Page History
MOTION TO APPROVE CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES
deferred from the Council meeting on 19 January 2012
...
1. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois
...
Made by: Stéphane van Gelder
...
Jonathan RobinsonSeconded by: Jeff Neuman Yoav Keren
Whereas , the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;
Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups;
Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf+.+
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups;
Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.
the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);
Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment
(see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);
Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);
Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois
(see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf)
Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval.
Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.
2. Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8
Made by: Yoav Keren
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;
WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;
WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ‘ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation’;
WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);
WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html );
WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html );
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf).
............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Item 5:JIG Letter to the Board
1. Proposed Joint letter from the ccNSO and GNSO to the Board (Draft ccNSO to Board Single Character IDN TLD),Draft Joint letter
To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors
Cc: Rod Beckstrom
Dear Steve
Wiki Markup
Following their discussion, both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils reiterate their support for the introduction of Single Character IDN TLD’s. However, the Councils also requestand further request further clarification from the Board on three matters.
Firstly, one of the issues raised by the JIG was the ambiguity on the timing of the delegation of Single Character IDN TLDs. According to the August 2011 resolution, the Board: ‘ Directs ‘Directs staff to publish a timetable for this work, clearly indicating that processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.’ The ’ The ccNSO Council would appreciate clarification on the meaning of the word “and” in the final part of the sentence, in particular whether it should be interpreted as a condition i.e. that both the IDN ccTLD policy development process and new gTLD processes need to have been concluded to allow the introduction of singe character IDN TLDs.
Secondly, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils note that the Board envisioned further consultations with the SSAC, GAC and ALAC, following the submission of ccNSO and GNSO recommendations. It is our understanding that the SSAC has already been consulted . However, the issues on which they are being asked to advise are unclear, nor when the SSAC advice will be made availableand its advice published on 31 January 2012 (2). With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines. We would also appreciate an indication of the steps, when the aforementioned consultations have been completed.
Finally, it is our understanding that concerns have been raised regarding the kind of script that will be used for the Single Character IDN TLDs. In particular, whether a pictographic or alphabetic script makes a difference, and these concerns are an additional factor. We would appreciate if the Board could indicate whether or not this understanding is correct.
Looking forward to your response,
Kind regards,
Lesley Cowley OBE Stephane van Gelder,
Chair of the ccNSO Chair of the GNSO
(1). http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5
(2). http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac052.pdf
2. Adopted ccNSO Letter to the Board Single Character IDN TLD),ccNSO Letter
To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors
Cc: Rod Beckstrom
Dear Steve
Wiki Markup
Following its discussion, the ccNSO Council reiterates its support for the introduction of Single Character IDN TLD’s. However, the ccNSO Council also requests further clarification from the Board on three matters.
Firstly, one of the issues raised by the JIG was the ambiguity on the timing of the delegation of Single Character IDN TLDs. According to the August 2011 resolution, the Board: ‘ Directs ‘Directs staff to publish a timetable for this work, clearly indicating that processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.’ The ’ The ccNSO Council would appreciate clarification on the meaning of the word “and” in the final part of the sentence, in particular whether it should be interpreted as a condition i.e. that both the IDN ccTLD policy development process and new gTLD processes need to have been concluded to allow the introduction of singe character IDN TLDs.
Secondly, the ccNSO Council notes that the Board envisioned further consultations with the SSAC, GAC and ALAC, following the submission of ccNSO and GNSO recommendations. It is our understanding that the SSAC has already been consulted . However, the issues on which they are being asked to advise are unclear, nor when the SSAC advice will be made availableand its advice published on 31 January 2012(2) . With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines. We would also appreciate an indication of the steps, when the aforementioned consultations have been completed.
Finally, it is our understanding that concerns have been raised regarding the kind of script that will be used for the Single Character IDN TLDs. In particular, whether a pictographic or alphabetic script makes a difference, and these concerns are an additional factor. We would appreciate if the Board could indicate whether or not this understanding is correct.
Looking forward to your response,
Kind regards,
Lesley Cowley OBE
Chair of the ccNSO
Wiki Markup
(2) http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5\\]
Lesley Cowley OBE Stephane van Gelder,
committees/security/sac052.pdf
...
[1Chair of the ccNSO Chair of the GNSO Wiki Markup
3 Joint ccNSO/GNSO letter approved by the GNSO Council - 15 DECEMBER 2011
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112
...
First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single Character IDN TLDs. In response to the August 2011 resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5
) however, we express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects:
...
The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm), the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), and of course the JIG report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf). Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs. The August 2011 Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable rationale.
...
We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.
Sincerely,
Wiki Markup
GNSO Council (approval: \ [LINK\])
JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group
The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.