[council] Revised Council resolutions 6 October 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,
Ahead of the official minutes please find the revised 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/charter-wswg-06oct11-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/charter-wswg-06oct11-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.

2.    Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group 
Recommendations
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.
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.


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



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. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites 
e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be 
directed.  The e-mail address will use a uniform convention



(example: lawenforcement@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lawenforcement@xxxxxxxxxxx>) to 
facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies.  Registrars may, at their 
individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, 
directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes 
of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for 
other forms of business.  Requests submitted by verified law enforcement 
agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of 
receipt from the registrar within 24 hours.



4. 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.



5. The Issue Report should include a 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.