GNSO Council resolutions 31 October 2007
Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolutions that were passed by the GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA on Wednesday 31 October 2007. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -------------------------------------------------------------- GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-31oct07.shtml also see: http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/61 Resolution 1 Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;" http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf and Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is willing to lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure, Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested informed and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider and propose as appropriate revisions to the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth in the Staff Report, and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the Council with its recommendations not later than 15 February 2008. Resolution 2. Whereas the issues report on Domain Tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun... has been released and discussed and Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final... the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period. Resolution 3. Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows: 1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council. Resolution 4. WHEREAS; 1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group final report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf and; 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community, and; 3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-char... and; 4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and; 5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and; 6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO. THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council; 1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and; 2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN’s Board of Directors, and; 3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council . 4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion. Resolution 5 Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005. Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development. Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy. Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007. It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Glen - I believe it is incorrect to say that motion 1 (IGO DRP PDP) was passed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Councilors - In our rush to get Resolution 4 (Whois) done, I think there are two things we missed: 1) the 15 February deadline should have been put at the end of item 3 of of resolution paragraph 3; 2) as requested by Ross without any objection by others as far as I can recall, we should have included identification of policy issues as the first step in the sequentional action items so that it should have said the following: "3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall identify the policy issues that need additional work; 2)Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements, 3) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies, 4) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 5) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council; actions 1) through 4) should be completed no later than 15 February 2008" My guess is that if we want to make the changes I noted above, that we would have to act on the modified motion at our next meeting. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:33 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 31 October 2007
Dear Council Members,
Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolutions that were passed by the GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA on Wednesday 31 October 2007.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen -------------------------------------------------------------- GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-31oct07.shtml also see: http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/61
Resolution 1
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-1 5jun07.pdf and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;" http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is willing to lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested informed and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider and propose as appropriate revisions to the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth in the Staff Report, and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the Council with its recommendations not later than 15 February 2008.
Resolution 2.
Whereas the issues report on Domain Tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tastin g-report-14jun07.pdf has been released and discussed and Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcome s-report-final.pdf the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period.
Resolution 3.
Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:
1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.
Resolution 4.
WHEREAS; 1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group final report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf and;
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community, and;
3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-work ing-group-charter-16apr07.pdf and;
4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and;
5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and;
6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO.
THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council; 1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and;
2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors, and;
3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council .
4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion.
Resolution 5
Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005.
Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development.
Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy.
Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007.
It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Chuck, Thank you, these revisions will be made and I will check on the motion 1 from the transcript. Glen Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Glen - I believe it is incorrect to say that motion 1 (IGO DRP PDP) was passed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Councilors - In our rush to get Resolution 4 (Whois) done, I think there are two things we missed: 1) the 15 February deadline should have been put at the end of item 3 of of resolution paragraph 3; 2) as requested by Ross without any objection by others as far as I can recall, we should have included identification of policy issues as the first step in the sequentional action items so that it should have said the following:
"3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall identify the policy issues that need additional work; 2)Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements, 3) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies, 4) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 5) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council; actions 1) through 4) should be completed no later than 15 February 2008"
My guess is that if we want to make the changes I noted above, that we would have to act on the modified motion at our next meeting.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:33 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 31 October 2007
Dear Council Members,
Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolutions that were passed by the GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA on Wednesday 31 October 2007.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen -------------------------------------------------------------- GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-31oct07.shtml also see: http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/61
Resolution 1
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-1 5jun07.pdf and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;" http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is willing to lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested informed and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider and propose as appropriate revisions to the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth in the Staff Report, and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the Council with its recommendations not later than 15 February 2008.
Resolution 2.
Whereas the issues report on Domain Tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tastin g-report-14jun07.pdf has been released and discussed and Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcome s-report-final.pdf the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period.
Resolution 3.
Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:
1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.
Resolution 4.
WHEREAS; 1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group final report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf and;
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community, and;
3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-work ing-group-charter-16apr07.pdf and;
4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and;
5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and;
6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO.
THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council; 1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and;
2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors, and;
3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council .
4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion.
Resolution 5
Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005.
Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development.
Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy.
Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007.
It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Glen, Please do not change the resolution because what you recorded is what we approved. I am just suggesting that we may want to modify the motion in our next meeting. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:09 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 31 October 2007
Chuck,
Thank you, these revisions will be made and I will check on the motion 1 from the transcript.
Glen
Glen - I believe it is incorrect to say that motion 1 (IGO DRP PDP) was passed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Councilors - In our rush to get Resolution 4 (Whois) done, I think there are two things we missed: 1) the 15 February deadline should have been put at the end of item 3 of of resolution paragraph 3; 2) as requested by Ross without any objection by others as far as I can recall, we should have included identification of policy issues as the first step in
Gomes, Chuck a écrit : the sequentional action items so that it should have said the following:
"3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development
including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall identify the policy issues that need additional work; 2)Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements, 3) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies, 4) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 5) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council; actions 1) through 4) should be completed no later than 15 February 2008"
My guess is that if we want to make the changes I noted
above, that we would have to act on the modified motion at our next meeting.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:33 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 31 October 2007
Dear Council Members,
Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolutions
that were
passed by the GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA on Wednesday 31 October 2007.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen -------------------------------------------------------------- GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-31oct07.shtml also see: http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/61
Resolution 1
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-1 5jun07.pdf and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;" http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is willing to lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested informed and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider and propose as appropriate revisions to the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth in the Staff Report, and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the Council with its recommendations not later than 15 February 2008.
Resolution 2.
Whereas the issues report on Domain Tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tastin g-report-14jun07.pdf has been released and discussed and Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcome s-report-final.pdf the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee
collections to >> names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace >> period. >> >> Resolution 3. >> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy >> Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and >> 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows: >> >> 1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to >> solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the >> Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc >> group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency >> Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) >> calendar days of this resolution. >> 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency >> Statements, the >> two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the >> Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of >> this resolution. >> 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of >> Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council. >> >> Resolution 4. >> >> WHEREAS; >> 1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group >> final report >> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf >> and; >> >> 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders >> with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of >> what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy >> issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the >> community, and; >> >> 3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach >> agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of >> the Working Group, >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-work >> ing-group-charter-16apr07.pdf >> and; >> >> 4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved >> substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since >> it was originally chartered, and; >> >> 5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key >> factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future >> GNSO policy development efforts, and; >> >> 6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and >> business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars >> in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer >> protection and research would benefit from future policy development >> by the GNSO. >> >> THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council; 1. Sincerely thanks >> all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, >> observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the >> GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and; >> >> 2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without >> making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's >> Board of Directors, and; >> >> 3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, >> but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for >> natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, >> consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will >> immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council >> shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data >> gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council >> with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering >> and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;; 3) the Council will >> decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff >> will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the >> results back to the Council . >> >> 4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as >> supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities >> upon their completion. >> >> Resolution 5 >> >> Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has >> been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy >> Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005. >> >> Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy >> development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face >> meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to >> present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use >> of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and >> protecting >> the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the >> foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working >> Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach >> for policy development. >> >> Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these >> initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting >> transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of >> principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range >> of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in >> implementing the policy. >> >> Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in >> August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September >> 2007. >> >> It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her >> service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her >> next endeavours. >> -- >> Glen de Saint Géry >> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN >> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hi, I think we have to accept that we voted on the text that was listed at the time of the vote. To go beyond, and I know I was not one of those who voted for this motion, I have a lot of trouble imagining that we can complete 1 and 2 by mid February, let alone 3 and 4 as well. While I am not suggesting we stall this effort, I do believe that we need to take the time to behave deliberately and judiciously. As for doing a proper study, my experience in the design social studies suggests that we would be hard pressed to design a proper study by Mid February even if we already know the answers to 1 and 2 today. As for Ross's amendment detailing an extra step in the sequence, I will go through the transcript for confirmation, but I do not believe that the amendment was every formally accepted into the motion. In any case, it seems to me, that doing this is a rational prerequisite to
1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements
I, personally, do not see how we can do this without first deciding on the policy issues that need work as the definitions of study requirements will be too broad without doing this as we already saw in Saturday's meeting. Perhaps we don't need a new motion in order to proceed with the work in a deliberate and careful manner. If we do, ok. thanks a. On 31 okt 2007, at 16.39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Glen - I believe it is incorrect to say that motion 1 (IGO DRP PDP) was passed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Councilors - In our rush to get Resolution 4 (Whois) done, I think there are two things we missed: 1) the 15 February deadline should have been put at the end of item 3 of of resolution paragraph 3; 2) as requested by Ross without any objection by others as far as I can recall, we should have included identification of policy issues as the first step in the sequentional action items so that it should have said the following:
"3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall identify the policy issues that need additional work; 2)Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements, 3) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies, 4) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 5) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council; actions 1) through 4) should be completed no later than 15 February 2008"
My guess is that if we want to make the changes I noted above, that we would have to act on the modified motion at our next meeting.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:33 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 31 October 2007
Dear Council Members,
Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the resolutions that were passed by the GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA on Wednesday 31 October 2007.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen -------------------------------------------------------------- GNSO Council Open Meeting in LA agenda http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-31oct07.shtml also see: http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/61
Resolution 1
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-1 5jun07.pdf and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;" http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is willing to lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested informed and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider and propose as appropriate revisions to the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth in the Staff Report, and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the Council with its recommendations not later than 15 February 2008.
Resolution 2.
Whereas the issues report on Domain Tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tastin g-report-14jun07.pdf has been released and discussed and Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting, http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcome s-report-final.pdf the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period.
Resolution 3.
Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:
1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution. 2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this resolution. 3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.
Resolution 4.
WHEREAS; 1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group final report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf and;
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community, and;
3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-work ing-group-charter-16apr07.pdf and;
4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and;
5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and;
6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO.
THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council; 1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and;
2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's Board of Directors, and;
3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council .
4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion.
Resolution 5
Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005.
Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development.
Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy.
Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007.
It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
On 31 okt 2007, at 16.39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Glen - I believe it is incorrect to say that motion 1 (IGO DRP PDP) was passed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
i neglected to respond to this one. #1 needed 13 out of 25 votes to pass and if I remember correctly, which Glen can confirm, it only got 12 votes. The confusion has do to the question that arose between Dan's original impression and my interpretation of the by-law that indicated that a motion needed a majority of the quorum number to pass and not a plurality; i.e. more votes then the other. Later in the meeting Dan confirmed, and he can correct me if i misremember, that the rules required a majority of the quorum number to pass. I do believe, however, that we still have the by-law obligation to vote on the PDP as this was not a vote on the PDP (33% threshold) but rather was a vote on an activity (50% threshold) that would be done before voting on the PDP. I will confirm the accuracy on my belief with legal counsel. thanks a.
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG -
Gomes, Chuck