1. MOTION RE: OUTREACH TASK FORCE CHARTER - deferred from Council meeting 26 October 2011
Made by: Olga Cavalli
Seconded by: Debbie Hughes
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008;
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Report recommendations;
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf
WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups;
WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011;
WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document “Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdfhttp://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf
WHEREAS, at its meeting on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council accepted the document and directed staff to submit the document for 45 days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum;
WHEREAS, at its meeting on 19 May 2011 the GNSO Council determined that as there were no public comments that required changes to the document the work of the OSC with respect to the global outreach program recommendations was complete and directed staff to seek volunteers to form a Outreach Task Force Charter Drafting Team (OTF DT);
WHEREAS, an OTF DT was formed and it drafted a Charter that it presented to the GNSO Council Chair on 08 September 2011;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council Chair sent the Draft Charter to the GNSO Council and asked Councilors to share the document with their respective groups and to provide comments by 10 October 2011;
WHEREAS, on 18 October 2011 the OTF DT provided to the GNSO Council a revised Draft Charterhttp://gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf
based on comments it received;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the Draft Charter [http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf]], thanks the OTF DT for its efforts on this important initiative, and dissolves the OTF DT;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council requests staff to seek volunteers for Chair and Vice Chair of the OTF.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP
Made by: Mary Wong
Seconded by: Joy Liddicoat
WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed;
WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received;
WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore;
WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011;
WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts’ panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable;
WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate;
WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and
WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources;
Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review;
RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and
RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP
Made by: Jeff Neuman
Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
with proposed friendly amendment by David Taylor
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and
Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and
Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and
Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.”
RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
Proposed friendly amendment (by David Taylor): RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be prepared with staff commencing the drafting of this report eighteen (18) months after the publication of at least a 100 UDRP or URS that cover at least 10 new gTLDs. Such report should be delivered to the GNSO Council within four (4) months of that trigger date.
