Page History

...

Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-20jul12-en.htm (not posted yet)

Overview: Substantive issues of interest to At-Large included 2nd level defensive registrations under the new gTLD, Inter-Governmental Organization name protections, Thick Whois for Verisign registries, The Whois Review team Report, Fake renewal notices and the upcoming GNSO review.

Defensive registrations and IGO names: Discussion of opening a comment period on the briefing  paper,  merging this with IGO issue into a single IR. No conclusion was reached, and the discussion will continue,on te list and presumably at the next Council meeting. It is conceivable that despite the lack of decision on the part of the GNSO Council to merge the two issues together, staff might include as one option for the PDP to widen it to include the more general 2nd level protection case.

Thick Whois: The DPD on Thick Whois for Verisign had been put on hold pending the signing of the .com contract renewal. Since the Board approved the renewal in Prague, the GNSO has now taken the PDP off hold and is asking for volunteers to draft the PDP WG Charter.

There is the potential that this charter may, instead of being narrowly focused on the original issue, be widened to look at whether all registries should adopt the thin model, or perhaps some other third option apply to all registries. If we do not want that to happen, we need to get involved in the drafting team.

Whois review team board request: The Board has asked for advice regarding how it should respond to the Whois Review Team Report with replies due by 31 August. Opinions on the GNSO variy, with NCSG taking the most extreme position that the recommendations are policy and that requires GNSO Policy development. Others agree that the issues need to be addressed on a one-by-one basis. Staff said that some of the issues might be addressed through multiple means including policy development or contract negotiations or other means.

The ALAC needs to consider whether it replies to the Board or not  (over and above the ALAC comment on the report).

Fake Renewal Notices: There was some support for a fast-track PDP on the issue. The current state is that Mason Cole (who supported the fast-track PDP concept) will confer with the registrars and see what options they can offer. In particular what can be done regarding the apparently one bad actor involved.

GNSO Review: A review of the GNSO is scheduled to start next year, and has been the subject of several discussions. Some fee, as I do, that this is about the worst time for a review, given that it will be evaluating the GNSO just before the impact of new gTLDs is felt, and that by the time the review results are implemented, the GNSO may be in a very different situation. Others feel that since change is coming, it is the best time for a review because reviews are the opportunity to change.  In my mind, the latter belief puts a bit too much faith in the skills of the reviewers to be able to see into the future.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 r

GNSO Council Meeting - 10 May 2012

...