| 25 September 2008 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. ( joined call for Item 10)
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Zahid Jamil - Commercial & Business Users C.
Greg Ruth - ISCPC -
Antonio Harris - ISCPC absent, apologies
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent, apologies
Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent, apologies
Tim Ruiz - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries - absent
Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent
Cyril Chua - Intellectual Property Interests - absent
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Carlos Souza - NCUC - absent, apologies
Olga Cavalli- Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent, apologies
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee - absent, apologies 12 Council Members
(16 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
Tim Cole - Chief Registrar Liaison
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Ken Bour - Consultant to Policy Development
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, apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent apologies
Observer
Terry Davis - Nominating Committee appointee after conclusion of Cairo meeting MP3 Recording Chuck Gomes chaired the meeting. Denise Michel introduced Ken Bour, a consultant working with the Policy staff on the GNSO Improvements project.
Roll Call.
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No updates were noted . Item 2: Review/amend the agenda
Tim Ruiz proposed moving item 10 and item 5 ahead of item 4, or
moving item 10 after item 5.
The proposal was not accepted as some councilors had made previous arrangements to join the end part of the call to vote.
It was suggested that items requiring a vote should be placed at the beginning of the agenda as Councilors tend to fall off towards the end of the meeting.
Item 3: Status Update
Item 4: Discussion on GNSO Response concerning Geo Regions
Reference was made to the proposed bylaw revision by the Nominating Committee to update the diversity requirements for selecting ICANN Board members to include domicile with country of citizenship and it was suggested that citizenship and/or domicile be added in the report.
Olga Cavalli expressed concerns about adding domicile and proposed examining the issue on a case by case basis. It was pointed out that under the current Nominating Committee rules dual citizenship could rule out an application.
Action Item
Council representatives were asked to forward the recommended GNSO comments regarding the ICANN Geographic Regions report,
to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008.
Item 5: Discussion/Decision GNSO Restructuring and Plan
Rob Hoggarth referring to the updated draft GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan, where representatives from all the constituencies participated, emphasised the similarities with the previous version:
1. the planning team was recommending an overall approach to the Council.
2. the plan preserved the three-tier structure:
2a - top management tier, consisting of the the Council and the Board liaison, which will make decisions about committee charters and the composition of the various steering committees.
2b - middle strategic tier,consisting of two committees, one focusing on process issues, like the working group model and changes to the policy development process and the other focusing on operational issues, such as communications tools and constituency processes
2c- working teams tier established by the two committees, where debate and recommendations will result from the work on targeted areas such as the working group model and the policy development process (PDP). The current plan differs from the previous version in that 'standing committees' are referred to as 'steering committees' with a coordinating role and to reflect their temporary nature they will have a sunset date corresponding to the 2009 annual meeting. The implementation and planning for the Council restructuring will be dealt with as a separate and parallel track in terms of implementing all the GNSO improvements. The plan recommends that the steering committees be kept small, 12 or less, which includes one representative per constituency who does not have to be a councilor, a Nominating Committee representative, and the opportunity for ALAC and GAC representation.
Action Item Council representatives are asked to distribute the updated draft GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan right away, expedite discussions in their constituencies, and be prepared to vote on a motion at the GNSO Council meeting on 16 October 2008. In addition constituencies should be starting the process of selecting one representative each for the two steering committees so that the first Steering Committee meetings can be held in Cairo.
Item 6: ICANN subsidization of GNSO travel expenses
A long term approach is needed before the next ICANN meetings in March 2009.
Council agreed on forming a drafting team, which would select its own chair, to develop a proposal for consideration by the Council for ICANN subsidization of GNSO travel expenses.
Action Item:
Constituencies should call for volunteers for the drafting team. Volunteer's names should be sent to the Council mailing list.
Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil volunteered for the drafting group during the meeting.
Item 7: Planning for Cairo
8.1 Proposal for Trans-Silo Joint meeting (ccNSO, GNSO, GAC, ALAC) on Monday 3 November 2008
Chuck Gomes drew the Council's attention to the 'Trans-Silo' meeting where the ALAC, GAC, ccNSO and GNSO will discuss topics of common interest.
8.2 Thursday 6 November 2008
A ccNSO/GNSO joint Council meeting is being planned to discuss Issues at the cross-section of implementation of New gTLDs (LDH and IDN), and Fast Track IDNccTLDs, ICANN Transition and the Presidents Strategy Committee and the implementation of a cross Supporting Organisation policy development process.
8.3 Other Chuck Gomes reminded Council that Saturday, 1 November and Sunday 2 November 2008, were set aside as GNSO Council open working sessions, with New gTLDs, GNSO Improvements and working group meetings on the schedule. No votes will be taken at these meetings. On Sunday afternoon the GNSO Council and the GAC will meet and, among other topics, discuss issues regarding the geographic place names and country names and it is hoped that there will be a staff proposal, which may be different from what the Reserved Names working group recommended, to discuss with the GAC.
There will be a dinner meeting on Sunday evening, 2 November 2008, for the GNSO Council, ICANN Board directors and staff.
The GNSO Council will hold an open meeting on Wednesday 5 November 2008, where, if necessary, there will be voting. Item 8: Whois Hypotheses Study Group
Action Item
Councilors were encouraged to forward the WHOIS Hypotheses Study Group Report to their respective constituencies as soon as possible for discussion and comment as applicable in preparation for beginning the process at the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 of deciding which, if any studies should be pursued further.
Item 9: Motion on request for issues report on Registration Abuse Policies.
Mike Rodenbaugh commented that the motion was "intended to find out what the discrepancies are in the various registry contracts and what discussions have been held in the past on this issue and ask the staff to provide potential options for the Council to consider further work on the topic." Tim Ruiz proposed an amendment to the motion and explained that the purpose was to first get an opinion on what aspects may or may not be in scope of GNSO policy work (within registry picket fence, for example).
Discussion followed on whether information should be gathered prior to launching a request for an Issues report, or if the aim of the Issues Report was to determine whether an issue was in scope and subsequently if a policy development process should be initiated.
Staff expressed concern about the volume of work and the challenge of trying to address the scope question of the threshold matter in paragraph
4. "To identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration, relating to consistency and propriety of provisions of this nature in all of these agreements." Chuck Gomes proposed amending the motion to 30 days for Staff to deliver the Issues Report.
Council voted on the motion proposing an Issues Report on aspects of Registry-Registrar Agreements
(This motion qualifies for absentee voting and ballots will be sent to those absent Councilors on request:
Avri Doria, Tom Keller, Edmon Chung, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Carlos Souza, Jon Bing. )
Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Greg Ruth with friendly amendments from Tim Ruiz and Chuck Gomes. Whereas: 1. ICANN's mission is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS, and to develop policy reasonably related to that mission. 2. Various forms of DNS abuse, in isolation and/or in the aggregate, cause a less secure and stable DNS. 3. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements and appended registry-registrar agreements contain a provision such as Section 3.6.5 of the.info Registry Agreement, Appendix 8 : 3.6.5. (Registrars) acknowledge and agree that Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by Afilias or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute. 4. Afilias, the dotInfo Registry Operator, per its recent RSTEP request, has sought to clarify and implement its specific abusive registration policy with respect to this provision. This request has been approved by ICANN. 5. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements, notably the VeriSign contracts for .com and .net, have no such provision. Other gTLD registry agreements do contain such provision, but the registry operators have not developed or have inconsistently developed abusive registration policies. The GNSO Council resolves to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff within 30 days with respect to the following: 1. To identify and describe the various provisions in existing and previous gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements which relate to contracting parties' ability to take action in response to abuse. 2. To identify and describe various provisions in a representative sampling of gTLD registration agreements which relate to contracting parties' and/or registrants rights and obligations with respect to abuse. 3. To identify and describe any previous discussion in ICANN fora which substantively pertains to provisions of this nature in any of these agreements. 4. To request an opinion of ICANN Staff as to which aspects of registration abuse policies as discussed above may be within the scope of GNSO policy development. The Motion passed. 11 votes in favour:
Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Kristina Rosette, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Olga Cavalli (one vote each)
Tim Ruiz, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)
The final vote will be published on the Council mail server list at the close of absentee voting on Sunday 28 September 2008 at 14:09 UTC.
Item 10 Any Other Business
Alan Greenberg alerted the Council to a request from the North American RALO to examine the redemption grace period with the intent to create an environment where registrants have a reasonable, predictable way to recover an expired domain regardless of whether the reason for expiration was lack of appropriate action on the part of the registrant, registrar or an act of some other third party.
The ALAC is interested in hearing from any constituencies who support the initiative, and in particular, any individuals who can help craft the request for an Issues Report. The proposed timeline is that the ALAC will approve the request for an Issues Report at its meeting on October 14, 2008, and finalise the request during the ICANN meetings in Cairo in November 2008. Robin Gross stated that NCUC would be interested in cooperating on the proposal.
Chuck Gomes reminded Council of the immediate action items arising from the meeting:
1. Council representatives are asked to forward the recommended GNSO comments regarding the ICANN Geographic Regions report,
to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008. 2. Council representatives are asked to distribute the updated draft GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan right away, expedite discussions in their constituencies, and be prepared to vote on a motion at the GNSO Council meeting on 16 October 2008. In addition constituencies should be starting the process of selecting one representative each for the two steering committees so that the first Steering Committee meetings can be held in Cairo. 3. Constituencies should call for volunteers for a drafting team to develop a proposal for consideration by the Council for ICANN subsidization of GNSO travel expenses. Volunteer's names should be sent to the Council mailing list. 4. Councilors should forward the WHOIS Hypotheses Study Group report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable in preparation for beginning the process at the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 of deciding which, if any studies should be pursued further.
Chuck Gomes requested the Secretariat to post a summary of the Status updates soon after the meeting
Chuck Gomes adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting ended at 14:09 UTC. Next GNSO Council Teleconference will be on 16 October 2008 at 12:00 UTC.
see: Calendar
| 