[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that were passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday 18 December 2008. Kind regards, Glen Motion 1 ============== Two GNSO representatives to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions. The Council confirmed the election results of the two GNSO representatives, Olga Cavalli and Zahid Jamil to the Community-Wide Working Group on Geographical Regions. Motion passed by voice vote Motion 2 ============ Motion - GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed: Whereas: On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post- Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08) (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05812.html) Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report, Resolve: The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until 29 January 2009 to allow for the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below; ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later than 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report: - In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding "how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP", the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, "On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'." * Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? * What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? - In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends ". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ." * How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? - Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? -Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, "In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement." * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not? Motion passed by voice vote Resolution 3 ============ Motion on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies Avri Doria, seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh with a friendly amendment by Chuck Gomes, proposed Whereas: The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: - 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. - 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. - 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed - e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the council will take the by-laws required PDP vote. Motion passed by voice vote. 1 Abstention: Stéphane van Gelder - "its going too fast for me" 1 nay Resolution 4. ============== Motion on GNSO Travel Process Philip Sheppard, seconded by Stephane Van Gelder, proposed: Whereas: Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel. 1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus reduce the total budget available. 2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year 2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom com delegates or GNSO chair travel. 3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and which were attended by the support recipient. The motion unanimously passed by voice vote Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org