[council] GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Council members,



In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting tomorrow afternoon, please review 
the motions posted on the Wiki pages:

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions



and also copied below. Please check the wording and there are some that need 
seconds, or perhaps I have missed the seconds. If so please resend your second 
for motions 3 and 7.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,



Glen



1.  Motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution 
about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items.

Made by: Rafik Dammak

Seconded by: Bill Drake

With amendments approved in the 18 November Council meeting and before in 
italics:



Whereas:

The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support 
for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and



The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and 
published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items 
and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; 
and



In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an 
Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:



the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work 
on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the 
implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for 
eligibility for support.



Resolved:



1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is 
extended to include the following objectives:



a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that 
need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. 
The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a 
specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic 
conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.



b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be 
established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone 
Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an 
application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help 
should be offered;



c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible 
recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any 
auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;



d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the 
extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; 
e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the 
relationship.



e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by 
providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to 
qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational 
quality of the relationship.



f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, 
and assistance volunteered by third parties.



g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and 
practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor 
agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial 
relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with 
funding



h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its 
full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for 
applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new 
gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be 
accommodated.



i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain 
Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.



2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows 
for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently 
scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should 
result from the working group's work.



2. Motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration 
Between Registries and Registrars.

Made by: Stéphane van Gelder

Seconded by: 1. Terry Davis

2. Andrei Kolesnikov



Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development 
process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and 
registrars;



Whereas, the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report and has 
presented it to the GNSO Council on 9 November 2010, describing the results of 
the first phase of its deliberations;

Whereas, the Working Group is unable to reach a consensus on any 
recommendations for the GNSO Council to consider with regard to vertical 
integration and cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries in time for 
the first round of new gTLD applications (Phase I);

Whereas, in the absence of guidance from the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board has 
voted to allow new gTLD registries to own registrars, and has opted not to 
create new rules prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating new gTLD 
registries;

With the publication of the Interim Report, the VI Working Group has suspended 
its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council; and

Whereas, in light of these recent developments, the GNSO Council desires to 
terminate the PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:



RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recognizes that, in light of these recent 
developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy 
development activities with respect to this issue;



RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on Vertical 
Integration between Registries and Registrars without making any 
recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors;



RESOLVED FURTHER, that the VI PDP Working Group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO 
Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of 
the VI PDP Working group in producing the Interim Report, and sincerely thanks 
the Co-Chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano, for their leadership in this 
PDP.



3.  Proposed motion on recommendations made recently by the cross-community 
working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 
(which formed the basis for the "morality and public order" section of the 
draft AGB.)

Made by: Mary Wong

Seconded by:



WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a 
joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and 
Advisory Committee (AC's) to provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD 
Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the implementation of 
the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene 
generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are 
recognized under international principles of law;



WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was 
established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the GNSO 
Council on 8 September 2010;



AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding 
implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the 
ICANN Board and community;



RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and 
other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG 
recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development 
otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;



RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby endorses the CWG recommendations as 
representing. as far as possible, consensus among the various stakeholders in 
the ICANN community on effective mechanisms for the implementation of 
Recommendation 6.



4.  Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for 
Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Motion made by: Kristina Rosette

Seconded by: Mike Rodenbaugh



Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy 
consultative process initiated by ICANN;



Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO 
Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, 
to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: 
(a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) 
develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the 
RAA on which further action may be desirable;



Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published 
its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO 
Council for improvements to the RAA;



Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and desires to approve 
of the recommendations and proposals contained therein;



NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:



RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the Joint GNSO/ALAC 
RAA Drafting Team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in 
the Final Report for improvements to the RAA;



RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the Final Report and 
approves of the Form of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as 
described in Annex D of the Final Report;



RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff commence the 
consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant 
Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars 
as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;



RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt the process 
specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with 
respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 
Process A states:



"1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO council (i.e., final form of this 
report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under 
consensus policy.

2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the 
Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing 
the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement.

3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold 
discussion on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then 
reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress.

4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically 
(such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make 
bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback.

5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat 
step 4 as necessary.

6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full 
final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.

7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of 
the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form.

8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.

9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate 
feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6."

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be 
initiated by ICANN immediately.



5.  MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY 
ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG)

Made by: Chuck Gomes

Seconded by: Jaime Wagner



WHEREAS, at their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting in June 2010 the 
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Names Supporting 
Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the 
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the Number Resource Organization 
(NRO) acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and 
stability of the global domain name system (DNS);

WHEREAS, this issue is considered to be of common interest to the participating 
Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, and 
should be preferably undertaken in a collaborative effort;

WHEREAS, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO agreed to establish a Joint DNS Security 
and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG), in accordance with each 
organization's own rules and procedures and invite other AC's to liaise and 
engage with the DSSA-WG in a manner they consider to be appropriate;



WHEREAS, a Drafting Team of the Chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO, 
along with interested representatives from those organizations, produced a 
Draft Charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 
15 November 2010 at 
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf;



NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:



RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves this Draft Charter and encourages GNSO 
constituencies, stakeholder groups, and other GNSO participants to identify 
possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the 
objectives of the Draft Charter.



6.  Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the 
Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters.

Made by: Chuck Gomes

Seconded by: Jeff Neuman



Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for 
implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN 
Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan)

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf;



Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees - the 
Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee - to 
charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams designed to 
develop specific recommendations to implement specific aspects of the 
improvements;



Whereas the Council intended the charters of the committees (and their 
attendant work teams) to be temporary and not to extend beyond the 2009 annual 
ICANN meeting without specific action by the Council;



Whereas the Council has now twice extended the terms of those committees to 
allow the GNSO community implementation recommendations work to continue (see - 
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm and 
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10mar10-en.htm);



Whereas the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and notes 
that those committees and their teams are diligently continuing their work;



RESOLVED, The Council extends the terms of the Operations Steering Committee 
and the Policy Process Steering Committee and their respective work teams as 
necessary through the San Francisco ICANN public meeting in March 2011. The 
Council directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to 
identify the specific targets and benchmarks for their work and to share that 
information with the Council by 19 January 2011.



7.  Alternate Motion to extend the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and 
the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) charters.

Made by Wendy Seltzer:

seconded by:



Whereas in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for 
implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN 
Board of Directors (see - GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan)





http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf;



Whereas that framework included the formation of two Steering Committees - the 
Operations Steering Committee and the Policy Process





Steering Committee - to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community 
work teams designed to develop specific recommendations to

implement specific aspects of the improvements;



Whereas the OSC and PPSC charters expire at the Cartagena meeting;



RESOLVED the Council acknowledges the hard work of those work teams and thanks 
them for providing any final reports they wish to offer.









Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org