Page History

Alan Greenberg is the GNSO Liaison for 2011-2012.

GNSO Council Meeting - 10 May 2012

Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-10may12-en.htm

Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012

MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120510-en.mp3

Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-council-10may12-en.pdf (not posted yet)

Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.pdf (not yet posted)

Overview: Substantive issues of interest to At-Large included Best Practices for addressing abusive registrations; update on the new PDP process; International Olympic Commttee/Red Cross Names Drafting Team; ongoing JAS efforts; cancellation of Friday Board meetings; ICANN Acadamy and Rework of URS. On an agenda which rarely has substantive Any Other Business, the last three items mentioned here were all AOB. Several items on the agenda were deferred until the next meeting - an increasingly common occurrence.

Best Practices for addressing abusive registrations: Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names. The motion on the table would set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups. As you can tell from the history, this issue has been discussed for some time now, with Best Practices being the current incarnation.

There was a request to defer this motion to the next GNSO Councel meeting, but there was a reasonable discussion prior to the deferal. The Registries SG felt that the motion was premature given the large number of other efforts that are underway that are somewhat related to this one. It was also pointed out that once the new gTLD applications are made public, Question 28 asks applicants about their proposed abuse prevention & mitigation - so waiting until this information was available migth be wise. All parties agrees that the month delay would give an opportuunity for the various factions to talk and perhaps come to a suitable agreement.

Update on the new PDP process: This was a presentation scheduled for Costa Rica and deferred twice due to lack of time. The PDP process is a complex one, and one that some people find a hard time understanding. This presentation is EXCELLANT and serves to make the multi-step PDP process much easier to understand (it was created by graphics designer Tom Hodgson in case we need some spiffy graphics in the future).

A discussion followed largely focused on how long a PDP must take and whether their are any options for fast-tracking a PDP. The current answer is that a PDP can take no less than about 9 months, and now probably closer to 11 months since the Public Comment period minimum duration has been increased. I repeated the position that the ALAC has taken that the Council should develop a faster method for cases where there is little disagreement between the various stakeholders.

International Olympic Commttee/Red Cross Names Drafting Team: The issue of whether the current IOC/RC Drafting Group should continue its work or not was up for discussion. The focal point was whether the current drafting team should continue its work (now working on what if any special protections the IOC/RC should have at the 2nd level for the first round of new gTLDs. Some Councillors felt that the PDP that is being discussed on the more general protection of inter-governmental organizations should take the place of the current DT. Others felt the DT should continue its work, since the PDP will not likely result in any outcome soon enough for the first round (see previous item). Among those who felt the work needed to continue, there was some beleif that the DT itself was not the correct body to do the work. A letter is being drafted but at the time of this writing (late 10 May), it is not quite clear what that letter will say, and if the DT will continue or not.

Ongoing JAS efforts: The issue was a concern of some Councillors that the JAS WG, by meeting with staff and making recomendations on how the implementation should proceed, and in fact by volunteering some members of the WG to actively participate in the selection process, the JAS WG had overstepped its mandate. I put forward my personal position (since this has not been actively discussed by the ALAC or ExCom) that the JAS group was working properly under its current extended mandate to interact with staff during the implementation, and that the only possible problem was that it should also pass its recomendations back through its chartering bodies. No decision was taken and the discussion will no doubt continjue online and at the next GNSO Council meeting.

Cancellation of Friday Board meetings: There was a lively discussion on the issue of the cancellation. Some felt that the shortented week was great. Others thought that if the Board meeting was cancelled, the time should productively be used for other things. There wasa great concern over the apparent lack of transparency regarding how the Board makes its decision and concern that without even the token open Board meeting, the ability of the community to judge its Board members (and particularly to judge those who are eligible for reappointment) was compromised.

ICANN Acadamy: There was minimal time left for this discussion, but there was a general feeling that this was a good thing (after it was explained - again). Ther was still concern about under whose auspices this is being done, who will fund it, and so forth. A letter is being drafted to be sent by Stéphane that will no doubt identify these concerns.

Rework of URS: The issue is that a rework of the URS to lower its cost to participants was "announced" within the budget document. SInce the URS had been created by a GNSO group (with At-Large participation), it was strongly felt that the GNSO should have been explicitly informed ahead of time. The budget document said that "summits" would be held to discuss the issue. A note from Kurt Pritz before the meeting (he could not attend) said that despite the words in the budget document, the revision process would be a bottom-up one and the GNSO would pay a major role in it. A letter will be sent to Steve Crocker making it clear that t he GNSO beleives that this should be a GNSO-led operation.

GNSO Council Meeting - 12 April 2012

Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm

...