Item
1: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec
2006
Item
2: Terms of reference for new gTLDs
(staff
recommendation from issues report)
1.
Should
new generic top level domain names be introduced?
a.
Given
the information provided here and any other relevant information available to
the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the
Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this
is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable.
2.
Selection
Criteria for New Top Level Domains
a.
[Taking
into account ] the
existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes
and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or
new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and
usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation
of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in
developing countries.
b.
Examine
whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed
which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of
Internet users.
c.
Examine
whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of
ensuring the security and stability of the Internet.
3.
Allocation
Methods for New Top Level Domains
a. Using the experience
gained in previous rounds, develop
allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names.
b.
Examine
the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come
first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation
that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and
stability.
c.
Examine
how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering
competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range
of registry services providers.
4
Policy to Guide Contractual
Conditions for New Top Level Domains
a.
Using
the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes
and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to
guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any
application rounds.
b.
Determine
what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry
services.
c.
Determine
appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry
services.
Item
3: Issues report on IDNs
Proposed
motion:
WHEREAS,
the GNSO Council recognises that one of the goals of ICANN to increase the
internationalisation of the domain name space;
WHEREAS,
the GNSO Council wishes to liaise closely with the ccNSO with respect to
internationalization of the domain name space, and for the purpose of jointly
requesting an issues report;
WHEREAS
the GNSO Council recognizes and wishes to inform and be informed by the
technical efforts currently under way in other organizations which are
represented on the President’s Advisory Committee on IDNs;
WHEREAS
the GNSO Council acknowledges the timelines in the ICANN bylaws, and recognize
the recommendation from the GNSO Council review to revise those timelines, and
given the complexity of this issue, the GNSO Council will develop an appropriate
work plan that meets the needs of the ICANN community.
The
GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the policy issues associated with
creating internationalised equivalents of existing gTLDs, and second level
domains within existing gTLDs.
The
GNSO Council recommends that the staff engage appropriate expert resources to
assist in the preparation of the Issues Report.
The
GNSO also requests that the staff liaise with the ccNSO to ensure that the
policy issues associated with internationalised versions of the existing ccTLDs
can also be considered.
Item
4: Vote of thanks for outgoing Council members
Any
other business
Motion
on Verisign agreement
Whereas
the GNSO constituencies participated in a review of the proposed settlement and
have detailed statements on issues of concern;
Whereas
the GNSO Council supports the conclusion of the litigation between ICANN and
Verisign;
Whereas
the GNSO Council does not support all articles within this proposed
settlement;
Whereas
the GNSO Council believes that there are broader questions raised in the
proposed settlement that need to be first addressed by the
GNSO;
The
GNSO Council resolves:
That
the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the
Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes.