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 1a. MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON THE AOC REVIEW TEAMS as amended 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-25f...). 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_stu... ). 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....) 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....). 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. 2. Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. 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