Page History

...

WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf^{Image Removed} and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011;

WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11aug11-en.pdf^{Image Removed} indicating that no comments were received;

...

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf^{Image Removed} to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver’s appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience.

...

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf^{Image Removed});

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report;

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf^{Image Removed});

Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;

Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102^{Image Removed});

Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html^{Image Removed}). In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco.

Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf^{Image Removed}).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html^{Image Removed}).

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed.  

...

6. Motion for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT

Made by: Rafik Dammak

Seconded by: Olga Cavalli

Whereas:

The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

...

The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has  published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#^{Image Removed}) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1^{Image Removed}) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. and

...

Whereas,  on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#^{Image Removed}) requesting advice from the GNSO, CCNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;

...

Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a joint working group with any of these SO/ACs interested in participating in this joint effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf^{Image Removed} presented to the GNSO Council.

...

Resolved further, that the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf^{Image Removed} is hereby approved for the CCI WG.   As specified in the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf^{Image Removed}, a Working Group Update Report is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011.  

Resolved further, that in the event that no other SO/AC approves of the terms of this Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf^{Image Removed}, the CCI WG shall continue to proceed as a GNSO Council chartered joint Working Group.

...