| 18 December 2008 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C
Zahid Jamil - Commercial & Business Users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent- apologies
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Stéphane van Gelder - Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars - absent- apologies
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies
Cyril Chua - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Mary Wong - NCUC
William Drake - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC - absent - apologies
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Terry Davis - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members
(21 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President Services
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Tim Cole - Chief Registrar Liaison
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Olof Nordling - Director, Services Relations and Branch Manager, Brussels office
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Craig Schwatrz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Marika Konings - Policy Director
Ken Bour - Policy consultant
Maria Farrell - Director, Information Coordination Unit, ICANN Corporate Affairs
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies
Guest
Tricia Drakes - Nominating Committee chair
MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Roll Call.
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Chuck Gomes advised that he would be updating his statement of interest as VeriSign planned submitting applications for a new gTLD. Item 2: Review/amend the agenda
No Council Minutes to approve
Added Item 7a : gTLD Implementation Communications Plan
Moved item 7 to after agenda review
Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes
No minutes to approve
Item 7: Nominating Committee
Tricia Drakes noted that the two staff members supporting the Nominating Committee for the year 2009 are Maria Farrell and Patrick Jones.
The customary meeting with the GNSO and the Nominating Committee will be scheduled during the Mexico meetings. Currently the nominating committee is looking at the GNSO Council positions that need to be filled, recognizing that there are a number of factors that will have to be taken into account with regard to the GNSO improvements and the transition to the bicameral house structure. It is hoped that the Constituency day meetings in Mexico City will provide an opportunity for discussion and input on the types and sets of candidates required.
Tricia Drakes reminded Council that 15 April 2009, is the closing dates for statements of interest and that the initial selection discussions will take place at the Sydney meeting in June 2009.
Tricia encouraged councilors to help in the recruitment and outreach of potential candidates.
It was suggested that with the expansion of top level domain names the type of expertise that would be useful on Council and within the user’s house would be a knowledge of competition law and public policy competition issues.
Item 3: Confirm election results for 2 GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide WG on Geographical Regions Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil were elected as the two GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide working group on Geographical Regions.
Ballots were received from 21 individuals. Weighted voting was used; 6 ballots had a weight of 2; 15 ballots had a weight of 1. Counting the weights, the final tally is: 7 - Eric Brunner-Williams
24 - Olga Cavalli
17 - Zahid Jamil
The Council confirmed the election results of the two GNSO representatives, Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions. Motion passed by voice vote. Item 4: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Avri Doria stated that there were 2 motions before Council on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), both made by Tim Ruiz and seconded by Chuck Gomes.
Alan Greenberg withdrew his proposed motion See the motions: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions
Kristina Rosette referred to two questions in an email on the motions proposed by Tim Ruiz who was not on the call to respond.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05969.html
Some Council members requested further information and responses to questions in order to provide an informed vote.
Council agreed to table the motions until the next meeting on 8 January 2009.
See the motions: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions
Item 5: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf Marika Konings gave an overview of the GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
Alan Greenberg explained that when ALAC referred to the term "registrar" it implied registrars and resellers and it was important to review the obligations of resellers with regard to the provisions in the RAA related to post-expiration domain and recovery. Dan Halloran commented that a registrar is obligated to fulfill all its obligations under the RAA whether it makes a registration itself or through a reseller or an agent. So the registrar’s obligations do not change, but ICANN does not have any direct relationship with the reseller and the resellers do not owe ICANN any obligations directly.
The registrar is obligated to fulfill all the obligations in the RAA and it does not matter whether the registration came to the registrar through a reseller or not. If a registrar sponsors a name it has a registrant for that name and it has certain obligations to fulfill. It does not matter whether it was a direct sale or not. It was agreed to take further technical questions off line for accurate information in consultation with the compliance and other staff. There were two motions before Council, one of them contingent on motion one, proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes, and the alternate motion, also proposed by Avri Doria but not yet seconded.
Chuck Gomes was happy that the motion captured the essence of a third alternate motion he proposed which he withdrew.
See the motions: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes, proposed a motion on the GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report Whereas: On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf
On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08)
Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report, Resolve: The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until 29 Jan 2009 to allow for the needed clarification to be obtained about Issues Report items defined below;
ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later then 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report:
- In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding “how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP”, the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, “On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, ‘IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements’.”
* Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C?
* What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?
* What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? - In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends
“. . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . .”
* How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP?
* What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? - Section 3.7.5 of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says,
“At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed
within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier).”
* Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn’t registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? - Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, “In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement.”
* Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn’t registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not? The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
The alternate motion 2, proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Kristina Rosette, contingent on motion 1 was not necessary.
(See the motions: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions)
Item 6: GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-regi… Avri Doria clarified that the sequence of motions before Council provided options for when a PDP could be launched. However, whether or not a PDP was launched, a group should be formed to define a charter either prior to or during the PDP process. Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh with a friendly amendment by Chuck Gomes, proposed a motion on Registration Abuse Policies Whereas: The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: - 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings
A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. - 9.2 Identify specific policy issues
Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. - 9.3 Need for further research
As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed - e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required?
The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the council will take the by-laws required PDP vote. Motion passed by voice vote.
1 Abstention: Stéphane van Gelder - "it's going too fast for me"
1 nay
Item 7a. Motion Regarding gTLD Implementation Plan Communications Period
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions Avri Doria clarified and there was no objection to the statement that Motion 1 on the gTLD Implementation was tabled until January 8, 2009.
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions
Motion 1 alternate was withdrawn and Motion 2 conditional was also withdrawn. Chuck Gomes, seconded by Adrian Kinderis, proposed motion 3 that was tabled until January 8, 2009 Council meeting.
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions It was agreed that those who suggested changes, work together with Chuck Gomes to revise the wording of the motion. Item 8. Domain Tasting comment review
Summary and analysis of public comments for the Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy Draft Implementation Plan
http://forum.icann.org/lists/agp-limits-policy/msg00014.html Craig Schwartz summarised and gave an analysis of public comments for the AGP Limits Policy Draft Implementation Plan
- An advisory announcing the Policy and implementation plan was posted on 17 December 2008.
- The advisory calls for implementation by registries as soon as possible but no later than 31 March 2009. The effective date of the Policy will be posted on ICANN’s consensus policy page as 1 April 2009.
- The advisory stated registries should provide notice to registrars of the new Policy within the next 21 days. And, the implementation plan provides that registries must provide registrars with 30-days notice of the change in refunds policy.
- AGP deletes decreased by 22% from July to August and overall 88% from June to August.
The registries have been notified and will in turn need to notify their registrars that the policy will be effective on 1 April 2009. Item 9. Travel Policy
Philip Sheppard, seconded by Stephane Van Gelder, proposed a motion on the GNSO Travel Process:
Whereas:
Council welcomes the fact that ICANN has allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of Nom Com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. The motion unanimously passed by voice vote Avri Doria committed to transmitting the motion to ICANN staff. Item 10. Status Updates
10.1 Board Update Denise Michel noted that the summary of the Board meeting held on 11 December 2008 was posted at:
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-2-11dec08.htm
The Board passed a resolution regarding individual users in the GNSO, essentially asking the GNSO, the At-Large community, and other interested parties to work together to provide the Board with a recommendation on the treatment of users in the GNSO that complements the At-Large community, by late January 2009. 10.2 Policy Items
10.2 1 Whois Studies
The Whois Studies group is an open Council group to which some Council members have sent substitutes. The group is basically working through the model as provided by the Registry constituency, prioritising and ranking the feasibility of the proposed studies. An Excel file is posted on the Wiki:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
Constituencies that have not participated are encouraged to do so. 10.3 Working Groups
10.3.1 Fast Flux
Avri Doria noted that she was still in the role of interim chair of the Fast Flux policy development process working group that was near to submitting an Initial report for public comment.
10.3.2 IRTP Part A PDP
Mike Rodenbaugh noted that the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies, part A, policy development process working group was also near to submitting an Initial Report for public comment early in 2009. 10.4 GNSO "Improvements"
10.4.1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Update
Avri Doria reported there was no update. 10.4.2 Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Update Chuck Gomes mentioned that an invitation will be forthcoming that will cover both the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) requesting participants to join one of five initial working teams being established. Links will be provided to draft charters for the work teams. The invitation will be posted on the ICANN website, the GNSO website and distributed to the At-Large Advisory Committee and the Government Advisory committee, as well as the constituencies.
10.5 GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Plan The GNSO Council Chair provided the ICANN Board with a Status report on GNSO Improvements and restructuring activities.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-restructuring-implementation-… 10.6 . IDNccTLD Implementation Plan
10.6.1 GNSO Comments
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#plan-idn-cctlds
Edmon Chung reported that the public comment period had been extended to 7 January 2009 and that he would circulate a draft to the Council list. 10.7 Variance between Council Recommendations and New gTLD Implementation plan
Chuck Gomes suggested that Council identify any major deviances or variances from the GNSO Council Recommendations on new TLDs and the current implementation plan. He mentioned geographic names as being one area of variance. Avri Doria suggested creating a wiki page as a repository for Council comments.
Item 11. AOB
11.1 GNSO Council Chair elections
The GNSO Secretariat reported that the nominations had closed for the position of Council chair. There was one nomination, Avri Doria. A confirmation vote, by secret ballot, on Avri Doria continuing in her role as chair is scheduled to begin on Monday, December 22, 2008 and end on Wednesday, January 7 2009.
Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting ended at 21:10 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will on 8 January 2009 at 19:00 UTC.
see: Calendar
| 