickly as possible. 3. The third category's comment related to specific elements which included discussions of IDN issues, Recommendation 19 with respect to the use of Accredited ICANN Registrars and protecting the rights of others. The arbitrary cutoff date was midday, CEST on 30 August, 2007 for producing the synopsis of comments for Council members. Comments that were received after that time (but before the posted deadline) would be included in the Board report. The agreed process was to discuss the principles or recommendations where there were issues or comments. Principle A
New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way
No comments Principle B
Some new generic top-level domains should be internationalised domain names (IDNs) subject to the approval of IDNs being available in the root.
No comments
Principle C
The reasons for introducing new top-level domains include that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. In addition the introduction of new top-level domain application process has the potential to promote competition in the provision of registry services, to add to consumer choice, market differentiation and geographical and service-provider diversity. Mike Rodenbaugh asked for clarification of the statement "the reasons for introducing new TLDs include their demand from potential applicants" Avri Doria commented that in the absence of statistics or metric of demand, anecdotally demand was visible.
Tony Harris commented that there was a lack of available domain options which was a good basic reason to introduce new ones. Chuck Gomes called attention to the wording of the principle,
"there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains.."
which did not quantify, but stated that was there is demand from potential applicants. Public comments and personal requests received attested to the demand from applicants. Mawaki Chango added that during the ICANN public forum in San Juan forum, many participants called for the completion of the process so that they could apply for TLDs. Principle D
A set of technical criteria must be used for assessing a new gTLD registry applicant to minimise the risk of harming the operational stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.
No comments Principle E
A set of capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant must be used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to meets its obligations under the terms of ICANN's registry agreement.
No comments Principle F
A set of operational criteria must be set out in contractual conditions in the registry agreement to ensure compliance with ICANN policies.
No comments Principle G
The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized principles of law.
No comments Recommendation 1
ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains.
The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.
All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process. No comments Recommendation 2
Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name. Mawaki Chango expressed concern about moving away from the terms 'visually confusing' or 'visually similar' to 'confusingly similar'.
Chuck Gomes clarified that the committee had chosen 'confusingly similar' because it was a broader term used in some international treaties and that this was fully noted in:
Recommendation 2
iv) The Committee used a wide variety of existing law[42], international treaty agreements and covenants to arrive at a common understanding that strings should not be confusingly similar either to existing top-level domains like .com and .net or to existing trademarks[43]. For example, the Committee considered the World Trade Organisation's TRIPS agreement, in particular Article 16 which discusses the rights which are conferred to a trademark owner.[44] In particular, the Committee agreed upon an expectation that strings must avoid increasing opportunities for entities or individuals, who operate in bad faith and who wish to defraud consumers. The Committee also considered the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[45] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which address the "freedom of expression" element of the Committee's deliberations.
Mawaki Chango also expressed specific concern about the new gTLD policy in the context of multi-script TLD strings.
Addressing the reason invoked by his colleagues to reiterate the existing concept of “confusingly similar”, Mawaki contended that such reiteration is not necessarily without risk for potentially different outcomes in a different context (whether historical, spatial or by the subject matter.) There may certainly be situations where restating the status quo ante in a different context would equate to creating not only new rights, but completely new types of rights – thus, a new concept under the formal disguise of an old one. We all know that this new gTLD policy is developed for a new, international, multi-script domain name space. “Confusingly similar” did certainly not mean, more than a century ago, to establish an ownership right over meanings or phonemes across linguistic contexts. In the present circumstances though, and as I have heard in the discussions with my colleagues on the IDN working group, it might be used to claim such rights from a linguistic universe to another. I therefore urge the GNSO Council to make clear in this new gTLD report the limits intended to its use of the concept “confusingly similar” in this particular context, and later on the ICANN Board to seek further advice, as necessary, from legal experts and authorities. The main objective for such consultation should be to establish legally and internationally valid mechanisms by which this concept may be operationalized (and the policy enforced) in the fair spirit – not just the letter – of the law as recognized by all parties involved.
Avri Doria commented that there had been specific discussion of multiple-script TLD strings.
Mike Rodenbaugh expressed concern that an 'Implementation Plan' was mentioned in Recommendation 2 xvii) while in fact it was not yet available.
"There is tension between those on the Committee who are concerned about the protection of existing TLD strings and those concerned with the protection of trademark and other rights as compared to those who wish, as far as possible, to preserve freedom of expression and creativity. The Implementation Plan sets out a series of tests to apply the recommendation during the application evaluation process." Staff commented that there was work in progress, experts were being consulted, and the goal would be to have confusingly similar disputes resolved by an algorithm that would be posted ahead of time.
Avri Doria commented that the draft implementation note from the staff indicated that a series of tests using the algorithm have not been formulized or finalized. It was agreed that the language should be changed from "implementation plan" to "work in progress". Recommendation 3
Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in particular freedom of expression rights). No Comments
Recommendation 4
Strings must not cause any technical instability. Avri Doria commented that there were public comments on this recommendation. Recommendation 5
Strings must not be a Reserved Word. No comments Recommendation 6
Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.
Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). Robin Gross reiterated NCUC’s continued objection to Recommendation 6 as stated in the Statement of DISSENT on Recommendation #6
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_…
and called attention to the many comments that were received in the public comment period objecting to Recommendation Number 6. Robin Gross further stated:
"I think that Recommendation Number 6 is so bad that I will vote against the entire report based upon Recommendation Number 6 and 20 alone."
Norbert Klein expressed concern that although many comments were recorded on recommendation 6, there had been no consequence and they had not received sufficient attention. Chuck Gomes agreed that there were recommendations that not everyone could agree on, but in the general approach of trying to reach a rough consensus that a strong majority of the group could support, considerable time and a sincere and effective effort was made on recommendation 6 to try and address the concerns of competing constituencies and interests. The NCUC concerns were addressed in a reasonable manner considering that there was no way the group could reach a position that perfectly met everyone’s interest. Avri Doria commented personally for the record:
"while I have come to accept this Number 6 because the majority of the people in the group did accept it, I am still very concerned about how ICANN can actually create fair processes dealing with morality when morality is such a broad subject. And I just wanted to reiterate that. So even though I have accepted it because the rough consensus was there and as a chair, accept it, personally, I still find it very difficult to understand how we’ll do it." Recommendation 7
Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out.
No comments Recommendation 8
Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability.
No comments Recommendation 9
There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective and measurable criteria.
No comments
Recommendation 10
There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the application process.
No comments Recommendation 11
[Replaced with Recommendation 20 and Implementation Guideline P and inserted into Term of Reference 3 Allocation Methods section]
Recommendation 12
Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process.
No comments
Recommendation 13
Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of demand is clear.
No comments
Recommendation 14
The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable length.
No comments
Recommendation 15
There must be renewal expectancy.
No comments
Recommendation 16
Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new Consensus Policies as they are approved.
No comments Recommendation 17
A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base contract which could lead to contract termination.
No comments
Recommendation 18
If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines[28] must be followed. There were comments on the public comment list pertaining to this recommendation.
Recommendation 19
Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars. The Chinese registrar in the public comments suggested that it was not a good idea to use ICANN accredited registrars only:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00055.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00049.html
Chuck Gomes commented that the registry community and some public comments articulated clear concerns relating to small registries only, suggesting that an exception could be made for them. Chuck went on to comment that in an effort to support the rough consensus process, the registries would support the total package including this recommendation in spite of the fact that they did not get what they wanted. Tony Harris commented that the Chinese registrar
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00055.html
made a valid a point because new TLDs combined with IDNs in regions where there are no ICANN accredited registrars would require other options in the development of new TLDs. Avri Doria commented that an implication of recommendation 19 could be a possible review of the registrar accreditation processes, costs and eventual barriers to accrediting registrars in non-developed areas. Chuck Gomes expressed empathy for the Chinese registrar and others in similar situations and supported a review of accreditation requirements to assure that they adequately meet the needs of regions sparsely populated by registrars. Kurt Pritz commented that ICANN had undertaken coaching new registries to acquaint them with ways in which they could satisfy the registrar requirements. ICANN, in the past couple of years has held outreach meetings, the most recent being in Hong Kong with a large number of registrar representatives from Asian and other countries.
Kurt was optimistic that in the implementation of recommendation 19, ICANN would facilitate the implementation of new registrars in thinly registrar-populated regions. Adrian Kinderis repeated former comments that the recommendation tried to be all-encompassing and combined two distinct channels
1. Registries should use ICANN accredited registrars
2. Registries must use a registrar
If broken down, it could address the issue that if registrars were used, they must be be ICANN accredited or as a registry, if it was decided to use a registrar, then they should be ICANN accredited.
Adrian added that from a registrar point of view it would be a problem going forward because it could rule out potential new TLDs. Avri Doria commented that while there was discussion at the committee level after Adrian joined the committee, no changes were made to the recommendation. Chuck Gomes confirmed that registrars had the option of offering which ever TLDs they wished and that this was one of the rationales behind the registry’s concern, because some TLDs business models were too weak for registrars to support, thus registries were at the mercy of the registrars who justifiably might not be interested in providing any support at all for the new TLD. Adrian Kinderis acknowledged that the Registry Constituency’s support of Recommendation 19 was as a part of the “total package” as reflected in Chuck Gomes’ comments on the call and not potentially of Recommendation 19 in isolation. The Registrars Constituency, having helped author the recommendation completely support Recommendation 19 in its entirety. Adrian Kinderis also made comment that he believed that no other constituencies or groups within the gNSO had really thought about the ramifications of Recommendation 19 and as such it is only the Registry Constituency and the Registrar Constituency that could comment with any authority. In this circumstance, because of the lack of understanding, Adrian Kinderis also pointed out that the Registry Constituency was “on a hiding to nothing” if it spoke against the recommendation which was an unfortunate position. Avri Doria confirmed that the current discussion was noted in the discussion in the report under recommendation 19 and that there was ongoing dialogue between registrars and registries where new agreements may come on line that would change the condition for the recommendation.
Alan Greenberg commented that because existing registries and registrars might be willing to accept the recommendation, did not factor in that it concerned potential new TLDs in areas where they may be no registrars and no registries and it would be a no-win situation for a geographic TLD in an area where there were no registrars. Kurt Pritz commented that the accredited registrars operated through a contract with ICANN and that provided certain protection for registrants. Current debate is taking place that is strengthening protection for registrants through making changes to the RAA and making registrars more responsive to the needs of the user such as addressing small registries and amending their agreement to allow for graduated sanctions. Replacing this with another model would require deeper discussion and reflection.
Avri Doria suggested that when it came to the vote, recommendation 19 could be voted on separately if councillors so wished. Recommendation 20
An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.
Liz Williams drew Council's attention to where the discussion of Recommendation 20 was to be found, that is in the Terms of Reference Three - Allocation Methods and that Recommendation 19 was to be found in the Terms of Reference Four - Contractual Conditions and was the last in the flow of the recommendations through the report.
Robin Gross reiterated an objection to recommendation 20, just as for recommendation 6, largely because of the harmful impact to freedom of expression that these recommendations still contained.
Particularly, the NCUC finds Recommendation 20 to have unpredictable, non-transparent criteria. The NCUC is concerned because it lacks objectivity and its advantages established institutions and industry incumbents at the expense of start up and non-commercial users. Unfortunately, Number 6 and Number 20 unravel all the other attempts and all the other recommendations that propose predictable and objective criteria.
" So, based on the harmful impact of freedom of expression, I’m inclined to vote against the entire report based upon Recommendations 20 and 6. " Mawaki Chango commented given the definition provided for 'community' and for 'explicit and implicit target' Council needed to define what was a 'TLD that was targeted to a community' in order to help the community understand what TLD would not be included in the category of TLD applications that explicitly or implicitly targeted a community. Avri Doria commented that there was no requirement that a TLD be explicitly targeted towards the community and there may well be TLD applications that do not specifically target a community.
Chuck Gomes cited as an example that if .Berlin was proposed but the proposer did not state that it was targeting the members of the Berlin communities around the world, there would still seem to be an implicit targeting of that community. Mike Rodenbaugh asked what would happen in the event that a community was targeted in the original application, then they changed their business model, as has been the case in several of the country code TLDs to date.
Should there be a promise that the applicant makes that they would stick to their intention to target a community for a certain amount of time? Tony Harris commented and questioned that with sponsored TLD applications, there could be requirements which would have to be respected. Alan Greenberg reiterated previous comments, giving dot China as an example, whether it would refer to the country or pottery and believed the answer was, that the contractual agreements included the applications as part of its documentation, and they are held largely to that, although business model changes could be accommodated.
Kurt Pritz commented that it was a complex issue that had not yet been settled.
The way the recommendations were written to staff indicated that the implementation should include an ability for the applicant, in case of a string contention, to show that the string representing a community brings some value to the domain name space and that it should be considered in a string contention.
On the other hand, it is not envisaged that ICANN should police a string or a TLD to ensure that it would continue to dedicate itself towards that community. ICANN's function lies in writing contracts and seeing that businesses are launched Adrian Kinderis commented on the definition of gTLD and that the premise of the entire document fell under the banner of gTLD. Chuck Gomes commented that historically, the definition of the gTLD, included both sTLDs and unsponsored TLDs. In fact in the registry constituency, has divided its members into those two categories. In the current round a specific sTLD category is not being suggested and old sTLD are still considered gTLD. A gTLD is not a ccTLD in the broadest definition of the term. There is no requirement to be sponsored in this round. Adrian Kinderis confirmed that a supported or non supported community could equally apply for a gTLD. Mike Rodenbaugh expressed the concern and asked what would be the role of ICANN in the case of an applicant with a sponsored community, applying to ICANN for a gTLD, ICANN granting the application, and then the applicant essentially changing its business model completely. For example, if dot Cat became a TLD for actual feline cat owners, instead of Catalan speakers.
Mike Rodenbaugh commented that there was a difference between policing and acting on complaints. Kurt Pritz commented that the sponsoring community was free to arrive at an agreement with the registry sponsor or the registry itself. And in order to support that registry and have an agreement between them, that would be a form of guarantee for them that the registry operations would continue to support the original intent of the sponsored community represented TLD. Alan Greenberg commented that Kurt's comment was different from what came out in the committee discussions, that it was acknowledged at that point that ICANN was not going to police but could, since the original application was part of the contract, react to complaints, which was very different from policing and very different from what Kurt had said that that a separate contract would be required between the two bodies if the sponsored organization wants to try to enforce anything. Robin Gross commented it was important to leave room for innovation In the domain name space. For a domain name to be registered for one purpose, and then used for an entirely different purpose was perfectly lawful as long as there was not any kind of broader misrepresentation for which there would be legal recourse anyway. Avri Doria called for comments on the Implementation Guidelines to be found in the Summary - Principles, Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines Avri Doria clarified that input from the discussion, with regard to the guidelines, could be added in the report but wording would not be changed. Liz Williams confirmed that a full analysis of the public comments including Mawaki Chango's comment on paragraph H, line T in the Implementation Guidelines on page 22 of the Report Part A and all the other comments would be included for the board report.
There would also be an opportunity to raise issues at the new gTLD workshop during the Los Angeles meetings. Mike Rodenbaugh requested clarification on paragraph I
"An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within a fixed timeframe which will be specified in the application process." It was clarified that the guideline referred to a timeframe. Item 3: Vote on New gTLDs
Avri Doria called for a vote on all the recommendations as a block, unless there was a proposed and seconded a motion which obtained a majority vote in favor of separating out any question, any recommendation or any set of recommendations for a separate and prior vote. There could be more than one motion for separation.
Norbert Klein, seconded by Robin Gross proposed a motion to separate recommendation 6 and recommendation 20 as a unit for a separate vote.
Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion. Vote in favour: Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing Total number of votes in favour: 4 Vote against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Sophia Bekele (each holding one vote),
Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each holding 2 votes) Total number of votes against: 17 Abstention: Tom Keller (holding 2 votes) Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Ross Rader. The motion did not carry. Mawaki Chango proposed a motion of separating Recommendation 2 from the rest of the recommendations. There was no second for the motion, thus there was no vote.
Avri Doria seconded by Tony Harris proposed the motion: The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board. Avri Doria called for a roll call vote. Vote in favour:
Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Jon Bing, Sophia Bekele (each holding one vote),
Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each holding 2 votes)
Total number of votes in favour 19 Vote against:
Robin Gross 1 vote Abstain:
Cyril Chua, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango (3 votes) Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Ross Rader. (4 votes) The motion carried with a supermajority vote as defined in the ICANN bylaws, section 16
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA Councilor's comments on the voting:
Votes in favour
Mike Rodenbaugh:
"The business constituency, as we’ve said in our recent public comments, have some pretty serious concerns about what will happen in new TLDs. We think that these recommendations do not address those concerns at all, but we have been actively participating in this process now for two years. We feel like this forum, perhaps, was’t the best forum to deal with those concerns about abusive registrations since they need to deal with existing TLDs as well. We’re hopeful that our participation and our acceptance of these recommendations will result in Council and ICANN taking seriously our issues about abusive registrations in existing and new TLDs, and in the interest of consensus, we will support these recommendations." Kristina Rosette:
"Support with the observation that there appears to be a logical inconsistency between on the one hand including Recommendations 2 and 3, but on the other hand refusing to recommend to new TLD applicants that they provide rights protection mechanisms." Votes against Robin Gross:
" I vote against the report largely because of the harmful impact on freedom of expression that Recommendations Number 6 and 20, the noticeable lack of legitimate authority for ICANN to adjudicate people’s rights has not gone unnoticed in this process, so I vote against the report." Abstentions Norbert Klein:
"I will abstain, but I hope that all the discussion which went on will be also forwarded to the board."
Mawaki Chango:
"I abstain because I am in favor of introducing new gTLDs and I would have loved to support this policy. But I still have a substantial issues with some of the recommendations namely the Recommendation 2. " Decision 1:
The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.
Item 4: Planning for New gTLD background presentations in Los Angeles A group made up of Avri Doria, Kristina Rosette, Adrian Kinderis, Chuck Gomes, Denise Michel, Craig Schwartz and Kurt Pritz is planning the workshop on New gTLDs in Los Angeles on Monday 29 October 2007. Constituency feedback will be requested on the draft schedule.
Work is in progress on a supplemental document, as requested in the public comments, not intended to replace the New gTLDs report, but to simplify the recommendations, principles, guidelines and discussions making it easier for people to participate in the workshop.
Item 5 AOB
5.1
Avri Doria noted that a formal request had been made to the Council to recognise the new set of GA List Rules by which the General Assembly were intending to govern themselves.
Denise Michel noted that the Board Governance Committee’s working group planned to address mailing lists and the GA list was part of their recommendation.
Chuck Gomes clarified that the General Assembly, under the former Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO), was actually a part of the DNSO and the 'ga mailing list' was a part of the former DNSO General Assembly at the time. With the change over to the GNSO, under ICANN Evolution and Reform process, the General Assembly fell away but the 'ga mailing list ' was maintained.
Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes and amended as by Mike Rodenbaugh proposed:
Whereas the GA list sent a request to the GNSO council for approval of its new list rules,
and whereas
"the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists,"
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X
and the GA list is one such open forum,
Resolved:
The GNSO chair will send a message to the GA List stating the following:
The GNSO council acknowledges the GA List's charter request and thanks the participants for consulting with the GNSO council on this issue.
Given the Council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, the Council encourages the GA
List's movement toward self moderation and supports the GA List in implementing the mailing list rules
(found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm)
indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is and should remain solely for the sole use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
The GNSO council, and its chair, cannot accept any responsibility for the internal governance of an organizational movement on the GA List at this time and restricts the council's actions to issues concerning the moderation of the GA List as determined by the by-laws. Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies.
The voice vote carried.
2 Abstentions were noted from Kristina Rosette and Mike Rodenbaugh. Decision 2:
Whereas the GA list sent a request to the GNSO council for approval of its new list rules,
and whereas
"the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists,"
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X
and the GA list is one such open forum,
Resolved:
The GNSO chair will send a message to the GA List stating the following:
The GNSO council acknowledges the GA List's charter request and thanks the participants for consulting with the GNSO council on this issue.
Given the Council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, the Council encourages the GA
List's movement toward self moderation and supports the GA List in implementing the mailing list rules
(found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm)
indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is and should remain solely for the sole use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items. With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
The GNSO council, and its chair, cannot accept any responsibility for the internal governance of an organizational movement on the GA List at this time and restricts the council's actions to issues concerning the moderation of the GA List as determined by the by-laws. Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies. 5.2 Motion to complete the WHOIS work
Avri Doria proposed the following motion: Whereas the Whois Task force report has not yet been voted on as required by the by-laws, Whereas the Whois WG was created to collect further information as defined in its terms of reference,
Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work,
Whereas almost 6 months have gone by since the release of the Whois Task force report,
Resolved:
A - The GNSO council acknowledges the report and thanks the members and the chair of the Working group for their efforts.
B - The GNSO Council should now complete this work on Whois and make its report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board.
C - In order to complete the work the following steps will be taken as scheduled:
1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the TF report, the WG charter and the WG report by and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process.
2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13. Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements. Specifically the ICANN by-laws section 7 d.1 1. Constituency Statements.
The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views;
(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and
(v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy. (end Quote)
Final Date for updated statement: October 4, 2007
which is 35 days from the meeting when the Whois WG report was discussed 3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments into the Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - November 6, 2007 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public Meeting 7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007 Ross Rader, seconded by Tom Keller proposed the following amendment to the motion:
that "November 6, 2007" be replaced with "October 31, 2007"
that "after November 6, 2007" be replaced with "during the LA Public Meeting". Avri Doria explained that the three days would come out of the additional second public comment period. The Task force report had already received a public comment period.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-services-comments/
The intended Final Report that would include all the Whois work would be open for public comment for 17 instead of 20 days from 15 to 31 October 2007, which would bring the date for voting on the report to the Council meeting in Los Angeles. The amendment carried by Voice vote
3 against
Decision 3: That the time line in the proposed motion to complete the work of the WHOIS be changed as follows: that "November 6, 2007" be replaced with "October 31, 2007"
that "after November 6, 2007" be replaced with "during the LA Public Meeting".
Denise Michel noted that the October 4 deadline was very ambitious for completion however there would be a status report by that date. The data from that report would be available to the board and to the implementation team.
Kurt Pritz noted that it was not certain if there would be a report on the WHOIS accuracy audit available by the October 4 deadline, but work was currently in progress and would be presented by the compliance staff at the Los Angeles ICANN meetings.
Tom Keller supported the motion because some of the councillors, who had been involved in the WHOIS process over several years, would be leaving the Council as their terms would end after the ICANN Annual General meeting in Los Angeles.
Suzanne Sene clarified that the GAC reference should be to the WHOIS GAC principles, Section 4.2
Avri Doria made a motion, seconded by Chuck Gomes, to accept the friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh to Ross Rader's amendment; the amended motion to be voted on by the Council in L.A. follows here:
Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work, Therefore:
The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report. Further, the GNSO council: a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group. b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2,
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf
and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the 'study to date' by October 4. d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far.
See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf. e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on “Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records” outlined in September, 2006.
See http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep200… f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows: 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process. 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007.
Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
Section 7 d. Collection of Information.
Specifically "1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy." **Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007
3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007. 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007. 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting. 7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting.
The motion to amend the motion carried unanimously by Voice vote.
Decision 4:
Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work, Therefore: The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report. Further, the GNSO council: a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group. b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2,
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf
and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the 'study to date' by October 4. d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far.
See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf. e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on “Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records” outlined in September, 2006.
See http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep200… f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows: 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process. 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007.
Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
Section 7 d. Collection of Information.
Specifically "1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy." **Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007
3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007. 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007. 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting. 7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting. Item 6
Any Other Business Avri Doria, on behalf of the GNSO Council proposed a vote of thanks to Liz Williams. Avri noted that it was the last meeting where Liz Williams would be part of the GNSO Council team and expressed appreciation personally and on behalf of the Council for all Liz's excellent work. The motion passed with acclamation.
Decision 5: Council expresses thanks and appreciation to Liz Williams who is leaving. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 16:36 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 20 September 2007 at 14:00 UTC.
see: Calendar
Action items arising from the Minutes:
Item 4: A clear, easy to understand Supplemental Document on new gTLDs.
Item 5.1: Message from the GNSO Chair to the GA list informing of the Council resolution.
| 