<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Revised GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December
- To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Revised GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December
- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:40:04 -0800
- Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
- Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcuWWi0YaKHESqJzRhS9Xud4Y2q/BgAkWwxgAAAuAoAAAgQTkA==
- Thread-topic: Revised GNSO Council motions for Wednesday 8 December
Dear Council members,
In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting today, 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 motion 3 needs a
seconder, or perhaps I have missed the second.. If so please resend your second
for motions 3.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
1 a Amendment by Wolf Ulrich Knoben to the motion made by Rafik Dammak and
seconded by Bill Drake for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board
resolution about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further
work items.
This paragraph has been removed in the amended version:
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;
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) 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.
d) 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.
e) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants,
and assistance volunteered by third parties.
f) 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
g) 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.
1 b. 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: Rafik Dammak
as amended by Mary Wong
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 and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five
community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee
and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining
targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January
2011, with a view toward final delivery to the Council of any remaining work
items so identified by no later than the San Francisco meeting.
FURTHER RESOLVED, a Standing Committee to monitor implementation of GNSO
Improvements shall be established no later than 19 January 2011. The Standing
Committee will work with the Council to review and, if necessary, convene
relevant work teams to refine and streamline, the effectiveness of GNSO
Improvements on an ongoing basis.
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|