| 16 October 2008 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Council Members ICANN Staff Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent Invited Guest: MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Roll Call. Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest Item 2: Review/amend the agenda Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008 . Chuck Gomes, seconded by Olga Cavalli moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 4 September 2008. Motion passed Item 4. Added discussion of RTP Denial Reasons PDP Board Recommendation Amendment Olof Nordling gave a brief overview saying that following the September 4, 2008 GNSO Council meeting, there were two proposals to change the text of denial reasons 8 & 9. The outcome was resubmitted for public comment and the only comment received demonstarted that one of the provisions for denial reason 9 could be misinterpreted. Discussion followed on the working group list which indicated support for deleting specific words. Council's consideration on the amendment to the resolution is necessary before the proposal is submitted to the ICANN Board at the Cairo meeting. Clarification was provided that item 1 in the motion provides the language in the existing policy (not the previously approved wording change) and item 2 the latest proposed wording recommended to the Board. Avri Doria noted that since the motion is a recommendation for the ICANN Board's consideration, a roll call vote and absentee voting procedure will be followed and the absentee ballots should be completed within 24 hours of the end of the meeting. Motion on Amendment to the Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP) moved by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Avri Doria Whereas: * On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy; * The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment identifying a possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the Registrar of Record"; * The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the drafting group for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9; Resolved: 1. 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 has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy. The motion passed and the total vote count, after the absentee voting is closed, will be submitted to the Council mailing list 18 Votes in favour: Item 5: ICANN Geographic Regions The Commercial and Business Users, the Intellectual Property Interests, the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers, the Non Commercial Users and the Registrars constituencies had no comments on the ICANN Geographic Regions drafting group report and supported the report. Olga Cavalli, seconded by Tim Ruiz and Chuck Gomes, moved the motion on Geographic Regions (carried forward from 25 September) 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 In the 4 September 2008 Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 The Council reviewed the GNSO Comments in its meeting on 16 October 2008. Resolve: The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments. The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote Item 6: Discussion on ccNSO liaison Avri Doria referred to the email from Chris Disspain, the ccNSO chair formally requesting the exchange of liaisons. The implications of "equal footing as members of the Council" was the language used by the ccNSO chair and with regard to the travel policy, liaisons would be funded by their sending organisation. Avri Doria, seconded by Adrian Kinderis, moved the motion Whereas: The GNSO has decided in the past on its interest in exchanging a liaison with the ccNSO and has communicated this interest to the chair of the ccNSO, and Initial discussions were held in Paris during the joint meeting between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the exchange of liaisons between the GNSO council and the ccNSO council Resolve: The Chair of the GNSO send the following to the chair of the ccNSO: Dear Chris, On behalf of the GNSO council, I thank you for your note on behalf of the ccNSO council regarding the exchange of observers. The GNSO council reiterates its interest in cooperation on issues of mutual interest and in the ongoing exchange of information between the GNSO and the ccNSO. The GNSO council will select a representative shortly and welcomes the participation of the representative to be selected by the ccNSO council. I will notify you and the ccNSO secretariat once the GNSO council has completed its selection process. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Selection criteria and process were discussed. Views were expressed in favour of a Council member being the liaison who would be up to date with the Council deliberations, speak with authority and be available to bring the liaison content to every meeting, with emphasis on communication rather than representation. In the new philosophy of the Council, which attempts to spread work among a wider range of participants, non Council members should be considered while at the same time they should be experienced in ccNSO affairs. There should be sufficient flexibility for either a councillor or non council member to be chosen. Avri Doria summarised that the selection procedure before Council for a liaison to the ccNSO Council could be either a Council member or a member of the broader GNSO community and the vote could be taken in an open meeting or could follow the full voting procedure by secret ballot. Liz Gasster was requested to enquire what time commitment the role of laiason would entail. Avri Doria suggested that anyone interested in the position should send the chair an email. If only one person volunteered, a discussion on the mailing list would be sufficient to approve the candidate, but if there was more than one, there would be a vote by secret ballot. Item 7: GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan 7.1 Update on Board decisions regarding restructuring Denise Michel referred to an email sent to the Council list on 15 October 2008 outlining the follow-up action items from the ICANN Board's draft GNSO Restructuring Resolution Denise provided an important clarification with regard to the Council Restructuring Implementation Plan that the Board referred to, which includes the basic actions and timelines of achieving the full transition to the new bicameral voting structure and should not be confused with the GNSO Council's GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan which refers to the proposed GNSO structure that will be created to commence the work on the overall implementation improvement report. Denise further explained that a 'constituency' is defined in the ICANN bylaws and the four stakeholder groups indicated by the Board are comprised of constituencies. Currently on the contracted party side, there is a Registry constituency that will be the full Registry stakeholder group and the same applies for the Registrars. On the non contracted party side, the commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups, will serve as umbrella entities for constituencies within each group. The Non Commercial User Constituency is currently a constituency and not a stakeholder group and the same holds for the constituencies in the commercial sector. Additional work, discussion and proposals need to occur to define in detail how the stakeholder groups will be structured, the processes and procedures that will be used, and their relation to the constituencies. Chuck Gomes commented that the Registry constituency foresaw the possibility that there could be other registry constituencies in the Registries stakeholder group. Discussion on the proposed amendment pointed out that the amendment added additional burden on the steering groups because bringing people late into a process could delay rather than expedite the outcome, with the added uncertainty that the new constituency was not yet approved. So while such participants could be observers, they should not be formalised in terms of the process. Further clarification was provided on the role of the OSC which is the group determining the conditions, rules and structure under which a constituency operates and where open participation is important. The role of the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) on the other hand is to define the working group structure and the policy development process. Zahid Jamil drew attention to language that had been omitted in the Operations steering committee (OSC) charter relating to membership Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes, proposed a motion on amending the GNSO Improvement Plan - Membership in Operational Steering Committee 1. In the section "Members in the PPSC" on page 9 of the GNSO Improvements Plan Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus" process. Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process. 2. In the section "Members in the OSC" on page 12 of the GNSO Improvements Plan Unless otherwise determined by the OSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus" process. to Unless otherwise determined by the OSC members, committee decisions will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process. 3. In the section "Other Participants in the OSC" on page 12, of the GNSO Improvements Plan add: - 1 representative from any constituencies-in-formation formally involved in the process of applying for inclusion in one of the GNSO Stakeholder groups. The definition of the new constituency process should include the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status. The motion did not pass 9 votes against: Philip Shepard, Zahid Jamil, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein (one vote each) Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria, moved the motion on the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan Whereas: The ICANN Board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN Staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO". Such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation The ICANN board in resolution 2008.06.26.13 endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group The ICANN board in its meeting on 1 October 2008 approved resolutions 6 through 15 relating to the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Working Group and the specific topic of GNSO Council Restructuring, Resolved: The GNSO will develop a plan for GNSO Council restructuring implementation that is separate and distinct from the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan as directed in resolution 2008.10.01.15 The GNSO Council approves the Framework defined in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan dated 24 September 2008 as prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan (as updated) The GNSO Council requests that constituencies, NomCom appointees, the ALAC and the GAC identify representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Plan by 24 October 2008 if possible, but not later than 31 October Kickoff meetings of the Steering Committees be held during the ICANN meetings in Cairo (1-7 November 2008) with teleconference capability for any who may not be able to attend in-person. Passed unanimously by voice vote Action Items arising from the motion: 1. The GNSO Council requests that constituencies, NomCom appointees, the ALAC and the GAC identify representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Plan by 24 October 2008 if possible, but not later than 31 October 2. Kickoff meetings of the Steering Committees will be planned during the ICANN meetings in Cairo (1-7 November 2008) with teleconference capability for any who may not be able to attend in-person. Item 8: Updates 8.1 Board Update Denise Michel gave an overview of the Board's actions at the meeting held on 1 October 2008 The ICANN Board approved the Director's Code of Conduct that was previously posted for public comment, a de-accredited registrar transition procedure and directed Staff to periodically re-evaluate its effectiveness as the registrar marketplace evolves and make modifications to the procedure as appropriate. The Board granted financial approval of the contractor agreement for Multiple Language Algorithms relating to New gTLD Program Implementation, as well as IT Equipment Purchase. 8.2 Fast Flux PDP WG Action Item 8.3 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part A PDP 8.4 New gTLDs Several new gTLD sessions are planned in Cairo, starting with the GNSO Working group sessions on Saturday and Sunday, 1 and 2 November 2008 8.5 Fast Track 8.6 Add Grace Policy ( AGP) 8.7 Cairo Travel Fund "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. Stacy Hoffberg, the meeting planner, advised the Secretariat that the per diem rate is $80 and the hotel room rate is $250 per night. 8.8 Action Items - Pending is the formation of the Operational (OSC) and Policy Process (PPSC) Steering committees that will have kickoff meetings in Cairo. - The Travel drafting team to develop a proposal for consideration by Council had its first meeting on 15 October 2008. - Constituencies were asked to distribute the WHOIS hypotheses study group recommendations to their members and input will be collected during Item 9 of the current agenda. 8.8 Front Running Item 9 Whois Hypotheses Study Group Chuck Gomes reported that the Registry Constituency is undertaking a detailed analytical approach to the hypotheses and anticipates submitting to the Council list on 29 October 2008 a detailed set of recommendations for deciding which studies to perform. Liz Gasster reported that the staff forwarded the request to both the GAC and the ALAC. Avri Doria noted that considerable time will be devoted to the issue in Cairo, both during the GNSO Working sessions on Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 November and at the Open GNSO Council meeting on Wednesay 5 November 2008. Item 10: Planning for Cairo Avri Doria commented that the availablity of certain participants had to be confirmed. Provisional Agendas - Board working group on the ALAC review. Sunday 2 November 2008 - GNSO improvements restructuring - brief joint meeting of council and members of the two Steering committees Operational steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process steering Committee (PPSC) separate but parallel meetings to include electing chairs for each group - IRTP Discussion - GAC/ GNSO Joint meeting one hour - Board/GNSO/Staff dinner A request was made to spend a substantial amount of time on new gTLDS Monday 3 November 2008 Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council lunch meeting Wednesday 5 November - GNSO Improvements and Restructuring Concern was expressed regarding wordsmithing and voting in the public meeting. There was general agreement that if a motion required minor wordsmithing, it could be done during the open meeting, but if there were substantial changes to be made, staff would be asked to assist the councillors with the apppropriate wording during a pause in the meeting so that the motion could be put to the vote thereafter. Thursday 6 November GNSO Council wrap-up meeting in the afternoon Item 10: Any Other Business 10.1 SSAC - Request regarding Whois Liz Gasster referred to three SSAC documents on WHOIS relating to the recommendations that the Council and the community consider migration to a registry or active directory service to replace the current structure of WHOIS. The three documents referred to are the SSAC report in February, SSAC 27., the SSAC report 20 June, SSAC 33. and an email communication from Steve Crocker sent to the Council on 19 May 2008 While more policy work is needed, a secure and reliable WHOIS can only be achieved through a combination of policy development and implementation of a standard, uniform directory service that provides authentication, confidentiality, accuracy and integrity services, and the reports cite the development of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol by the CRISP Working Group. Essentially the concerns identified are the need to establish requirements for the administration of registration information, which according to the SSAC, requires studies on the uses and abuses of registration information, access requirements, role-based access control models for WHOIS, the need for greater accuracy and recommends that the ICANN community should adopt an Internet standard directory service, urges the study of various protocols and encourages ICANN to work with all TLD operators to develop a timeline and transition plan to move to a successor service. The second SSAC report 20 June, SSAC 33 enumerates the ways in which WHOIS is used today, identifies and explains the typical features of directory service applications. Each database entry is given a unique identity at its root and a defined data schema for each element of data with an authentication framework that allows for strong authentication means, the ability for auditing processes to ensure that data is not lost, altered or corrupted in terms of accuracy, and monitoring of availability and outages. IDNs and WHOIS are not addressed in the report but it is suggested that aspects of the active directory model may provide some flexibility or options with regard to the display of contact information in non-ASCII characters. The issue is not the IDN domain name label itself that is stored in WHOIS, there is a standard for the display of the IDN label. The issue is the viewing aspect that is dependent on how local registrars and registries choose to create the user interface which could be available in all character sets, in some character sets, or only in ASCII. 10.2 Action Item: Avri Doria suggested adding the topic to the Cairo Open Council meeting agenda. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 14:23 UTC. Next GNSO Council Meeting will be in Cairo on 5 November 2008 at 06:00 UTC. |