ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Council resolutions 25 June 2008

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 25 June 2008
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:12:47 -0700
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcjWsLpnU0frIs6UQMelmor7SWCXPQAAPFrAAAhnTSA=
  • Thread-topic: GNSO Council resolutions 25 June 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the decisions and motions that were 
passed by the GNSO Council at the Open meeting in Paris on Wednesday 25 June 

Kind regards,
Motion 1
Inter Registrar Transfer Policy PDP on Denial Definition
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes and seconded by Tim Ruiz


The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy 
under review by the GNSO,

The PDP regarding Clarification of Reasons for Denial has reached the 
deliberation stage, following the issue if a Final Report dated 9 April 2008, 
and a drafting group was launched by the Council on 17 April 2008 to propose 
new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed (numbers 5, 7, 8 and 
9 in the IRTP),

The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report dated 4 June 2008, proposing 
new texts for denial reasons number 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial 
reasons 5 and 7 be considered within the proposed PDP for Issue Set C as per 
the Council resolution of 8 May 2008, in order to assure consistency with 
related aspects to be covered by that PDP,

The proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 are drafted as follows:

Denial reason 8 "The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date 
as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name"
Denial reason 9 "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be 
determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the 
original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a 
decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall 
only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the Registrar 
of Record, has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy"


To consider denial reasons number 5 and 7 within the context of the foreseen 
PDP for Issue Set C, while withdrawing them from the current PDP on 
Clarification of Reasons for Denial,

To request that ICANN web staff post the proposed new texts for denial reasons 
8 and 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to Council with a 
summary of the comments received, for the Council's consideration and decisions 
as to recommending a change of these IRTP provisions in line with the proposed 

Passed unanimously by voice vote

Motion 2
Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report - Part A - Decision on PDP
Motion proposed by Avri Doria seconded by Jordi Iparraguirre.


The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy 
under review by the GNSO,

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of 
the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set 
A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

An issues report GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; 
"New IRTP Issues" was issued on 23 May 2008,

The issues report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy 
Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this 
report, and

The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the 
scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO


The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer 
Policy Issues Report on Part A.

Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion 2a
Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Tim Ruiz.


The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Inter Registrar Transfer 
Policy Issues Report - Part A

The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the 


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 address the 
three issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to 
inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members of 
the ICANN advisory committees, whether acting in their own right or as 
representatives of their AC.

That a charter will be drafted for this working in 14 days and that this 
charter will contain the required work items, milestones especially those 
related to bylaws mandated constituency reviews and public comment periods, and 
guidelines for WG procedures. This charter will be discussed and decided upon 
at the next GNSO council meeting following the release of the charter.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Motion 3
WHOIS motion as amended, proposed by Chuck Gomes


On 27 March 2007 the Council resolved to form a group of volunteers to review 
and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS'; 
develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff 
will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and deliver the list of 
recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008

On 16 April the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN Board 
recommendations for future studies of WHOIS

On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report to the Council offering 
two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS should be conducted

There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether 
or not any studies should be conducted.

Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, 
it should be useful to

1) understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested,
2) determine which of those hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful 
direction with regard to Whois policy, and
3) to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative 
view points with regard to Whois policy.


To reconvene another group of volunteers, which may include members of the 
earlier group and/or new volunteers to:

Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and 
the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and that 
request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses.
Deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the 
Council within 6 weeks.
The Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further 
considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to 
determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames 
for testing.

Motion passed unanimously.

Motion 4
Motion on WG Chair for PDP WG on Fast Flux

The PDP WG has been formed on Fast Flux, and

The Fast Flux PDP charter requires the election of chair or co-chairs and the 
appointment of a council liaison, and

Mike O'Connor has been suggested by a joint meeting of the GNSO council and the 
Fast Flux WG, and Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered to serve as council liaison to 
the working group


Mike O'Connor is elected as chair of the PDP WG on Fast Flux and Mike 
Rodenbaugh is appointed GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG on Fast Flux.

Motion 5
Front Running
Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes


On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front Running to 
the GNSO council, and

On 8 May 2008 created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research effort 
and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and

On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response to the question asked during the 
8 May Council meeting, and whereas this report recommended that more 
information was needed to proceed, and

Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for the AGP 
will affect front running,


The council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as current 
research efforts are completed.

GNSO Improvements
Council agreed to open a 21 day public comment period on The GNSO Improvements 
- Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning 
Team as documented in GNSO Improvements_top-level-plan_update-080521.pdf

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>