Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC):
Made by: John Berard
Seconded by: Carlos Aguirre
Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system (DNS), such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;
Whereas, the GNSO Council approved the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) for a Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition Working Group (CCI WG) to produce an Advice Letter for consideration by Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to assist them in responding to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system;
Whereas, the CCI WG created a draft Advice Letter and posted it for Public Comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb12-en.htm);
Whereas, the CCI WG reviewed all Public Comments and feedback from public sessions and produced a Final Advice Letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-17aug12-en.pdf).for consideration by the SOs and ACs.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council endorses the recommendations for establishing the definition, measures and three year targets for those measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system as described in the Final Advice Letter.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council approves the delivery of the Final Advice Letter to the ICANN Board.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the CCI WG members for their diligence and persistent efforts on this important topic and disbands the Working Group.
2. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
Made by: Zahid Jamil
Seconded by:
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) recommended in its Final Report 'the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse';
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse on 6 October 2011;
Whereas ICANN Staff posted the Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts on 25 July 2012 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/uoc-prelim-issue-report-25jul12-en.htm);
Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly;
Whereas the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts was published on 20 September 2012;
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.
THEREFORE BE IT:
Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts (link)
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."
3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting
Made by: John Berard
Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the ‘need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports’;
Whereas the RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that ‘the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes’;
Whereas the GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage;
Whereas the ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and Mikey O’Connor volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented;
Whereas Mikey O’Connor submitted his proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html);
Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012.
RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in:
- The RAPWG Final Report, section 9.1 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf)
- The ICANN Compliance Department Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf)
- Thought paper from Mikey O’Connor (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html)
In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.
4. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.
Made by: Jeff Neuman
Seconded by: Mary Wong
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.
Whereas ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs in a public comment forum that opened on 4 June, 2012, and closed on 26 July 2012;
Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly;
Whereas the Final Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS was published on 1 October 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-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.
THEREFORE BE IT:
Resolved, the GNSO hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate (ii) whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for the names of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and (ii) if so, to develop policy recommendations for such protections.
Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.
5. Motion to approve the Charter for the ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group
Made by: Jeff Neuman
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201203);
Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;
Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.
RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group.
The GNSO Council further directs that the work of ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
Charter – http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf
6. Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations
Made by: Stéphane van Gelder
Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Amended by: Mary Wong (in bold)
WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter questions:
- "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
- Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
- Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.
WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012;
WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.
Resolved
RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed in the IRTP Part C Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf
RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy. If the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part C Working Group.
RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG, namely:
- Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
- Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
- Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
- Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
- Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.
7. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report
Made by: Ching Chiao
Seconded by:Rafik Dammak
GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report
WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).
WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data.
WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report in the public forum for comment.
WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration.
WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.
WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a motion to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board.
WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to the ICANN Board to deliver the Final Report.
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter, the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and registry. ,
RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and 3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards.
