Just confirming that the Board has formally received the initial
report and the related GNSO Council resolution from John Jeffrey as Board
Secretary.
Regards,
Bruce
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Friday, 10 September 2010 7:23 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 8 September 2010
Dear
Councillors,
Ahead
of the official Council minutes, the following four resolutions were passed at
the Council meeting on 8 September 2010.
Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Thank
you.
Kind regards,
Glen
1. Amendment
to the MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON THE AOC REVIEW TEAMS by
Kristina Rosette
In the light of the fact that it sounds as if numerous constituencies and stakeholder groups
may not have had the opportunity to fully discuss adding George Asare Sakyi, I
move that his name be deleted from the list of candidates put forth to the
selectors for the SSR review Team
WHEREAS, in
furtherance of ICANN’s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments,
applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review teams for
Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS and Whois Policy;
WHEREAS, these AOC
review teams will include members endorsed by the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS, the GNSO
Council desires to endorse applicants to serve on the review teams for
Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR) and Whois Policy;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that
pursuant to the approved Endorsement Process, the following applicants are
hereby endorsed by the GNSO Council to serve on the AOC review teams listed
below:
SSR
Review Team:
Jeff Brueggeman
David Cake
Rick Wilhelm
Ken Silva
WHOIS Policy:
Susan Kawaguchi
Kim G. Von Arx
James Bladel
Kathy Kleiman
RESOLVED FURTHER, the
GNSO Secretariat is requested to forward, as appropriate, the names of the
endorsed applicants to serve on the “WHOIS Policy” and “Security, Stability and
Resiliency of the DNS” review teams to the RT Selectors.
The motion carried in both the Contracted parties house and in the Non
Contracted parties house.
1. GNSO Council motion to pursue
study of Whois Misuse.
Whereas:
In October 2007, the
GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual
issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy
development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details
of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for
specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/)
and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of
WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the
GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed
list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to
provide cost estimates to the Council
(http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).
The WHOIS Study WG did
not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO
Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to
review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the
GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to
prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on
26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report
).
On 5-Nov-2008, the
Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency
members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost
estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further
consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf
).
For each of the
consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and
assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2
constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were
justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was
received. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest
average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine
feasibility and obtain cost estimates.
On 04-Mar-2009,
Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates
for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council.
(See Motion 3 at 04 mar 2009 motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff
presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois
Studies.
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf)
This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study,
regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested
studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. Public access to WHOIS data leads to a
measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are
illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose.
At ICANN's meeting in
Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's
response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for
further studies of WHOIS (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf),
stating:
First and foremost,
the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by
neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the
uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal
should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base
regarding:
• the amount and
source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of
different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
• the types and
extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse,
including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal
data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of
data."
The Affirmation of
Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and
implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective
and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and
promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by
30-Sep-2010. (http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget
for FY 2011 includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests
ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's
23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of
that same report. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).
Amendment on behalf of the Registries Stakeholder Group
Further resolved that ICANN staff is requested to ensure the study
reaches out to a global set of consumer and data protection, regulatory and law
enforcement organizations, including the range of government organizations who
would have reason to compile and keep records of Whois misuse,
Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to protect the
confidentiality and privacy of Registrant Whois data collected for this study,
according to best practices including encryption, and Registrants and all
groups contacted be informed of this protection.
Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to include in the study
analysis all individual elements in the Whois data which descriptive study
surveyed sources identify as having been misused; data elements identified by
these surveyed sources will not be discarded or otherwise eliminated on
the grounds that the actual data source is unclear or that online search
verification discloses multiple possible sources of the data.
Further resolved that ICANN staff will extend the time of
the Experimental Study from 90 days to a minimum of 6 months to better track
the results of the data harvesting.
The
motion carried in both the Contracted Parties House and in the Non Contracted
Parties House.
Whereas, on 28
January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on
the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;
Whereas the VI
Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to
the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,
Whereas, the GNSO
Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any
recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and
instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group;
Whereas, the GNSO
Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the
Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the
GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each
member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an
expedited basis;
RESOLVED FURTHER,
that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the
ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of
the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will
continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus
recommendations in a final report.
RESOLVED FURTHER,
that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of
the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time;
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate
notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.
The
motion carried in both the Contracted Parties House and in the Non Contracted
Parties House.
4. Motion To Support A Cross Community Working
Group On New gTLD Recommendation 6
WHEREAS, ICANN aims
to ensure that the New gTLD Program contains appropriate safeguards to address
culturally objectionable and/or sensitive strings, while protecting
internationally recognized freedom of expression rights;
*WHEREAS, numerous
stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the
GNSO Council’s Recommendation 6 regarding procedures for addressing culturally
objectionable and/or sensitive strings;
NCSG amended
clause:
WHEREAS,
*various
stakeholders have expressed concerns about the proposed implementation of the
GNSO Council’s Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally-accepted legal norms
relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international
principles of law;
WHEREAS, the GNSO
Council desires to participate in a joint working group with other interested
Supporting Organizations (SO’s) and Advisory Committee (AC’s) to provide
guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board with
regard to the implementation of recommendation 6;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the
GNSO Council supports the formation of a cross-community working group to
provide guidance to the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board
with regard to the implementation of recommendation 6;
RESOLVED FURTHER,
that Stéphane Van Gelder shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this
cross-community working group until 13 September 2010;
RESOLVED FURTHER,
that the GNSO Council approves the Terms of Reference to guide the activities
of this cross-community working group;
RESOLVED FURTHER,
that ICANN Staff shall identify and assign applicable Staff support for this
working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and
other tools as needed.
The
motion carried in both the Contracted Parties House and in the Non Contracted
Parties House.
Glen
de Saint Géry
GNSO
Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org