1. Geographic Regions Motion (carried forward from 25 September)
Motion: Olga Cavelli
Second: Tim Ruiz & Chuck Gomes
Whereas:
- In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting “that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions”
- In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO “provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate”
- In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008
- In the 4 September Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008
- The Council reviewed in its meeting on 16 October 2008
Resolve:
- The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments.
- The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board.
2. Motion on ccNSO Liasion
Motion: Avri Doria
Second: Adrian
Whereas
- The GNSO has decided in the past on its interest in exchanging a liaison with the ccNSO and has communicated this interst to the the chair of the ccNSO, and
- Initial discussions were held in Paris during the joint meeting between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the exchacge of laisions between the GNSO council and the ccNSO council
- The GNSO in earlier discussions had approved the idea in principle of exchanging liaisons, and
- The Chair of the ccNSO sent a formal note "http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/disspain-to-doria-17sep08.pdf" to the GNSO chair indicating that the ccNSO council was intersted in an exchange of observers.
Resolve:
- The Chair of the GNSO send the following to the chair of the ccNSO:
Dear Chris,On behalf of the GNSO council, I thank you for your note on behalf of the ccNSO council regarding the exchange of observers. The GNSO council reiterates its interest in cooperation on issues of mutual interest and in the ongoing exchange of information between the GNSO and the ccNSO.
The GNSO council is in agreement with an exchange of observers on the basis you proposed. Specifically: "Both the GNSO observer to the ccNSO Council and the ccNSO Observer to the GNSO Council shall not be considered a member of or entitled to vote on the Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the Councils."
The GNSO council will select a representative shortly and welcomes the participation of the representative to be selected by the ccNSO council. I will notify you and the ccNSO secretariat once the GNSO council has completed its selection process.
Best Regards,
3.a1 Motion on amending GNSO Improvement Plan - Membership in OSC
Motion: Avri Doria
Second: Chuck Gomes
1. In the section "Members in the PPSC" on page 9 of the GNSO Improvements Plan modify
- Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a “full consensus” process.
to
- Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions will be made using a “full consensus of the members" process.
2. In the section "Members in the OSC" on page 12 of the GNSO Improvements Plan modify
- Unless otherwise determined by the OSC members, committee decisions will be made using a “full consensus” process.
to
- Unless otherwise determined by the OSC members, committee decisions will be made using a “full consensus of the members" process.
3. In the section "Other Participants in the OSC" on page 12, of the GNSO Improvements Plan add:
o 1 representative from any constituencies-in-formation formally involved in the process of applying for inclusion in one of the GNSO Stakeholder groups. The definition of the new constituency process should include the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status.
3b. Motion on GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan
Motion: Chuck Gomes
Second: Avri Doria
Whereas:
- The ICANN Board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN Staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO"
- Such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation
- The ICANN board in resolution 2008.06.26.13 endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group
- The ICANN board in its meeting on 1 October 2008 approved resolutions 6 through 15 relating to the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Working Group and the specific topic of GNSO Council Restructuring,
Resolved:
- The GNSO will develop a plan for GNSO Council restructuring implementation that is separate and distinct from the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan as directed in resolution 2008.10.01.15
- The GNSO Council approves the Framework defined in the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan dated 24 September 2008 as prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team as documented in (insert document location - with errata fixed)
- The GNSO Council requests that constituencies, NomCom appointees, the ALAC and the GAC identify representatives to serve in the two Steering Committees as defined in the Plan by 24 October 2008 if possible, but not later than 31 October
- Kickoff meetings of the Steering Committees be held during the ICANN meetings in Cairo (1-7 November 2008) with teleconference capability for any who may not be able to attend in-person.
10. Motion on Amendment to Council Resolution on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP)
Moved: Chuck Gomes
Seconded: Avri Doria
Whereas:
- On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;
- The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment identifying a possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the Registrar of Record"
- The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the drafting group for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9;
Resolved:
1. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:
A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).
Be amended to read:
A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.
