Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 12 April 2007
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 12 April 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen .................................................................................. 12 April 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 16 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Sue Jonklaas- Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Quorum present at 12:15 UTC. MP3 recording Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 The approval of the minutes was deferred to the next Council meeting Item 3: Revision of Transfers Policy - consider staff recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03369.html Ross Rader, chair of theTransfers Policy Review Committee, set up in mid 2005, reported that the committee's goal was to review the effectiveness of the existing Transfer Policy from an operational perspective and determine whether or not any amendments to the existing policy should be recommended for further examination in a policy development process by the GNSO and/or whether or not any additional work would be required on the implementation side at an ICANN Staff level. ICANN Staff prepared 3 summary documents 1) is the draft advisory, unchanged from last message in January. <Draft-Transfer-Advisory-24jan07.doc> 2) is some notes on possible tighter wording/clarifications to the existing policy. This consists of 4 points taken out of the previous "policy issues" list--all of these had to do with the reasons for denial section. <DenialClarifications-28mar07.doc> 3) is a revised list of policy issues with the above-mentioned items taken out. <Draft-TransfersPolicyList-28mar07> The committee had reached a set of recommendations which would be submitted to the GNSO Council by the Puerto Rico meetings for Council's consideration. However the committee would proceed with the staff updating certain wording in the contractual conditions and issuing advisories. Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard for Item 4 concerning the ICANN Board election results. Item 4: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03416.html Results of Election Board seat # 13 : Dr. Bruce Tonkin is elected to the ICANN Board in seat # 13. Total votes 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin 3 abstentions 3 votes not cast The details of the vote: 3 people did not vote by ballot. 1. Bruce Tonkin was not replaced by the Registrar constituency. (2 votes) 2. One Council member did not return a ballot and could not be contacted. (1 vote) 3. One Council member did not return a ballot and under special circumstances, voted by email and phone before the close of the vote on 9 April at 17:00 UTC. (1 vote) The total number of votes that Council could cast was 27 and a majority 14 or more. Philip Sheppard proposed that The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. The motion passes by voice vote. Bruce Tonkin abstained. Decision 1: The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. Philip Sheppard, on behalf of the Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin and handed the chair back to him. Bruce Tonkin thanked the Council for their support and stated that he was prepared to continue chairing the Council until the council elected a new chair and/or he took his place on the ICANN Board in the beginning of June 2007, but that an election process for a new chair should be started based on previous procedures. The GNSO secretariat was requested to launch the process. Item 5: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an interim chair http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html Bruce Tonkin referred to postings to the Council list relating to recent Council decisions regarding Whois , a summary of opposition to the WHOIS task force recommendation, the WHOIS task force recommendations, and IETF working group guidelines for managing working groups. Maria Farrell summarised the changes to the charter proposed by various Council members on the mailing list: 1. Changes that related to the objective of the working group that should explicitly consider the implementation issues raised by Operational Point of Contact (OPOC). 2. Changes to the background section and information, ensuring an explicit reference to the definition of purpose agreed upon by Council on April 12 2006 http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms -of-reference.html 3. The task force policy recommendations should be specified. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12... 4. Changes referring to the work: a. to use the text of the resolution agreed by the council, rather than the current text. b. only examine the definition of the OPAC in the light of the original resolution then consider whether access should be for a legitimate interest as stated in the original proposal or with regard to legitimate activities, as referenced in the GAC principles c. whether there should be distinctions between people accessing the data and how these should be made. 5. In the assignment of work, which third party and under which condition should have access to unpublished data. 6. Remove the GAC principles from the document. Bruce Tonkin summarised the discussion in Council and indicated where agreement appeared to have been reached: In the background section specifically include a reference to the council decision on the WHOIS purpose http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml and Council's intention to revisit the definition in the light of the final report. Reference Council's 3 decision and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtm http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html Refer to that GAC principles http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html GAC Communiqué is available at: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf and identify that they specifically provided a list of legitimate activities. Move the material currently under 4B into the Background section. In section 3, the policy recommendations being referred to should be specified in a footnote. In section 4B, the motion passed in Lisbon stated 'how legitimate interest will access' while the current document used the term ' how third parties may access for legitimate activity'. Thus 4B could be re-worded to: 'determine how and which legitimate third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query based access. Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria, proposed that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 2: Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above. [The revised charter as approved is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-...] It was agreed to send a communication to the GAC inviting those interested members in participating as individuals whose expertise would be valued rather than the official view of the particular department or government Item 5 b: appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group Bruce Tonkin commented that Council needed to select a WHOIS working group chair bearing in mind the short mandate of the working group. The person should be currently available, have chairing experience and be acquainted with the WHOIS background and history to get the work started. Bruce Tonkin proposed Philip Sheppard as the interim chair. The discussion emphasised the need for a skilled chair person to remain neutral for the 120 day period while the group was in place. Listening to the discussions, and the various points of view and identifying areas of rough consensus. Bruce Tonkin referred to the RFC2418 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures - dated Sept 1998 as possible guidelines for such a group. Rita Rodin expressed hope that the working group would produce policy and resolve some of the WHOIS issues. Rita emphasised the facilitator role of the chair, aided by a co-chair, in eliciting ideas and moving towards a compromise. Views were stated in favour of having a co-chair because two different neutral perspectives could lead to broader rough consensus being obtained. It was suggested that a facilitator or neutral party, such as an ex-board member or an external paid facilitator, could be a valuable support and sounding board for the chair in pointing out where neutrality could be compromised. It was suggested that Jon Bing, not on the call, Nominating Committee appointee to the Council, relatively new to the Council in a neutral role, could fulfil the role and be consulted by the chair. Philip Sheppard expressed concern with formalizing a co-chair relationship. In accepting the challenge of chair he was prepared to approach the WHOIS issues in a neutral perspective to best resolve a long standing issue. Philip went on to state that if council had concerns about the level of neutrality and ability to exert in this then he would stand down and let somebody else take on the role. Professional staff or someone in the Council/community would be welcomed to fulfil the role of sounding board. Mawaki Chango suggested that the motion should not preclude the possibility of electing co-chairs and urged Philip not to put as a condition that he would step down if there would be a co-chair. Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed that: the GNSO Council resolves to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. The motion was carried by a voice vote. 2 abstentions were noted from Philip Sheppard and Mawaki Chango Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. Item 6: Protection of IGO Names and Abbreviations in line with WIPO 2 - consider recommendation from the intellectual property constituency http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03368.html The constituency recommends that: "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. " see correspondence on this topic: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ on this topic. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tarmizi-13mar06.pdf http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-twomey-15jun06.pdf Kristina Rosette commented on the background to the proposal. When the initial Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) statement was submitted to the new gTLD policy development process there were suggestions to implement parts of the WIPO2 recommendations, specifically, protection of international governmental organization names and abbreviations. The inclusion of that recommendation was motivated by a request made to the IPC during a cross constituency meeting in Vancouver to take a lead in attempting to find a consensus solution proposal to some of the issues raised in the WIPO 2 recommendations. The WIPO 2 recommendations did include other areas, for example, the protection of country names and the protection of personal names. In examining the issue, the IPC had not found sufficient legal basis in international law to justify full implementation of all of the WIPO2 recommendations. Thus, the scope of the IPC recommendation was to restrict it to the protection of IGO names and abbreviations.In summary there is definitely a basis in international law for the protection of IGO names and abbreviations tracing back to the Paris Convention. Currently,there are slightly over 132 IGO's that have followed the procedure for having their names and acronyms registered and consistent with the Paris convention. WIPO itself has provided a draft model and rules for the possession of IGO names and abbreviations as type of modified parallel UDRP procedure. The notable difference would be to restrict the scope to IGOs and create a different appeals procedure from that which is currently in place. WIPO feels quite strongly that it is important to obtain the protection and to have an alternate procedure to allow IGO's to protect their names and marks particularly because of the nature of some of the IGO's, In summary, the IPC requests the GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. IGO Names and Abbreviations are not considered to be trademarks. Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling a motion for the next meeting and requesting feedback from the ICANN Staff in terms of resourcing a policy development process. Item 7: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of work http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03373.html The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Decision 4: The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added. General Tasks 1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon 2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories: a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Geographical and geopolitical names ii. Controversial names c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG i. Three character names at the third level ii. Registry specific names at the second level iii. Other reserved names at the second level 3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs 4. Review IDN-WG Report 5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories 6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated 7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically 8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams Tasks regarding Recommendations 1. ICANN/IANA reserved names a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry. a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN names 1. Provide examples 2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed 2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language i. Provide examples as possible ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 3. Single & two-character reserved names a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to non-roman scripts b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number. c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels 4. Tagged names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’ ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’ iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 5. NIC, Whois and www a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 6. Geographical & geopolitical names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names c. Consult with the GAC as possible d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary 7. Third level names a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable) a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work 9. Other names at the second level a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 10. Controversial names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names b. Consult with the GAC as possible c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary Schedule 1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April 2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended: 14 :15 UTC Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 24 May 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election process for GNSO Council chair. 2. Arising from item 5, revise the WHOIS working group charter to reflect the Council discussions. 3 Arising from item 5, send a communication to the GAC seeking participation from the members as individuals. 4. Arising from item 6, a. table the motion "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. " b. request ICANN staff for feedback on the availability of resources to commence a policy development process (pdp). -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Thanks Glen. Please note my comments below regarding two items of the minutes. I must have been sleeping during the discussion about the Transfer Policy Review Committee. I didn't understand that the committee had completed its work and had final recommendations to submit to the Council. I thought that the committee was going to reconvene and pick up where they left off and then submit recommendations to the Council. Am I incorrect here? One of the issues that created a lot of problems with regard to transfer disputes had to do with registrant transfers happening at the same time or in near proximity to registrar changes; I don't believe that the committee finalized recommendations in that regard. Under agenda item 5, Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an interim chair, shortly after Maria's list of six changes, the minutes say, "Reference Council's 3 decision and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences . . ." What does 'reference Council's 3 decision' mean? Does it mean reference the previous three decisions made by the Council regarding the previous Whois WG? (Note that the first URL did not work for me.) In the minutes contained at the second and third references, item 3 of each of those agendas related to Whois. 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, May 16, 2007 11:22 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 12 April 2007
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 12 April 2007.
Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards, Glen .............................................................. .................... 12 April 2007
Proposed agenda and documents
List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC Norbert Klein - NCUC. - absent - apologies Mawaki Chango - NCUC Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
16 Council Members (21 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff Sue Jonklaas- Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent
Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member
Quorum present at 12:15 UTC.
MP3 recording
Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard chaired this meeting
Approval of the agenda
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates
Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 The approval of the minutes was deferred to the next Council meeting
Item 3: Revision of Transfers Policy - consider staff recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03369.html
Ross Rader, chair of theTransfers Policy Review Committee, set up in mid 2005, reported that the committee's goal was to review the effectiveness of the existing Transfer Policy from an operational perspective and determine whether or not any amendments to the existing policy should be recommended for further examination in a policy development process by the GNSO and/or whether or not any additional work would be required on the implementation side at an ICANN Staff level.
ICANN Staff prepared 3 summary documents 1) is the draft advisory, unchanged from last message in January. <Draft-Transfer-Advisory-24jan07.doc>
2) is some notes on possible tighter wording/clarifications to the existing policy. This consists of 4 points taken out of the previous "policy issues" list--all of these had to do with the reasons for denial section. <DenialClarifications-28mar07.doc>
3) is a revised list of policy issues with the above-mentioned items taken out. <Draft-TransfersPolicyList-28mar07>
The committee had reached a set of recommendations which would be submitted to the GNSO Council by the Puerto Rico meetings for Council's consideration. However the committee would proceed with the staff updating certain wording in the contractual conditions and issuing advisories.
Bruce Tonkin handed the Chair to Philip Sheppard for Item 4 concerning the ICANN Board election results.
Item 4: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03416.html
Results of Election Board seat # 13 : Dr. Bruce Tonkin is elected to the ICANN Board in seat # 13. Total votes 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin 3 abstentions 3 votes not cast
The details of the vote: 3 people did not vote by ballot. 1. Bruce Tonkin was not replaced by the Registrar constituency. (2 votes) 2. One Council member did not return a ballot and could not be contacted. (1 vote) 3. One Council member did not return a ballot and under special circumstances, voted by email and phone before the close of the vote on 9 April at 17:00 UTC. (1 vote)
The total number of votes that Council could cast was 27 and a majority 14 or more.
Philip Sheppard proposed that The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast.
The motion passes by voice vote. Bruce Tonkin abstained.
Decision 1: The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast.
Philip Sheppard, on behalf of the Council congratulated Bruce Tonkin and handed the chair back to him.
Bruce Tonkin thanked the Council for their support and stated that he was prepared to continue chairing the Council until the council elected a new chair and/or he took his place on the ICANN Board in the beginning of June 2007, but that an election process for a new chair should be started based on previous procedures. The GNSO secretariat was requested to launch the process.
Item 5: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an interim chair http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
Bruce Tonkin referred to postings to the Council list relating to recent Council decisions regarding Whois , a summary of opposition to the WHOIS task force recommendation, the WHOIS task force recommendations, and IETF working group guidelines for managing working groups.
Maria Farrell summarised the changes to the charter proposed by various Council members on the mailing list:
1. Changes that related to the objective of the working group that should explicitly consider the implementation issues raised by Operational Point of Contact (OPOC).
2. Changes to the background section and information, ensuring an explicit reference to the definition of purpose agreed upon by Council on April 12 2006 http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms -of-reference.html
3. The task force policy recommendations should be specified. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-fina l-tf-report-12mar07.htm#_Toc161480260
4. Changes referring to the work: a. to use the text of the resolution agreed by the council, rather than the current text. b. only examine the definition of the OPAC in the light of the original resolution then consider whether access should be for a legitimate interest as stated in the original proposal or with regard to legitimate activities, as referenced in the GAC principles c. whether there should be distinctions between people accessing the data and how these should be made.
5. In the assignment of work, which third party and under which condition should have access to unpublished data.
6. Remove the GAC principles from the document.
Bruce Tonkin summarised the discussion in Council and indicated where agreement appeared to have been reached:
In the background section specifically include a reference to the council decision on the WHOIS purpose http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml and Council's intention to revisit the definition in the light of the final report.
Reference Council's 3 decision and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtm http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html
Refer to that GAC principles http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html GAC Communiqué is available at: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf and identify that they specifically provided a list of legitimate activities. Move the material currently under 4B into the Background section.
In section 3, the policy recommendations being referred to should be specified in a footnote.
In section 4B, the motion passed in Lisbon stated 'how legitimate interest will access' while the current document used the term ' how third parties may access for legitimate activity'. Thus 4B could be re-worded to: 'determine how and which legitimate third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query based access.
Chuck Gomes, seconded by Avri Doria, proposed that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Decision 2: Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.
[The revised charter as approved is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois- working-group-charter-16apr07.pdf]
It was agreed to send a communication to the GAC inviting those interested members in participating as individuals whose expertise would be valued rather than the official view of the particular department or government
Item 5 b: appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group Bruce Tonkin commented that Council needed to select a WHOIS working group chair bearing in mind the short mandate of the working group. The person should be currently available, have chairing experience and be acquainted with the WHOIS background and history to get the work started. Bruce Tonkin proposed Philip Sheppard as the interim chair.
The discussion emphasised the need for a skilled chair person to remain neutral for the 120 day period while the group was in place. Listening to the discussions, and the various points of view and identifying areas of rough consensus. Bruce Tonkin referred to the RFC2418 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures - dated Sept 1998 as possible guidelines for such a group.
Rita Rodin expressed hope that the working group would produce policy and resolve some of the WHOIS issues. Rita emphasised the facilitator role of the chair, aided by a co-chair, in eliciting ideas and moving towards a compromise.
Views were stated in favour of having a co-chair because two different neutral perspectives could lead to broader rough consensus being obtained.
It was suggested that a facilitator or neutral party, such as an ex-board member or an external paid facilitator, could be a valuable support and sounding board for the chair in pointing out where neutrality could be compromised.
It was suggested that Jon Bing, not on the call, Nominating Committee appointee to the Council, relatively new to the Council in a neutral role, could fulfil the role and be consulted by the chair.
Philip Sheppard expressed concern with formalizing a co-chair relationship. In accepting the challenge of chair he was prepared to approach the WHOIS issues in a neutral perspective to best resolve a long standing issue. Philip went on to state that if council had concerns about the level of neutrality and ability to exert in this then he would stand down and let somebody else take on the role. Professional staff or someone in the Council/community would be welcomed to fulfil the role of sounding board. Mawaki Chango suggested that the motion should not preclude the possibility of electing co-chairs and urged Philip not to put as a condition that he would step down if there would be a co-chair.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Avri Doria proposed that: the GNSO Council resolves to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.
The motion was carried by a voice vote.
2 abstentions were noted from Philip Sheppard and Mawaki Chango
Decision 3: The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.
Item 6: Protection of IGO Names and Abbreviations in line with WIPO 2
- consider recommendation from the intellectual property constituency http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03368.html The constituency recommends that:
"The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. "
see correspondence on this topic: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ on this topic.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tarmizi-13mar06.pdf
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-twomey-15jun06.pdf
Kristina Rosette commented on the background to the proposal. When the initial Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) statement was submitted to the new gTLD policy development process there were suggestions to implement parts of the WIPO2 recommendations, specifically, protection of international governmental organization names and abbreviations. The inclusion of that recommendation was motivated by a request made to the IPC during a cross constituency meeting in Vancouver to take a lead in attempting to find a consensus solution proposal to some of the issues raised in the WIPO 2 recommendations.
The WIPO 2 recommendations did include other areas, for example, the protection of country names and the protection of personal names. In examining the issue, the IPC had not found sufficient legal basis in international law to justify full implementation of all of the WIPO2 recommendations.
Thus, the scope of the IPC recommendation was to restrict it to the protection of IGO names and abbreviations.In summary there is definitely a basis in international law for the protection of IGO names and abbreviations tracing back to the Paris Convention.
Currently,there are slightly over 132 IGO's that have followed the procedure for having their names and acronyms registered and consistent with the Paris convention. WIPO itself has provided a draft model and rules for the possession of IGO names and abbreviations as type of modified parallel UDRP procedure. The notable difference would be to restrict the scope to IGOs and create a different appeals procedure from that which is currently in place.
WIPO feels quite strongly that it is important to obtain the protection and to have an alternate procedure to allow IGO's to protect their names and marks particularly because of the nature of some of the IGO's, In summary, the IPC requests the GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic.
IGO Names and Abbreviations are not considered to be trademarks.
Bruce Tonkin proposed tabling a motion for the next meeting and requesting feedback from the ICANN Staff in terms of resourcing a policy development process.
Item 7: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of work http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03373.html
The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Decision 4: The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007.
Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG
Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added.
General Tasks 1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon 2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories: a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Geographical and geopolitical names ii. Controversial names c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG i. Three character names at the third level ii. Registry specific names at the second level iii. Other reserved names at the second level 3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs 4. Review IDN-WG Report 5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories 6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated 7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically 8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams
Tasks regarding Recommendations
1. ICANN/IANA reserved names a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry. a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly iii. Reword recommendation for "example" at all levels for ASCII and IDN names 1. Provide examples 2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed 2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language i. Provide examples as possible ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 3. Single & two-character reserved names a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term 'character' as it relates to non-roman scripts b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number. c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels 4. Tagged names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of 'in the third and fourth character positions' to 'in both the third and fourth character positions' ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms 'ASCII compatible encoding' and 'Unicode display form' iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 5. NIC, Whois and www a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 6. Geographical & geopolitical names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names c. Consult with the GAC as possible d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary 7. Third level names a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable) a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work 9. Other names at the second level a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 10. Controversial names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names b. Consult with the GAC as possible c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
Schedule 1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April 2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May
Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting ended: 14 :15 UTC
Next GNSO Council meeting will be on 24 May 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar
Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes:
1. Arising from item 4, the GNSO Secretariat to launch the election process for GNSO Council chair.
2. Arising from item 5, revise the WHOIS working group charter to reflect the Council discussions.
3 Arising from item 5, send a communication to the GAC seeking participation from the members as individuals.
4. Arising from item 6,
a. table the motion "The GNSO Council should request an Issues Report from ICANN staff to further explore the issues involved in introducing a separate dispute resolution procedure (DRP) specifically for addressing disputes involving IGO names and abbreviations. Based on this Issues Report, the GNSO Council may then consider launching a PDP on the topic. "
b. request ICANN staff for feedback on the availability of resources to commence a policy development process (pdp). -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Hello Chuck,
Under agenda item 5, Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work and appoint an interim chair, shortly after Maria's list of six changes, the minutes say, "Reference Council's 3 decision and summarise what they were about in two or three sentences . . ." What does 'reference Council's 3 decision' mean? Does it mean reference the previous three decisions made by the Council regarding the previous Whois WG? (Note that the first URL did not work for me.)
Note it relates to three decisions made by the GNSO Council with respect to the work of the WHOIS task force (e.g the decision regarding the definition of purpose). I had submitted an email to the Council list prior to the meeting that set out these decisions - so this was just short-hand in the minutes. I will ask Glen to check that the links are working properly. The material was incorporated into the statement of work. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I must have been sleeping during the discussion about the Transfer Policy Review Committee. I didn't understand that the committee had completed its work and had final recommendations to submit to the Council. I thought that the committee was going to reconvene and pick up where they left off and then submit recommendations to the Council. Am I incorrect here? One of the issues that created a lot of problems with regard to transfer disputes had to do with registrant transfers happening at the same time or in near proximity to registrar changes; I don't believe that the committee finalized recommendations in that regard.
To clarify - a set of recommendations has been drafted, which requires a final review by the commitee. These will be reviewed and forwarded to council prior to the June meeting in PR. -r
Thanks Ross. That is what I thought. 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: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:08 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 12 April 2007
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I must have been sleeping during the discussion about the Transfer Policy Review Committee. I didn't understand that the committee had completed its work and had final recommendations to submit to the Council. I thought that the committee was going to reconvene and pick up where they left off and then submit recommendations to the Council. Am I incorrect here? One of the issues that created a lot of problems with regard to transfer disputes had to do with registrant transfers happening at the same time or in near proximity to registrar changes; I don't believe that the committee finalized recommendations in that regard.
To clarify - a set of recommendations has been drafted, which requires a final review by the commitee. These will be reviewed and forwarded to council prior to the June meeting in PR.
-r
participants (4)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG -
Gomes, Chuck -
Ross Rader