| 20 December 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 19 Council Members ICANN Staff Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Absent - apologies GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates to record. Item 2: Approve GNSO Council minutes 20 November 2007. Tom Keller, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of One abstention was noted from Mike Rodenbaugh. The Motion passed. Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 20 November 2007. Item 3: Review and discuss results from Inter-Registrar Transfer Review Working Group. Ross Rader, the Inter-Registrar Transfers Prioritisation Working Group leader reported that the group, which met via email and one teleconference, had completed their work and prioritised the outstanding issues related to the Inter-Registrar Transfer policy. 1. Whether there could be a way for registrars to make Registrant Email Address data available to one another. Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact. 2 Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report. Currently a name could be hijacked during the transfer process and it would take a long time to resolve the issue. 3 Whether there was a need for other options for electronic authentication due to security concerns on the use of email addresses, such as the potential for hacking or spoofing. 4. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions. 5 Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status, for example when it may/may not/should/should not be applied. 6 Whether provisions on time-limiting form of authorisation (FOA) should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. Beyond the top six items, there was less agreement, and after the top ten there was no longer broad agreement round the specific rankings. Chuck Gomes noted a discussion on the General Assembly (GA) mail server list concerning the issue of registrars denying transfers following a change to Whois information, and asked whether this issue was part of the list of issues considered by the prioritization working group. Ross Rader mentioned that there are various tracks of ongoing work regarding transfer issues: Karen Lentz mentioned that the PDP initiated by the Council covered the section of the policy on reasons for denial of a transfer request. Kurt Pritz noted that some registrars cited security concerns as a reason for denying transfer requests following a change to Whois, and that consideration of any relevant security issues should be on the table in a policy discussion. Philip Sheppard enquired about the estimated time between the identification of the prioritised items, and the actual implementation, and whether different tracks were envisaged during the process. Ross Rader responded that the working group had not discussed timelines. From a personal point of view, he believed that the issues should be doled out to the community on a regular basis, should not be broadened in scope and since no best practices had evolved, policy was required in these areas. Chuck Gomes asked whether the report contained any possible breakdown of Policy Development Processes (PDP) or could all the recommendations form one PDP? Ross Rader commented that issues could be grouped together to form different PDPs which could be dealt with sequentially and flexibly. Avri Doria suggested that the Council consider the next steps on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Prioritizations at the face to face meeting scheduled on Saturday, 9 February 2008 in New Delhi. Chuck Gomes expressed concern at the delay and suggested that an effort be made to start the issue before the New Delhi meetings. Avri Doria thanked Ross Rader for attending the meeting. Item 3: Review/publish form for Whois study suggestions Avri Doria, tracing the background to the issue, noted that the Council had passed a resolution 20071031-3 Liz Gasster reported that the Small group had developed and completed a template with the following suggested headings: - Topic for study: Chuck Gomes suggested that data collection feasibility, should be added to the template as it could be an underlying factor in estimating the costs. Liz Gasster proposed an additional column under 'potential sources of data' requesting proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data. Philip Sheppard commented that although there may be different requests for different studies with slightly different perspectives, much of the data collection would be a common source. It would thus be important to build a pool of data that could be used for multiple research studies. Chuck Gomes added that building a pool of data was equally important in the preparation of cost estimates to obviate providing cost estimates for each separate template. It was also suggested that the current small group's expertise should be used in analyzing responses and in preparing the final summary for broader Council review. The GNSO Council, in the absence of a motion, by consensus, approved the WHOIS template with one additional column under potential sources of data, asking proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data. and further agreed to: 2. request the current small group to stay in place and produce some study proposals by the January 3, 2008 meeting 3. send an advisory letter, with a copy of the template, to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) chairs on the process that is ongoing. Alan Greenberg cautioned Council about the language of the advisory letter. It should be worded so as to avoid comments targeted at ICANN about unending studies being undertaken to defer any action on the Whois issue. Item 4: International Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO) Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) discussion and Vote Avri Doria read the two motions that had been proposed. Motion 1 Whereas: - The Issues report for IGO has been released and discussed - and in response to a Council resolution the staff has produced a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure - and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a revised IGO DRP Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the creation of IGO dispute Resolution Procedures Motion 2 proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, but for which there was no seconder. Whereas: - The Issues Report for IGO has been released and discussed - and in response to a GNSO Council resolution the ICANN Staff has produced a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure - and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a revised IGO DRP Resolves: - The GNSO initiates a PDP to discuss amendments to the UDRP which would enable IGOs to pursue domain names referring to IGO names via the UDRP and, in the event of an unfavorable decision by a UDRP panel, to challenge that decision via a new appeal process to be added to the UDRP and which shall be limited to disputes regarding IGO names. - As initial material for the PDP, the following will be used: - the DRP proposal prepared by the staff - the revised DRP proposal prepared by the IPC - a new document to be prepared by Staff no later than January 12, 2008, showing proposed amendments to the UDRP based upon the IPC's Nov. 28th proposal, rather than an entirely new DRP proposal - Staff will request Constituency representatives by January 12, 2008, who shall meet and confer in order to recommend to Council, no later than January 26, 2008, whether or not a Task Force is needed for this PDP. At that point, Council can decide to accept that recommendation, or not, but the PDP would continue down one of the two paths in the Bylaws (Task Force, or Constituency Impact Statements). Avri Doria further commented that if motion 1, to start a Policy Development Process (PDP) carried by the required 33% of the votes present, then two contingent motions on the content and whether to work in a task force would follow, while in motion 2, there was a built-in delay on the vote for a task force. Kristina Rosette noted that the Staff recommendation in the Issues Report stated that there was no need for a PDP on the protection of IGO names and abbreviations in all contracts. Instead, the proposal was to develop a DRP that was acceptable and could be applied to new gTLDs as a contractual condition and, once that DRP had been finalized, a PDP could begin to address the question of applying the DRP to existing gTLDs. Chuck Gomes disagreed, and said that it was a policy issue which, whether it applied to new gTLDs or existing gTLDs, should be dealt with through the policy development process (PDP). Kristina Rosette reminded Council that historically, the original report that precipitated the issue in 2001, called for the protection of country names. The findings of an ICANN and an IPC working group concluded that country names could not be included, because there was no internationally recognized basis in law for doing so. In addition, ICANN would be directly responding to a specific United Nations agency, namely the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), quest which could be considered different from 'other' groups asking for similar rights. Avri Doria, seconded by Kristina Rosette proposed: - The Issues report for IGO - and in response to a council resolution the staff has produced a proposal for an IGO dispute resolution procedure - and subsequent to GNSO resolution 20071120-1 to postpone the vote on commencing a PDP until 20 December 2007, the IPC prepared a proposal for a revised IGO DRP Resolves The GNSO will initiate a PDP to discuss the creation of an IGO Dispute Resolution Procedures The roll call vote failed and the motion did not pass. Details of the vote: 10 Votes against: Tom Keller (Registrar c), Jordi Iparraguirre (gTLD Registry c.), Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registry c.), Edmon Chung (gTLD Registry c.), (two votes each) Robin Gross(NCUC), Norbert Klein (NCUC).(one vote each) 2 Abstentions: Avri Doria (Nominating Committee appointee), Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee appointee). (one vote each) Reasons for Abstention: Absent Councillors who did not vote: Bilal Beiram (CBUC), Ute Decker (IPC), Carlos Councillors who dropped off the line: Tony Harris (ISPCP), Greg Ruth (ISPCP). (one vote each) Philip Sheppard requested that the details of the vote be transmitted to Dr. Paul Twomey which Denise Michel confirmed would be done. Item 6: IDN email list Whereas there have been requests for a list where a public discussion of IDN issues facing the GNSO can be discussed by stakeholders and constituency members, Resolved that a trial of an IDN discussion list will be created on the following basis: - The purpose of the list is to allow public discussion of issues regarding the creation of IDN TLDs in ICANN namespace - The Chair of the GNSO council and other volunteers will be responsible for monitoring the list and for administering any rules - Membership requests for the list will be reviewed by the list moderators on the following basis -The List Moderators will be responsible for administering the following rules: - While GNSO council members are encouraged to participate in the conversations on the IDN discussion list, there will be no obligation - The charter for the IDN discussion list will be reviewed 6 months after creation of the list. There was no support for the proposed motion in the council. Item 7: Travel funding for Council members Avri Doria stated that there were two separate issues: I. Immediate funding for the ICANN meetings in New Delhi. I wanted to respond to the GNSO Council¹s inquiry regarding ICANN travel support for GNSO counselors attending the India meeting. ICANN has always valued highly the work of volunteers in the organization and now has the resources to re-examine its travel support policies. As I previously noted, it is important to re-examine the situation and come up with explicit, sensible policies that 1) support ICANN volunteer work, 2) justify this use Some of the reasons why finding the right answer here is hard include: So, trying to balance these various concerns: Please let me know if you have any questions and would like to discuss this. 2. The broader question of funding GNSO Council members to attend ICANN meetings. Denise Michel commented that it was important to address the two issues separately. The funds that had been set aside for inter-sessional meetings would be used to offset, only, the Council members' travel costs to India. ICANN had set up an American Express travel desk to which all enquiries should be addressed. ICANN’s role in supporting travel to ICANN meetings for the GNSO council was related to the broader, complex issue, with budget implications, of how ICANN supports travel for the Board, the ICANN staff, Supporting Organisations, Advisory Committees and other groups involved in ICANN, that may be interested in receiving travel support. The COO, was responsible for developing a new travel policy for ICANN which was targeted for discussion by the ICANN community in New Delhi. Denise Michel further commented that Council was free to address the letter for a long term solution to whom ever they wished, but the responsible person for the issue was Doug Brent, the COO. Philip Sheppard supported the Council sending a letter to the CEO requesting travel support for Council members to ICANN meetings. Chuck Gomes shared some of the gTLD Registries constituency comments: Avri Doria proposed redrafting the letter to the CEO, taking comments on line, and voting on the letter at the Council meeting on 3 January 2008. Item 8: Action Items - Reserved Names recommendations for existing TLDs. - Response to Board resolution on IDN ccTLDs. - Question/Appeal of Board Resolution 07.89 on IDNC working group. - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Review. - Motion on proxy voting. - Motion on term limits (2006-Nov-06) - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Development Process (PDP). - Domain Tasting PDP. - Whois Studies - Chair, Vice Chair elections On 7 January 2008, voting for the GNSO chair will be completed. - Travel funding for Council members. - Election for Board seat #14. Item 9: AOB Contractual Conditions GNSO Improvements Budget Domain Name Tasting Nominating Committee Whois Council agreed that there should be a standing item on the agenda at the beginning of every meeting to provide a Board update. Avri Doria suggested that a small group of volunteers work on providing input to the budget process. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended at 17:20 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 3 January 2008 at 21:00 UTC. |