--- Begin Message ---
- To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council minutes 11 October 2007
- From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:38:30 +0200
- Delivered-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Attached, and in plain text below, please find the draft minutes of the
GNSO Council teleconference held on 11 October 2007.
Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 October 2007
Proposed agenda and documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C - absent - apologies
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent - aplogies
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - aplogies
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
15 Council Members
(20 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Karla Valente - gTLD Registry Liaison
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Invited Observers
Tim Ruiz - Registrar
Olga Cavalli - Nom Com appointee after AGM
Jon Nevett - Registrar Constituency chair
Ray Fasett - Registry
Liz Gasster - consultant
MP3 Recording
Avri Doria chaired the meeting.
Approval of the agenda
Avri Doria proposed changing the sequence of the agenda items:
- moving Item 5 to Item 3
- adding an Item 4: Discussion on PDP timing
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
Avri Doria noted that her statement of interest had been updated in
accordance with General Counsel's request. Avri also commented that
Sophia Bekele had updated her statement of interest.
Item 2:
Approval of the draft GNSO Council minutes of 30 August 2007
Approval of the draft GNSO Council minutes of 6 September 2007
Approval of the draft GNSO Council minutes of 20 September 2007
Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO
Council minutes of 30 August 2007.
Motion approved
Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO
Council minutes of 6 September 2007
Motion approved
Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO
Council minutes of 20 September 2007
Motion approved
Decision 1: The Council approved the
GNSO Council minutes of 30 August 2007
GNSO Council minutes of 6 September 2007
GNSO Council minutes of 20 September 2007
Item 3: LA gTLD Workshop planning
- New gTLD Workshop plans
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03924.html
Chuck Gomes commented on key items in the new gTLD workshop plan that
had been developed by a small group, led by himself, and which included
Avri Doria, Kristina Rosette, Adrian Kinderis, Denise Michel, Kurt
Pritz, Craig Schwartz, Karen Lentz and Karla Valente.
The goals of the workshop are twofold:
- community understanding of the recommendations, principles and
implementation guidelines
- for the community to share comments for the Board's benefit as the
Board will supposedly be taking action during the Los Angeles meeting.
Chuck drew attention to the following key items:
3. Try to achieve a good balance between panel and audience
participation, while realizing that some items may involve more
presentation than interaction
4. Avoid re-debate of the issues by panel and/or Council members
7. Councilors, New gTLD Committee members and ICANN Staff members who
are not on the panel should be encouraged to participate with other
audience participants during the interactive session using a special
microphone set up for that purpose, but in doing so, they should:
a. Set good examples for being concise and to the point
b. Try to add additional clarity regarding how the committee arrived at
the final positions
c. Aim to reinforce the decisions made by the committee and the Council
d. Avoid using this forum to re-attempt to make changes that were not
accepted in the PDP work or by the Council.
8. All Council members should support the recommendations in a way that
is constructive with the goal of increasing understanding of the thought
processes that happened in the PDP process that led to the final
recommendations.
9. Reading of lengthy portions of the report should be avoided; instead
a. Those with online access during the meeting should be encouraged to
link to the report; hard copies at least for Part A of the report should
be available for those who do not have on-line access.
b. Clear reference to well-identified sections of the report should be
made when the need arises.
c. Participants should be encouraged to read relevant portions of the
report on their own.
Session Breakdown
Chuck Gomes proposed modifying the session breakdown by moving all the
items dealing with contractual conditions to session two, which was the
shortest session, and all the non contractual issues to session one to
allow for a more coherency and a better time balance.
The following assumptions were made in developing a list of panel members:
• Having people on panels who are topically prepared is more important
than having every constituency represented.
• Panel size should be kept to a minimum to maximize time efficiency.
The primary criterion for panel member recommendations was significant
participation in the New gTLD Committee, not just working groups of that
committee.
Chris Disspain, chair of the ccNSO, was selected to be the Workshop
moderator.
Several panel participants were changed round due to the proposed change
in topics during the sessions.
In summary, session one would deal the selection process and
introductory type information related to the report and the recommendations.
Session two would cover contractual conditions and Session three would
cover recommendations, three, six, twelve, and twenty.
In each case, the related implementation guidelines would be discussed
and all of the principles except for principal G, would be covered in
Session one. Principal G would be covered in Session three, because it
related closely to the recommendations in that section.
The following comments arose from Chuck's overview:
Rita Rodin emphasised that the Board was interested in hearing comments
from the different constituencies, the varying points of view, where
consensus could be reached and which were the contentious issues, rather
than revisiting and rediscussing the issues in order for the Board to
have as complete a picture as possible, when it started its deliberations..
Denise Michel reported that all efforts had been made to minimise
conflicts with other sessions during the workshop and the Board members
would be present.
Rita Rodin suggested that the GNSO provide a schedule which stipulated
where Board participation was important to encourage Board member's
presence at such sessions.
Ray Fassett commenting on the recommendation "Application must be of a
commercially reasonable length.” asked whether the committee had
determined the length of time. Chuck Gomes noted that in the base
contract, published some months ago, ten years had been mentioned.
The draft versions of the RFP and the base contract would be ready after
the LA meetings and would be posted for public comments at that time.
It was suggested that the ALAC and the GAC liaisons to Council should be
available in front of the audience along with Council members, not on
the panel, to give supplementary information if required.
The group was thanked for all the efforts that had gone into the new
gTLD workshop planning.
Avri Doria thanked the visitors for their participation on the call.
Item 4: Discussion on PDP timing
Avri Doria noted that the agenda item was prompted by two issue reports
that Council had received, one on IGO Names and abbreviations and one on
Domain Tasting which, following the strict timing set out in the ICANN
bylaws policy development process (PDP), necessitated that the Council
vote during the current meeting whether or not to initiate a policy
development processes. If the vote for PDP would be successful another
vote would follow on whether to form a task force or not.
There appeared to be two points of view.
- that the PDP processes and the appropriate timing should be followed,
in which case, Avri pointed out the timing for 120 days that followed :
- that more time was needed in the constituencies to reflect on the
Issue Reports and a vote should be taken at the Los Angeles meeting
Avri Doria suggested sending the following statement to the ICANN Board:
The GNSO considers the timings contained in the bylaws impossible for
proper policy development process. This has been discussed in the LSE
Report and reinforced in many constituency statements on the topic of
GNSO Reform.
In order to continue its PDP deliberative process while waiting for the
final report from the Board Governance working group, the GNSO requests
that the Board vote to remove the timing requirement as currently
defined in the bylaws.
Chuck Gomes was supportive of the motion. Until the GNSO improvements
would be implemented and the PDP revised timing would continue to an issue.
Philip Sheppard commented that it behooved Council to adhere to the
existing bylaw mandated deadlines, particularly in starting the process
and then possibly make adjustments as the process progressed.
Ross Rader was supportive of the approach but emphasised that it was
necessary to work within a more pragmatic and realistic set of timelines
than those outlined in the bylaws.
Norbert Klein suggested recording timings so that the information could
be used in adjusting the future regulations relating to the PDP.
Mike Rodenbaugh commented that not all the timelines needed adjustment.
The length of time for public comment periods and collection of
constituency statements were reasonable.
Kristina Rosette suggested going back to the constituencies and
identifying what timelines could be agreed upon and why rather than
leaving the issue open ended.
Avri Doria proposed removing the motion, which had not been seconded,
based on the Council discussion which was not in favour of removing
timelines but tended towards a case by case approach.
Item 5: Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP)
Report and Decision on next steps
Olof Nordling reported on the staff draft Intergovernmental
Organizations Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure which was
intended to apply to dispute resolutions and procedures at the second
level for new gTLDs. The object of the report was to mirror the WIPO 2
recommendations, an integral part of the UDRP, in a separate text. The
report set out how these mechanisms would function,how they would be
referenced in the new gTLD registry agreement and then in the registrar
agreements as they became accredited for the new TLD.
Olof drew attention to the key provisions in the report, section 4:
"a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding in the event that an International
Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) (a “complainant”) asserts to the
applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) the registration or use, as a domain name, of the name or
abbreviation of the complainant that has been communicated under Article
6ter of the Paris Convention is of a nature:
(a) to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the domain
name holder and the complainant; or
(b) to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between
the domain name holder and the complainant; or
(ii) on the ground that the registration or use, as a domain name, of a
name or abbreviation of the complainant protected under an international
treaty violates the terms of that treaty.
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that any of
the elements (i)(a) or {i)(b) or (ii) - is present.
As background:
On 24 May 2007, the GNSO Council passed a resolution
"Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that
the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations
make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy
development process is required.
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by
the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to
protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and
abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and
abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for
the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected
under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention
(http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the
policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to
IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to
utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2."
Chuck Gomes questioned differentiating between new TLD’s and existing
TLD’s with regard to the proposed policy as it was a significant policy
issue that would apply to new and existing gTLDs.
The Government Advisory Committee had provided input that there should
be such provisions, it was not included in the objection process nor in
the Reserved Names discussions, nor at the second level where the issue
would reside.
The fundamental question was whether Council was examining a proposal to
apply to names in the past and the future or only in the future?
Avri Doria suggested further discussion during the GNSO working sessions
in Los Angeles and proposed voting on whether or not to initiate a PDP
at the current meeting.
Avri Doria, seconded by Norbert Klein proposed the following motion
The GNSO Council resolves to postpone the decision to initiate a policy
development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute
Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting on 31 October in Los
Angeles.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Decision 2: The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to
initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental
Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting
on 31 October in Los Angeles
Item 4: Domain Tasting report and decision on next step (20)
http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf
Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the Domain Tasting ad hoc working group
was tasked with accumulating factual information with regards to the
issues outlined in staff issues report on domain tasting.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf
The group met almost every week for several months and gathered
information particularly in the form of a questionnaire that went out to
all of the constituencies.
Approximately 200 response were received, the vast majority indicating
that there was an issue with domain tasting and wanted to see some sort
of resolution to the issue.
In addition the Registrar’s constituency contributed information on
various non-tasting uses that Registrars had for the Added Grace Period
(AGP). The Registries provided information in the form of graphs, tables
and statistics from Neustar and Afflias.
The group was asked to draft terms of reference (ToR) that could be
considered by the Council in the event that a PDP would be initiated.
Draft Terms of Reference:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that
have been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to
impede domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the potential
impacts of measures on the Constituencies, and recommend measures
designed to impede domain tasting.
Ross Rader commented that in order to properly consider the forthcoming
recommendations of the working group on tasting, he sought further data
from staff as background information.
Specifically, Ross wished to understand staff experience in enforcing
clause 3.74 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
a) How many enforcement cases had been opened related to this clause in
the last 5 years?
b) How were these cases resolved?
c) Did staff view 3.7.4 as an effective hedge against abuse of the AGP,
if so, why? If not, why not?
Denise Michel mentioned that an Economic Research Assistant had been
retained and would take the working group output and provide additional
information on issues such as a performance analysis, add grace deletes
and other data points that would be useful for the Council's
deliberations. This data would, however, not be available before October
31, 2007.
Alan Greenberg did not support delaying a PDP process beyond the Los
Angeles meeting.
Chuck Gomes commented that he had currently no direction from the
Registry constituency as to how to vote on the matter.
Ross Rader was not supportive of voting on the issue without having a
response to his questions, and the Registrar constituency had not
specifically been consulted on voting.
In addition, Ross recommended exploring practical steps that would
remove the problem immediately. Furthermore, he did not believe that it
was an issue for a policy development process.
Philip Sheppard commented that looking at the question from a higher
level, public interest prospective the issue was trying to correct harm
that was out in the community and it behooved Council to act, as swiftly
as possible, force timelines and to encourage staff to obtain the
necessary information.
Philip wished Council to take the attitude “Yes we recognize it’s a
problem. Let’s go ahead with it, as quickly as possible."
Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Robin Gross and Alan Greenberg were
supportive of waiting until Los Angeles to enlist further input from the
community.
Avri Doria seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the following motion
The GNSO Council resolves to postpone the decision to initiate a policy
development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue until the
open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles.
Avri Doria called for a roll call vote.
17 Votes in of favour of postponing the decision:
Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris (on condition that there would be a vote
on 31 October 2007), Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Norbert Klein, Mawaki
Chango, Avri Doria (each one vote)
Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Cary Karp, Tom Keller, Ross Rader (two votes each)
1 vote against
Philip Sheppard
1 abstention
Mike Rodenbaugh
The motion passed.
Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to
initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting
issue until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles.
Item 6: Registrar Transfer Policy Plan
On 20 September, the GNSO Council resolved:
iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse
and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to
GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council
further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report."
Avri Doria called for a volunteers including a volunteer to lead the
group, and added that the leader and the participants did not
necessarily have to be Council members, though some Council
participation was desirable.
Ross Rader was appointed as the lead for the short-term planning group,
Tim Ruiz and Tom Keller from the Registrar constituency, and Barbara
Steele, proposed by Chuck Gomes volunteered to join the group.
Olof Nordling and Karen Lentz were designated as the staff support for
the group.
The NCUC, IPC and ALAC indicated that they would name volunteers from
their respective groups.
The Issues paper would be published during the week beginning 15 October
2007.
Item 7.
Kristina Rosette empasised the importance of receiving substantive long
documents well in advance of the Los Angeles meetings so that
Councillors would have the necessary time to prepare.
Item 8: Action Item review
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf
WHOIS: Liz Gasster reported that the WHOIS staff implementation report
and the staff overview, final report would be delivered to meet the 15
October timeline.
New gTLDs had been discussed under Item 3.
The IGO names and abbreviations would be a subject for open Council
discussion in Los Angeles.
Domain Tasting would be a subject for open Council discussion in Los
Angeles.
Response to Board resolution regarding IDN ccTLDs would be a subject for
open Council discussion in Los Angeles.
Registrar Transfer Policy Review: the volunteer group was in formation
and the Staff Issues Report would be produced by 19 October 2007
Proxy voting: Avri Doria had received a response, but was awaiting
permission from General Counsel to share it with the Council. The ICANN
bylaws are explicit about councillors being able to communicate with
each other at the time of voting and that has been interpreted to mean
no proxy vote.
Motion on term limits 2006-nov-06: Avri Doria reported that the Board
Governance group would be reporting on this in their report.
Question regarding WHOIS motion #2: Avri Doria reported that the
response would be discussed at the Los Angeles meeting.
Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for
their participation.
The meeting ended at 16:10 UTC.
Next GNSO Council open meeting will be in Los Angeles on 31 October 2007
at 8:30 local time UTC.
see: Calendar
Action Items arising from the minutes
Item 4:
Avri Doria undertook to obtain a response from ICANN staff on Ross
Rader's questions:
- to understand staff experience in enforcing clause 3.74 of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
a) How many enforcement cases had been opened related to this clause in
the last 5 years?
b) How were these cases resolved?
c) Did staff view 3.7.4 as an effective hedge against abuse of the AGP,
if so, why? If not, why not?
Item 6.
GNSO Secretariat to follow up and collect the names of volunteers from
other constituencies before the LA meetings
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
Attachment:
11 October 2007.doc
Description: MS-Word document
--- End Message ---