[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that were passed by the GNSO Council at the teleconference on Thursday, 6 March, 2008. Kind regards, Glen ...................................................................... 1. Kristina Rosette's friendly amendment on the language in 1a of the included draft motion was accepted by Mike Rodenbaugh. a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. 2. Chuck Gomes proposed an amendment which removed the original #2 from the draft motion that carried i.e. The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. The amendment succeed. In favour: Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria (one vote each) Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each) Opposed: Mike Rodenbaugh (1 vote) Motion 3 (a)(which contains the draft motion for public comment) ================================================================= Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: 1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses. The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008. 2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008. 3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008. 4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008 The motion carried Motion 3 (b) Draft Domain Tasting Design Team Motion for public comment =========================================================== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1.The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a.During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrars net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c.In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2.Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a.ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i.How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii.Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff. The motion carried Motion 4 ========= Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website; Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/ Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries, Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies The GNSO Council RESOLVES: ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes. 10 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Bilal Beiram, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) 14 Votes against: Robin Gross, Carlos Souza (one vote each) Tom Keller, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre (two votes each) The motion carried. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA 1. Raising an Issue b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made. Proposal 5 ========== The GNSO Council resolved to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report presented by Edmon Chung http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-idnc-initial-report-feb08.pdf to the IDNC as the GNSO response. The proposal was accepted unanimously Proposal 6 ========== The GNSO Council resolved to extend the deadline for the submission of constituency statements on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP to Friday 14 March 2008. The proposal was accepted unanimously -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org