Hi all, Just a note that indeed the Whois Survey Working Group Charter motion was deferred and was erroneously noted in the previous email as passed. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:34 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions - 22 September 2011 Dear All, Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 22 September at 20:00 UTC. The Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on 'Thick' WHOIS) WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions: a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm) b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases; d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied); e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011; WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above; WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to 'consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July'. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3) Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008; Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106); Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.p...); Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf); Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO RESOLVED: The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf). A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG) Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. RESOLVED, The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf. Revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies; WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum; WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011; WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11a... indicating that no comments were received; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver's appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience. RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations. The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#<https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations>) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. And The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO Council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG recommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remains on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. Creation of a Working Group on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI): Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011; Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting; Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a working group with any party interested in participating in this effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system; Resolved further, that this newly formed working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board; Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved further, that the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf), a Working Group Update is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org