<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011
Glen, Motion 3 does indeed seem to be inexact as it appears in your email.
For instance, on my notes I show the 3rd whereas clause as having been deleted.
And as Tim points out, the item listed as #4 in your email is not part of
motion 3.
Is it possible to have these motions rechecked against the exact wording that
appeared in the adobe connect room after Marika edited them on-the-fly during
the call? And also is it possible to rework the formatting so that each motion
is clearly separated from the previous one? It would probably be best to
recheck every motion...
Thanks so much.
Stéphane
Le 9 oct. 2011 à 16:28, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> 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 GÃ∞©ry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks, Glen.
> > My notes of Tim’s motion are different from the version below. The
> > version I have has a different paragraph 3 that begins
> > “ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their websites . ..
> > .”, 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. Â I got behind in my notes around that time of the meeting so the
> > version in my notes may not be correct.Â
> > Anyone else have the same version I have?
> > Â
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Â
> > 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 – 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 “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 by October 2012.
> > Â
> > 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 ‘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. Â
> > 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’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.
> > Â
> > 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’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. Â 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’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;Â
> > 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
> > Â
> > Â
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|