[council] GNSO Council resolutions - 22 September 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed at the 
GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September at 20:00 UTC.
The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' 
WHOIS)
WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process 
(PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be 
developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also 
(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm)
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, 
especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). 
The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is 
implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it 
occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently 
deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a 
Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was 
already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the 
lock status.
WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, 
resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;
WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in 
relation to each of the five issues outlined above;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP 
Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the 
requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 
July'.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 
'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible 
subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible 
requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but 
should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely 
to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding 
whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be 
desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3)

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar 
Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C
Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus 
policy under review by the GNSO;
Whereas 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;
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its 
meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106);
Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 
for public comment (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.pdf);
Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 
(see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf);
Whereas, the Final Issue 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
RESOLVED:
The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on 
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf).
A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements 
of the PDP.

Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C 
Working Group (WG)
Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development 
Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided 
to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements 
of the PDP;
Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.
RESOLVED,
The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the 
GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group.
The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be 
initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such 
time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO 
Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
Charter
The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the 
Final Issue Report 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make 
recommendations to the GNSO Council:
a)      "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this 
function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the 
country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, 
and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of 
locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim 
to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
b)      Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should 
be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining 
Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name 
is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name 
status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may 
have changed.
c)       Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that 
registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.
The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group 
Guidelines 
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.

Revision of the  GNSO Council Operating  Procedures Relating  to Proxy  Voting
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO 
Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures 
relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with 
completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended 
revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy 
giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures 
and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies;
WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the 
recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a 
redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the 
recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the 
ICANN Public Comment Forum;
WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating 
Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting 
http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and 
posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011;
WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments 
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11aug11-en.pdf
 indicating that no comments were received;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 
4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures 
http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to 
simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be 
directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the 
proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the 
absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience.
RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the 
revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which 
becomes effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO 
Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude 
and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their 
dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.

The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT


Whereas:



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



The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for 
consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. 
This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended 
charter and,



The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and



The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in 
its extended charter and has published a final report

(https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#<https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations>)
 on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items 
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the 
Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. And



The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last 
tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses 
for the second milestone community review, and



The GNSO Council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any 
of its contents,



However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support 
programs for applicants from developing regions,



Resolved:



The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its 
efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight 
schedule, and



The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for 
review, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of 
the recommendations contained therein; and



The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan 
following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the 
GNSO community , and



The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for 
public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and



The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the 
publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, 
and



The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remains on call to 
review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations.



Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate 
its decision to the ALAC Chair.

Creation of a Working Group  on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation 
(CCI):



Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>)
 requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the 
definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for 
competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain 
name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN 
International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;



Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted 
preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through 
various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore 
ICANN Meeting;



Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form 
a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to 
fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO 
Council.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:



Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to 
produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the 
Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets 
for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the 
context of the domain name system;



Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to 
forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN 
Board;



Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council 
Liaison for this working group;



Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and 
Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in 
furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and 
that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall 
act as interim chair; and



Resolved further, that the Charter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved 
for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf), a Working Group 
Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011.
Approval of the charter for the  Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG)
Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the 
current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support 
existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,
and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an 
IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized 
Registration Data, 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+-+Home
 ),
and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois 
service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community 
(see: history of Whois policy activity: 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ),
and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the 
technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and 
current draft: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 );
Whereas on 07 May 2009<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200905>, the GNSO 
Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and 
GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive 
set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;
Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service 
Requirements Inventory 
report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-initial-report-26mar10-en.pdf>,
 soliciting input from SOs and ACs;
Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final 
report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-draft-final-report-31may10-en.pdf>
 which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and 
community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;
Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service 
Requirements - Final 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-29jul10-en.pdf>;
Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for 
expertise<http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19may11-en.htm> 
seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the 
purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;
Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed 
charter<https://community.icann.org/display/WSDT/Home> for a Whois Survey 
"Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this 
case;
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf
Resolved,
The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested 
volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring 
the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final 
Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.
The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey 
Working Group as defined here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf
In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to 
produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by 
March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then 
conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a 
draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to 
the GNSO Council.



Please let me know if you have any questions.



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Glen



Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org