Page History

Alan Greenberg is the GNSO Liaison for 2011-2013.

GNSO Council Meeting - 17 January 2013 ** WORK IN PROGRESS - Check back later **

Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14feb13-en.htm

Motions: None

MP3: Not yet available

Transcript: Not yet available

Minutes: Not yet available

Overview: Substantive issues of interest to At-Large included 

  Items requiring ALAC/At-Large action are in red.

X

INFORMATION & DISCUSSION – Recent meetings in Amsterdam & LA:

Meetings have recently taken place in Amsterdam & LA.  This item provides an opportunity for an update on any key themes or issues arising.

4.1 Update from VCs (Mason Cole & Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)

4.2 Discussion

4.3 Next steps (if any)

UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal and Defensive Registrations:

ICANN’s CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the Strawman Proposal  developed through the TMCH related implementation discussions, which has been posted for public comment. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm.  ICANN’s CEO additionally requested Council input on the joint proposal from the Business Constituency/Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a “limited preventative registration mechanism” which is also currently available for public comment.  A subsequent note (19 December 2012) from ICANN’s CEO clarified the desired deadline for input to be no later than 22 February 2013.

Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287) to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level, in response to a previous request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2).  The New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. 

The Council is to continue to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN CEOs request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any additional work related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff briefing paper, on the topic of second level defensive registrations.

5.1 Update (Mason Cole)

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Next Steps

UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Board requested advice on second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms:

At its 26 November 2012 meeting, the Board requested  that the GNSO continue its work on policy recommendations on top and second-level protections for certain IGO and INGO names on an expedited basis.

In addition, the Board requested that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than 28 February 2013 if it is aware of any concern such as with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program. The specific IGO names to be protected shall be those names or acronyms that: 1) qualify under the current existing criteria to register a domain name in the .int gTLD; and 2) have a registered .int domain OR a determination of eligibility under the .int criteria; and 3) apply to ICANN to be listed on the reserved names list for the second level prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs by no later than 28 February 2013.

6.1 Update (Thomas Rickert)

6.2 Discussion

6.3 Next steps (if any)

INFORMATION & DISCUSSION – The issue of "closed generic" TLDs:

The New gTLD Program Committee recently directed the ICANN CEO to request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs,  concurrent with the opening of the public comment forum and if the GNSO wishes, to provide such guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of the public comment forum. (7 March)

7.1 Background (Staff)

7.2 Discussion

7.3 Next steps (if any)

UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Policy vs. Implementation:

The recent letter from the GAC as well as activities relating to work on the Trademark Clearinghouse, highlights a broader issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work as well as the effective integration of policy development and integration work from the outset.

Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there is an interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same time, ICANN Staff has published a paper  that is intended to facilitate further community discussions on this topic.

8.1 Discussion

8.2 Next steps

UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study:

At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. The Council should consider whether to go ahead with the study.

9.1 – Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman)

9.2 – Discussion

9.3 – Next steps

INFORMATION & DISCUSSION – Planning for Beijing:

Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Beijing will take some planning.  Council VC Mason Cole is working with staff to lead this effort. The Council has the opportunity to discuss any initial plans and provide feedback

10.1 – Update (Mason Cole)

10.2 – Discussion

10.3 – Next steps

Any Other Business:

GNSO Council Meeting - 21 January 2013

Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17jan13-en.htm

...

MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20130121-en.mp3

Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-21jan13-en.pdf

Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-21jan13-en.htm Not yet availableMinutes: Not yet available

This was a one-topic meeting to formally endorse the GNSO STRT-2 candidates. The rules call for each SG to endorse one candidate and up to two additional candidates endorces by the GNSO as a whole. The candidates are supposed to have no more than half of the nominees from one region and not all of the nominees should be of the same gender. To endorse the additional candidates requires the support of 60% of both houses.

...