| 20 November 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
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Stéphane van Gelder - Registrars
Tim Ruiz - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries - joined the call late
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries - absent, apologies
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Cyril Chua - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Mary Wong - NCUC - absent - apologies
William Drake - NCUC- absent - apologies
Carlos Souza - NCUC - absent - apologies
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Terry Davis - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members
(22 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President Services
Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Officer
Olof Nordling - Director Services Relations
Marika Konings - Policy Director
Ken Bour - Policy consultant
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies
MP3 Recording Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Roll Call.
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
The 4 new Council members have provided Statements of Interest:
Mary Wong - NCUC
William Drake - NCUC
Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar constituency
Terry Davis - Nominating Committee Appointee Item 2: Review/amend the agenda
The GNSO Restructuring Implementation Plan as a separate agenda item
Items added under Any Other Business
- Upcoming review of Funnel Process
- ALAC request for an Issues report on Post-expiration Domain Recovery
Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes
GNSO Council minutes 25 September 2008 GNSO Council minutes of 16 October 2008
Philip Sheppard, seconded by Kristina Rosette moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 25 September 2008.
Kristina Rosette, seconded by Philip Sheppard moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 16 October 2008 .
Motions passed
Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 25 September and 16 October 2008.
Item 4: WHOIS Studies
Kristina Rosette informed Council that the Intellectual Property constituency would be ready to submit comments after 5 December 2008.
Action Items:
- Constituencies are encouraged to work on their prioritisation and viewpoints using the Registry constituency working model
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-p…
in preparation to craft a motion to advance the issue. - The Secretariat should schedule a separate teleconference for this discussion after the Thanksgiving holidays.
Item 5: Registration Abuse Policies
Marika Konings presented the Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies In discussion, staff commented that the time was too short to do outreach to registrars and registries to ascertain if there were any noticeable trends in dealing with registration abuse practices, other than take down facilities.
There does not appear to be a universally-accepted definition of what constitutes either registration abuse or domain name abuse and staff did not attempt a definition.
It was confirmed that the issues around the actual registration of the domain name, the registration relationship at the time of registration and subsequent registration related interaction, distinct from pure content or use disputes, would be considered in scope.
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Section 4.2.3 clearly states that ICANN can obligate registrars to implement new policies regarding the resolution of disputes concerning the registration of Registered Names (as opposed to the use of such domain names), including where the policies take into account use of the domain names;
It was suggested that concrete examples of abuse associated with registration versus abuse associated with use, would provide Council the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Further information was needed on how to find consistent standards and processes for all contracting parties. However, it was questioned whether uniformity might not make it more difficult for registries to react to certain abuse issues because of the potential changes in abuse. It was confirmed that the policy on the abuse of domain use recently adopted by Afilias went through the funnel process , but that technically there was no obligation to pursue the funnel request process. However, staff committed to providing clarification regarding the Afilias case. Avri Doria suggested that the Council formulate questions on the mailing list for responses by ICANN Deputy Counsel and staff. Avri Doria proposed deferring the vote on whether to initiate a policy development process (PDP) to the next Council meeting.
A set of motions should be crafted in preparation for the Council to vote on at the next meeting on 18 December 2008. Action Item A suggestion was made to form a drafting team to craft motions for the next Council meeting. Item 6: Comments on IDNccTLD Fast Track
Avri Doria proposed that the GNSO Council submit a response to the public comment forum open on the Draft Implementation Plan for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. This process could be carried out through a drafting team response which could either be approved by a formal voting mechanism or, through a comment period of 48-hours or longer on the Council mailing list before the response was submitted to the public comment forum which ends on 8 December 2008.
Edmon Chung highlighted 4 areas that could be considered responding to:
2 areas where the GNSO had already commented, but where additional comments would be worthwhile
- the contract issue between ICANN and ccTLD operators
- the financial contribution with regard to the cost recovery issue of the whole IDN Fast Track process
2 new areas that called for comments
- the relationship with the IDN ccTLD in the fast track and their membership at the ccNSO particularly in the case where they are not a ccNSO member. It should be pointed out that the final report suggests that an IDN ccTLD in the Fast Track might not have to abide by the ccNSO PDP.
- the contention issue with regard to launching the IDN ccTLD fast track and the new gTLDS at the same time.
In the new gTLD process, the string contention is publicly known at the start of the process but in the case of the IDNC Fast Track, strings are confidential and the public will only know the TLD string being proposed much later in the process. With regard to 'parallel timing' an important issue arose, as to whether it meant at the beginning of the process or at the insertion into the roots. The GNSO Council passed a resolution in Cairo calling for public comment periods that overlapped with ICANN meetings to be extended but there was no clarity whether the Draft Implementation plan for IDN ccTLDs comment period which ended on 8 December 2008 will be taken into consideration for an extension.
Action Item A drafting team led by Edmon Chung, together with Olga Cavalli, open to other Council members, undertook to draft the GNSO Council's coordinated response. Item 7: Issues on new gTLD Implementation Council was reminded that, following the new gTLD discussions in Cairo, there would be a question and answer teleconference open to all interested parties, where module 3 discussion would be completed and discussion will continue with modules 4,5 and 6.
Councilors were encouraged to post questions in advance of the call to the new gTLD public forum.
Issues were raised that the Council may consider revisiting;
- the communications period,
- the conclusions of the working group on reserved names did not appear to have been followed in drafting the RFP,
- that cost recovery for expenses did not seem to be a normal procedure for a nonprofit organization
- focus on areas where there is a discrepancy between the policy recommended by the Council and the draft Applicant Guidebook It was suggested that a motion be crafted for the next Council meeting on 18 December 2008 on the possible modification of the four month posting of final RFP requirement. Staff committed to clarify the length of the public comment period for the new gTLD Draft Application book in light of the resolution that the Council passed in Cairo regarding the extension of public comment periods during ICANN meetings. Action Item The formation of a drafting team was suggested to work on a coordinated Council comment. Item 7 GNSO Restructuring Implementation Plan
Robert Hoggarth provided an overview of the straw man GNSO restructuring implementation plan
The document consists of three parts.
- an outline
- the key process and implementation decisions for the restructuring effort over the next six months,
- a calendar timeline. Two substantive comments were received, regarding the timing of the election of the new council leadership and the ordering of the issues combining calendar dates and key decisions. The Council was required to consider an approach to address the early December deadline mandated by the ICANN Board, and the long-term restructuring effort. It was agreed that Philip Sheppard would draft a response to the ICANN Board for its December 11, 2008 meeting regarding the progress on the GNSO reform issues.
Item 8: Community-Wide Working Group to Review ICANN's Geographic Regions
Avri Doria, in response to the ICANN Board Resolution authorizing the formation of a community-wide working group to study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, proposed that the GNSO select two representatives who could be from the Council or the broader community. The selection could be done on the Council list or by formal electronic voting if there were more than two candidates.
The candidates should be able to represent and advocate for the GNSO position on geographic issues and be willing to keep the Council updated on activities in the working group.
Avri Doria proposed drafting a notice soliciting volunteers from the constituencies as well as the Council and proposing a selection process that would be complete by 4 December, so that the ICANN board could be informed at their meeting on 11 December 2008. Avri Doria noted that there were two volunteers, Eric Brunner-Williams from the Registrar constituency and Olga Cavalli, a Nominating Committee Appointee from the Council. Item 9: Status Updates
9.1 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
RAA - the ICANN Board asked for guidance from council Chuck Gomes, joined by Alan Greenberg, volunteered to draft a motion along the lines that it would be good to go ahead and get the changes made that have been agreed to and then decide how - what other steps should to be taken beyond that.
9.2 Policy Status reports Rob Hoggarth read Craig Schwartz's status report 9.2.1. AGP Budget Provision Update : The update provided to the Council in Cairo is current. AGP deletes have decreased by 84% from June to July 2008 (17.5M to 2.8M) since implementation of the Board approved provision. An announcement about this statistic was published on ICANN’s website on 13 November 2008. ICANN will provide an update on AGP deletes for August 2008 after the information is publicly available on ICANN’s website after 1 December 2008. 9.2 2. AGP Limits Policy Update: The public comment period on the draft implementation plan closes on 20 November. ICANN will post the Policy and implementation plan in the week of 1 December and will provide notice to the registries to implement the Policy. ICANN anticipates the Policy will be implemented by the registries by the end of Q1 2009 (31 March 2009). Implementation delay: Several Councilors have inquired about the delay in the implementation of the Policy. The consultative process takes time. ICANN reached out to gTLD registries in August to solicit their feedback on certain terms (e.g., extraordinary circumstances, recurring regularly, etc.) that could help formulate the implementation plan. The feedback was incorporated and ICANN reached out to gTLD registries and the registrars constituency in October for feedback on the draft plan. Additional feedback was incorporated and the Policy and draft plan posted for community feedback on 20 October. 9.2.3. Reporting Obligations/Expectations:
Regarding the need to report to the Council per the Board adopted resolution on domain tasting, clarification is needed about item 2a from the GNSO recommendation that reads, “ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages.”
Craig interpreted this to mean the first report is due either six months after the Policy has been announced for implementation or has been implemented by the registries. This announcement will happen next month which would mean the first report would be due in May 2009. I am open to another interpretation of this and will provide the report as required once we have clear direction on this. "
9.3 Working Group Updates
9.3.1 Fast Flux
Avri Doria reported that the Fast Flux working group continued to meet regularly and were coming close to a report that will be a snapshot of the information collected. The report will be presented to the Council and the constituencies for comment and Council will be asked to advise on the appropriate next steps.
9.3.2 IRTP Part A PDP
No recent update since the Cairo meeting. 9.4 Drafting Teams
9.4.1 Travel Policy drafting team
Olga Cavalli reported that the travel drafting team had met with Doug Brent and ICANN staff in Cairo and were preparing a report that would be submitted to the Council two weeks for the next Council meeting on 18 December 2008. 9.5 GNSO "Improvements"
Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Update
Operations Steering Committee (OSC) Update The two steering committees have meetings scheduled in the coming week, 24 November 2008. The constituencies, as well as the Advisory Committee liaisons, were requested to make sure they were represented on each of the steering committees.
Item 10: Any Other Business 10.1 Information on the upcoming review of the Funnel Process
Robert Hoggarth, in the absence of Patrick Jones, provided an update on the Funnel Review effort • Internal staff efforts are underway to initiate a review of the funnel process aka the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP).
• ICANN implemented the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) and process in July 2006.
• The RSEP was developed through the GNSO’s policy development process (PDP), and applies to all gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with ICANN.
• The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a review is consistent with the organization’s ethos of continuing evaluation and improvement of all ICANN policies and processes – e.g., the domain tasting review.
• There will likely be a more detailed up-date for the next Council meeting on 18 December 2008 and certainly an expectation for GNSO input into that review process - including a discussion of the scope of the review to be conducted some time next year.
10.2 ALAC request for an Issues report on Post-expiration Domain Recovery Avri Doria confirmed, after consulting with ICANN Deputy General Counsel that if an Advisory Committee, the ALAC in this case, requested an Issues Report, the request was automatically transmitted to the Staff for execution and there was no action required from Council. On behalf of Council, Avri Doria thanked the ALAC for the courtesy of the notification and stated that once an Issues Report was before Council, the appropriate decision, by Council vote, on whether or not to initiate a policy development process would be taken.
10.3 Individual Internet Users public comment forum
Rob Hoggarth on behalf of Denise Michel reminded Council about the Individual Internet Users public comment forum and noted that a compilation was underway of all the comments that had been made throughout the GNSO improvement process on the topic, so that councilors and constituency members could review and endorse the statements if they so wished.
Chuck Gomes noted that the Registry constituency were of the view that the users could be a part of the GNSO,
Alan Greenberg noted that there has been discussion in the ALAC on the way the Board has phrased the question of whether individual users should be able to participate in the GNSO constituencies or whether the GNSO constituencies are representative of users. Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting ended at 21:16 UTC. Next GNSO Council teleconference will on 18 December 2008 at 19:00 UTC.
see: Calendar
| 