RE: [council] RE: GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kristina,

The way they are listed below is confusing. I think you are getting two
motions mixed up. The numbered 4 line on "Freedom of expression impact
analysis" is a different motion I believe. In any event it is not pp4 of
the RrSG motion. Also, the original motion that I posted was later
amended and then amended again during the call.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Council  Resolutions 6 October 2011
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, October 07, 2011 12:09 pm
> To: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>,       
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks, Glen.
> My notes of Tim&#8217;s motion are different from the version below.  The 
> version I have has a different paragraph 3 that begins 
> &#8220;ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their websites . .. 
> .&#8221;, what is paragraph 3 below is paragraph 4 in my notes and the 
> freedom of expression impact analysis is number 5 in the version in my notes. 
>  I got behind in my notes around that time of the meeting so the version in 
> my notes may not be correct.  
> Anyone else have the same version I have?
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:03 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011
> 
> 
>  
> Dear Councillors,
> Ahead of the official minutes please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO 
> Council meeting on 6 October 2011.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> 1.    Motion to approve charter for 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, 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, soliciting input from SOs and ACs;
> Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report 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 &#8211; Final Report;
> Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for 
> expertise 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 
> for a Whois Survey &#8220;Working Group&#8221;, preferring the term 
> &#8220;Working Group&#8221; to &#8220;Drafting Team&#8221; 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&nbsp;
> 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 by October 2012.
>  
> 2.    Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working 
> Group Recommendations - deferred from 22 September Council meeting
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its 
> report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);
> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and 
> decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach 
> with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse 
> Policies Working Group Final Report;
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team 
> submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);
> Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working 
> Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;
> Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its 
> meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);
> Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation 
> to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 
> and a response was received on 23 February 2011 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In 
> addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in 
> San Francisco.
> Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in 
> further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore 
> based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).
> NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its 
> feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no 
> further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the 
> commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department &#8216;to report on compliance 
> activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual 
> basis' (see 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its 
> feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines 
> that no further work on this recommendation is needed.  
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed 
> from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake 
> Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested 
> of Staff.  The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder 
> Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the 
> issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council&#8217;s and its 
> RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested.  A small 
> group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others 
> interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such 
> a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the 
> information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.
> RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council 
> requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of 
> WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the 
> WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or 
> timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the 
> GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next 
> steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this 
> recommendation.
> RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and 
> Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of 
> this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it 
> evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, 
> which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries 
> address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to 
> Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the 
> GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this 
> Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the 
> Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.
> RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and 
> Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the 
> Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG 
> in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or 
> monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO 
> Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that 
> further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these 
> two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of 
> cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting 
> with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.
> RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of 
> Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and 
> hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems 
> to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made 
> since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and 
> any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. 
> Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and 
> considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of 
> such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.
> RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the 
> GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline 
> of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN 
> agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address 
> the most common forms of registration abuse.
> RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or 
> Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation 
> #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the 
> GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations 
> at this time.
> RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names 
> recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this 
> recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called 
> for at this time.
>  
> 3.    Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the 
> information and tools available to help address crime that involves the 
> domain name system 
> WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with 
> representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the 
> nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools 
> available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and
> WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement 
> proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online 
> crime; and
> WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its 
> long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity;
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following 
> possible policy revisions and/or additions:
> 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff 
> must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving 
> legal service.  This record must include a valid street address, city, 
> appropriate region, telephone number and fax number.
> Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and 
> must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days 
> of a change of address.
> 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff 
> must keep on record, the names of each registrar&#8217;s respective corporate 
> President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of 
> those positions.  These data may be made available upon request to a verified 
> representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN 
> staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement 
> agencies.  Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information 
> within 30 days of a change.
> 3.  Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of 
> approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the 
> GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification 
> system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law 
> enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law 
> enforcement agency upon  that agency&#8217;s first contact with a registrar.
> 4. Freedom of Expression impact analysis.
> 4.  Motion to create a  GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working Groups 
> (CCWG):
> Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community 
> working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting 
> organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);
> Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with 
> regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for 
> future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and 
> responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; 
> Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way 
> forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such 
> cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter 
> (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. 
> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: 
> Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO 
> drafting team   which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework 
> under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the 
> GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and 
> recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs; 
> Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council 
> Liaison for this open working group; 
> Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group 
> Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities 
> in furtherance of this effort.  Until such time as the DT 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/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf
> is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT.   As specified in the Charter, a status 
> report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a 
> final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar 
> year 2012. 
>  Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
>