The last GNSO meeting was held on Thursday, Oct. 16. I was flying at the time and could not attend, but have since reviewed the minutes and listened to the MP3. The full agenda can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-16oct08.shtml, the minutes at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml and the MP3 recording at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20081016.mp3.
The following issues may be of interest to the ALAC and At-Large.
ICANN Geographic Regions
Following supportive comments from all GNSO constituencies,the GNSO has formally approved the comments created by the WG - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-geographic-regions-26aug08.pdf.
GNSO/ccNSO Liaisons
The two GNSO and ccNSO have formally agreed to exchangeLiaisons. These are not Bylaw-mandated Liaison, but each will have the same status as those mandated by Bylaws (non-voting, but otherwise fullparticipation). Current policy seems to be that the sending organization is responsible for travel funding, if any. The motion passed unanimously. It was stated that any Liaison ahd to be fully up to speed on the GNSO while at the same time experienced in ccNSO affairs.The Liaison need not be a GNSO Council member (although not being a member could have some impact on travel funding). It was agreed that a secret vote would be used if there were more than one candidate.
GNSO Restructuring
Denise Michel referred to an email sent to the Council list on 15 October 2008 outlining the follow-up action items from the ICANN Board's draft GNSO Restructuring Resolution. The ALAC has also been consulted on these items.
There was some discussion of the relationship between Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. Currently three out of the four SG have only one Constituency. But that could change in all cases. It was made clear that it was the SG that needed to recommend to the Board how Council seats would be allocated among Constituencies.
It was also noted that the Board was soliciting input oh the involvement of Users in the GNSO.
The end point is that the new GNSO structure be in place in June 2009.
There was considerable discussion on the mechanisms for managing the new council including its Steering Committees. Whether Constituencies “in formation” should participate in the Steering Committees was discussed but did not pass (it was a tie).
The motion to approve the two Standing Committees (Operations and Policy/Process) passed unanimously. See Plans. The ALAC has been requested to identify members of the two steering committees by Oct. 24 if possible but not later than Oct. 31. Meetings of the SC will be held in Cairo.
Fast Flux PDP Working Group
As noted last month, the chair of the WG resigned and would temporarily be replaced by the GNSO chair, in order to complete the WG documents so as to obtain a snapshot of the work to date. The issue would then go back to Council regarding what happens next. A non-involved Policy staff member will follow up with the former chair and WG members to see what lessons could be learned as guidance to future WGs.
New gTLDs
Publications will shortly be posted (and since have been – in great volume).
Travel Funding
A fund originally contributed by DNSO Council members is still being held in trust by ICANN. The GNSO is using about $4000 to all two Council members, who are part of the new Nominating Committee (and thus partially funded for the Cairo meeting) to attend the entire ICANN meeting. The fund started at close to
$20,000.
Cairo Meeting
There was an extensive review and discussion of the agenda for the Cairo meeting.
WHOIS
Liz Gasster made a brief presentation on the SSAC efforts to look at alternatives to the current WHOIS implementation. She referred to three SSAC documents on WHOIS relating to the recommendations that the Council and the community consider migration to a registry or active directory service to replace the current structure of WHOIS. The three documents referred to are the SSAC report in February, SSAC 27., the SSAC report 20 June, SSAC 33. and an email communication from Steve Crocker sent to the Council on 19 May 2008
While more policy work is needed, a secure and reliable WHOIS can only be achieved through a combination of policy development and implementation of a standard, uniform directory service that provides authentication, confidentiality, accuracy and integrity services, and the reports cite the development of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol by the CRISP Working Group.
For the full discussion see the full Council meeting minutes.
