GNSO Council Motions
1. WHOIS Motion
Made by: John Berard
Seconded by: Debbie Hughes (With Friendly Amendment proposed by the RySG marked in red)
Whereas:
In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining study details, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, ifany, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to providecost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).
The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. TheWhois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates.
On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois “Misuse” and Whois “Registrant Identification” Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 and take approximately one year to complete. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacyservices.
The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8).
On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois “Misuse” Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009.
On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy “Abuse” study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy orprivacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts withoverall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 and take less than a year to complete.
On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy “Relay and Reveal” study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study “survey” be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdfhttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).
Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 28 April 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 20 April 2011.
Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-recommendations-rysg-29mar11-en.pdf
and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy “Abuse” study, as described in staff’s 5-October-2010 report as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf.
Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy “Relay and Reveal” pre-study survey, as proposed in staff’s 11-February-2011 report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf.
Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 forWhois studies, to make up any shortfall of $130,000 between the amount of “at least $400,000” that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000) if subsequently approved; the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000); the Proxy/Privacy “Abuse” Study ($150,000); and the Proxy and Privacy “Pre-study” ($80,000), total of $530,000.
Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible.
2. Motion to Approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
Deferred from GNSO Council meeting 16 March 2011
Made by:: Kristina Rosette
Seconded by: Zahid Jamil
Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN;
Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable;
Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;
Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass;
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the
Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails:
1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution.
2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.
3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).
4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group.
5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012.
6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments.
7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA.
8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.
3. Motion to adopt the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Made by: Wolf-Ulrich KnobenSeconded by: Mary Wong and Jonathan Robinson
Whereas the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 8 December 2010 to establish a drafting team to draft a charter for a Standing Committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC and work team recommendations already approved by the Council and adopted, as recommended by the Communications and Coordination Work Team in its final report of 9 April 2010;
Whereas a Drafting Team has formed and its members have developed a Charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;
RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter for the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation as proposed (see hereunder);
The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to send a request for volunteers to those entities identified in the Charter as eligible for member and observer status of the Standing Committee;
The GNSO Council appoints Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as the interim Chair of the Standing Committee, who will serve as the interim Chair until the Standing Committee has selected its own Chair.
Charter - Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI)
General
The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council:
. On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
. On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)
The immediate goal of the OSC and PPSC is to develop:
Recommendations to implement operational changes, and recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements contained in the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group On GNSO Improvements" which are to be implemented with approval and under the guidance of the Council.
It should be acknowledged that OSC and PPSC still have tasks to finish, possibly on different timescales. Expiry of their charters has therefore to be taken carefully into consideration by the GNSO Council. Nevertheless, since several OSC and PPSC recommendations have already been adopted and implemented and the practicability of some of them has raised concerns, it is advisable to kick off the SCI work immediately. Following the implementation of further OSC/PPSC recommendations the SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of these new recommendations. This in consequence might mean that the OSC/PPSC and SCI will be coexistence for a certain period of time.
Working method
It is recommended that the SCI follows the "GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf
(Approved by the GNSO Council on 16 March 2011)", as deemed appropriate
The SCI is expected to carry out the activities identified in this Charter. In carrying out these activities, the SCI may opt to use sub-teams or work teams to carry out part of the tasks for which it may attract volunteers that are not members or observers of the SCI. However, the SCI remains responsible for reviewing and approving any recommendations, which are to be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information.
For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. In order to have comprehensive information on the issue available this group is requested to provide the following information, if applicable:
1. Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.) 2. To which rules or processes implemented by the OSC or PPSC do you refer?
3. Please outline the problems
4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems?
5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer?
One member of the group which submitted the request should - if not already represented on the SCI - be nominated as an observer to the SCI until the review of the issue in question has been completed.
At its kick-off meeting the SCI should nominate a Chair and a Vice Chair from its membership. The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise for example as a result of exercising another function or role within ICANN.
Members of the Standing Committee (Primary and Alternate members)
. 1 representative from each constituency/SG
. 1 NomCom appointee
Members of the Standing Committee may designate an alternate who can participate in the SCI deliberations in case of absence of the primary member. Only one of the two, primary or alternate, may take part in a consensus call.
Observers of the Standing Committee
. 1 representative from each constituency in formation
. Liaison or an appointed representative from other ICANN Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees (as determined by the SCI as appropriate)
. 1 observer representing the group that has submitted a request for review during the time that the request for review is being dealt with (provided that the group is not yet represented on the SCI)
Staff Support
The ICANN Staff assigned to the SCI will fully support the work of the committee as directed by the Chair including meeting support, document drafting, editing and distribution and other substantive contributions when deemed appropriate.
Staff assignments to the SCI:
. GNSO secretariat
. 1 ICANN policy staff member
Decision making
Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by using a "full consensus" process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6).
Reporting
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning:
. The issues dealt with and related status
. Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council
. An activity timeline
4. Proposed motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs
Made by: Ching ChiaoSeconded by: Rafik Dammak and Adrian Kinderis
WHEREAS,
The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907);
The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;
The JIG has issued an Initial Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm), and thereupon a Draft Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm), and have incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs;
The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New Top-Level Domains (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and,
The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of Single Character IDN gTLDs.
RESOLVED,
The GNSO council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on "IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs".
5. MOTION RE: Revision of Section 5.0 Statements of Interest of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Made by: Stéphane Van GelderSeconded by:Adrian Kinderis
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htmidentified]identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008; |
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations; http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in Section 5 Statements of Interest in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the OSC with completing a revision to improve Section 5;
WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 04 February 2011 a proposed revision of Section 5 that removes the requirement for Disclosures of Interest, and provides clearer guidance on the contents of Statements of Interest and on updating them in a timely manner;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the proposed revision of Section 5.0 at its 24 February 2011 meeting and initiated a 30-day public comment period on the document;
WHEREAS, there were no comments on the proposed revision of Section 5.0 in the public forum and the final version is submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the revision of Section 5.0 as proposed by the OSC and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revised Section 5.0 into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the procedures in the revised Section 5.0.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful Recommendations.