| 29 May 2008
Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 15 Council Members Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Avri Doria chaired the meeting. Item 2: Review/amend the agenda Chuck Gomes seconded by Tom Keller moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 8 May 2008. The lunch break will be from 13:00 to 14:30 - IANA/ICANN names - what is the process for changing Reserved names beyond the new gTLD process - Single Character Second-Level Domain Names - IDN ccTLDs - this will be a separate session from the GAC and Jon Bing's paper will be discussed. - ccNSO-gNSO meeting prep Agenda 25 June 2008 Avri Doria, commenting on the role of ccTLD operators and language committees in the gTLD application process, asked whether ccTLD operators in the nations had a say in terms of language choices, and the way names are described in their script or language? The GNSO has a defined objection procedure mechanism which is not necessarily accepted by the country code (cc)operators, thus a GNSO/ccNSO discussion would be appropriate on the way a proposed new name in the gTLD space is expressed in a country's script or language. Avri Doria commented that the GNSO Council post-meeting that usually takes place on Thursday will be replaced by a teleconference the week after the Paris meetings due to a change in the overall ICANN meeting schedule. Item 4: Update from Edmon Chung on IDNC Adrian Kinderis asked whether the GNSO was providing adequate support to the process. Chuck Gomes pointed out that all items posted for discussion or consideration by the community in Paris should be posted 2 weeks before attendees start travel and that deadline is June 6 2008. Chuck further commented that there would be a huge reaction from the GNSO if the Board pushed through the report without allowing comments. Edmon Chung commented on two issues where there was no consensus in the IDNC. Two ccTLD members and one GAC member have disagreed on the proposal of non-contentious which is currently described as non-contentious in a territory, and is still undecided. Most people are more comfortable with the objection mechanism as an approach to solicit comments. With regard to legal arrangements, where Jon Bing made a very good point, the group believes that technology and protocol policy require a legal arrangement between ICANN and the fast track ccTLD operators. However, Bart Boswinkel commented that during the teleconference on 28 May 2008, the GAC chair reiterated the GAC view expressed in New Delhi that there could only be voluntary arrangements and no legal arrangements between ICANN and the fast track ccTLD operators. Avri Doria suggested that a draft statement be discussed on the mailing list, deliberated during the GNSO working session on 22 June and voted on by Council at the Open Council meeting on Wednesday, 25 June 2008. Chuck Gomes gave an overview of the GNSO Improvements Top Level Plan using a power point presentation Alan Greenberg commented that the composition of standing committees included representation of constituencies and asked whether it would remain the same with the possible constituency restructuring that was foreseen. Chuck Gomes suggested that Mike Rodenbaugh edit and add the discussion on consensus to the document on the WIKI. Item 6: Resume tabled discussions on: Patrick Jones sent the following email to the Council list prior to the meeting because of the overlap with the Board call. - ICANN cannot unilaterally change the registry agreements and the Schedule of Reserved Names. There is no Policy which states that registries must release single-character names at the second-level. There are policy recommendations from the Reserved Names working group that the names be released in new gTLDs and that they may be released in the existing registries but that depends on allocation methods and the further work that may be needed. - A registry can be released from its obligations related to its Schedule of Reserved Names on ICANN's approval pursuant to the specific contractual provisions in the registry agreements. We are going through staff work to determine the appropriate mechanism for release - this work includes the development of a paper close to release, on allocation methods and uses of funds from allocation of single-character names and because this affects all registries, the development of a process for release of single-letter names. - Based on the direction of the Council, the public comment period and synthesis document, ICANN staff will publish a paper regarding a proposed allocation method and distribution of funds model for community consideration. Avri Doria asked in connection with a process for the registries, if the GNSO did not make a separate policy recommendation for the existing gTLDs, whether it would go through the funnel process, or would it be a different process? Patrick Jones responded that the funnel process is established and currently available for registries that are interested in making changes to their contractual agreements and that there is significant interest among the different registries for proposing different models. Chuck Gomes added that GNR, the dot name registry, used the funnel process for the change that was approved for two-character second-level domain names. Avri Doria suggested that the time had come for the Council to decide on the next steps to be taken. Tim Ruiz commented that initially it would be a process for registry funnel requests, but that if staff considered a policy was required, the GNSO should be informed. Mike Rodenbaugh was under the impression that the Council had made a recommendation. Avri Doria clarified that the recommendations were made for new gTLDs, and although there are recommendations that relate to existing gTLDs, there was never a formal process on changing reserved names for the existing gTLDs. If the Council did decide to take any action it would have to be through the PDP process on a later agenda. Tim Ruiz commented that in one of the recommendations, single-character names at the second-level no longer had to be reserved, but in reality all the existing agreements provided a process through which the registries could request that single-character names at the second-level be released within that name space. Each individual registry could deal with the issue as they pleased and thus it was questionable if policy would add value to the situation. Avri Doria, summing up the two points of view, a) more needs to be done and b) what is being done is adequate, suggested that any proposals should be further discussed at the GNSO working sessions in Paris. Patrick Jones requested that the topic be discussed on Sunday June 22, when he would be available. - b: Pending budget measure for domain tasting Denise Michel reported that the ICANN Board did not vote on the GNSO domain name tasting at the meeting on 29 May 2008, which overlapped with the Council meeting. The Board would probably take one vote on the budget, and a separate vote on the GNSO domain name tasting motion and that staff would be directed to produce an implementation plan. Avri Doria stated that the staff had matched the budget recommendation with the domain tasting PDP recommendation. Denise Michel volunteered to ask Kurt Pritz, who was not on the call, to follow up with the specific timing and the implementation steps.
Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting: The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their Advisory Committee. Charter Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux? What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation? The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. Working Group processes: The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report. In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially : The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed. The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/ If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines. The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council. All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal. Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved) With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated. Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released. GNSO Council Liaison(s) to Working Group: Staff Coordinator Subject Matter References: Process References: Avri Doria, who proposed the Fast flux charter, accepted Chuck Gomes's proposed changes: To: Are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? From: How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? To: Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? After: What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? Add: What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation at the edge? Kristina Rosette directed a question to Chuck Gomes on the proposed changes relating to the registrar and registry questions and commented that it would be preferable to have a policy development process based on what is possible rather than current practices only. The language proposed was: are registry/registrar operators involved or could they be.... Tim Ruiz expressed concern that the working group membership should be well balanced in the community in order for rough consensus to be meaningful. Avri Doria commented that it was up to each constituency to assure that there was adequate representation and that rough consensus was defined in the charter. Philip Sheppard suggested that it should be specified that any single individual could qualify for a minority report. It was suggested that the timeline be calculated from the time the group was put in motion. Avri Doria suggested that the Council defer the vote on the chair and the liaison. Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the Charter as amended. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting: The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their Advisory Committee. Charter Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux? What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation? The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. Working Group processes: The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report. In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree Minority viewpoint If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially : The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed. The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/ If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines. The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council. All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal. Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved) With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated. Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released. GNSO Council Liaison(s) to Working Group: Staff Coordinator Subject Matter References: Process References: Avri Doria proposed posting an announcement on the GNSO website indicating: It is expected that discussion on candidates for chair will occur before the 21 June meeting. At its meeting on 25 June, the GNSO council will also decide on its liaison to the WG. Item 8: Whois Report Overview Avri Doria, supported by Chuck Gomes, proposed deferring the WHOIS report overview to the Paris meeting. Item 9: Denise Michel reported that the Board discussed the reform of the ICANN meetings and a proposal is expected to be posted for public comment, there was a review of the Paris schedule, a finance committee update on the ICANN budget and the process being used for soliciting public comments on the budget. Avri Doria suggested that comments be sent to the Council mail server list.
Next GNSO Council Meeting will be at the Le Méridien, Utrillo room in Paris on 25 June 2008 at 06:00 UTC. |