The latest GNSO meeting was held on Thursday, May 7, 2009. The full agenda can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-07may09.shtml and the MP3 recording is at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090507.mp3. The minutes are not yet available but should be posted to http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-07may09.shtml.
There were a number of issues discussed of particular interest to the ALAC and At-Large.
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
After being delayed for two meetings, the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) was discussed. The motion to initiate a PDP was originally phrased to allow a variety of outcomes including the possibility of recomendations to ICANN's compliance unit and suggestions for needed changes to the RAA. Although I led the drafting team, I do not have the rights to make motions in the GNSO, and the motion was made by Avri Doria. Unfortunately, it was amended to restrict the outcomes to formal consensus policy and best practices.
It is possible (but perhaps not likely) that this scope could be enlarged at a later date. The final motion passed unanimously.
There is now a drafting team which will draft the charter of the PDP WG, and following that a WG will be formed. It is extremely important that At-Large people participate in the process. If not, the group may be dominated by Registrars.
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Position Paper on Geographic Names
There was a discussion regarding the GAC position on Geographic names. A decision was made to send a letter to the GAC on this matter, and it can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06826.html.
Whois Service Policy Tools
Following a discussion over several meeting, the following resolution was passed with a large majority:
The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past.
The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared for these consultations. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this would be possible.
Note that input from the ALAC is solicited.
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) Status Update
Kristina Rosette of the Intellectual Property Constituency presented an update on the IRT. She explicitly noted that: "the Intellectual Property leadership is aware of the concerns expressed about the perceived lack of participation on the IRT by consumer protection expertise and explained that no timely expression of interest was received from anyone one in that field. In the only one expression of interest received, the person was not able to make the time commitment of 15 business days and so was not invited."
At least partly due to the IRT process, there will not be another version of the New gTLD Applicant Guide Book prior to Sydney. A new version is expected around September 2009 with a public comment period that will end after the Seoul meeting and after that, a final version of the Applicant Guide Book will be published before the end of the year.
