Motion on gTLD Implementation

Motion 1 (tabled until 8 January meeting)

Made by Chuck Gomes

Seconded by:

Whereas:

  • The intent of the GNSO with regard to Guideline E was to attempt to ensure that all potential applicants, including those that have not been active in recent ICANN activities regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, would be informed of the process and have reasonable time to prepare a proposal if they so desire.
  • The minimum 4-month period for promoting the opening of the application round is commonly referred to as the ‘Communications Period’.
  • Considerable delays have been incurred in the implementation of new gTLDs and the GNSO wishes to minimize any further delays.
  • It appears evident that a second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) will be posted at some time after the end of the two 45-day public comment periods related to the initial version of the Guidebook (in English and other languages).

Resolve:

  • The GNSO Council changes Implementation Guideline E to the following: * Best efforts will be made to ensure that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment at least 14 days before the first international meeting of 2009, to be held in Mexico from March 1 to March 6. * ICANN will initiate the Communications Period at the same time that the second Draft Applicant Guidebook is posted for public comment. * The opening of the initial application round will occur no earlier than four (4) months after the start of the Communications Period and no earlier than 30 days after the posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP). * As applicable, promotions for the opening of the initial application round will include: * Announcement about the public comment period following the posting of the second Draft Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Information about the steps that will follow the comment period including approval and posting of the final Applicant Guidebook (RFP) * Estimates of when the initial application round will begin.

Motion 1 alternate A. (withdrawn)

Made by: Kristina Rosette
Seconded by: Philip Shepphard

Whereas, a motion has been proposed to modify Implementation Guideline E by directing ICANN to initiate the four-month Communications Period simultaneously with the publication of the Second Draft Applicant Guidebook and to open the initial application round not earlier than four months after ICANN starts the Communications Period and not earlier than 30 days after ICANN posts the final Request for Proposal (the "Motion on New gTLD Implementation");

Whereas, the overall effect of the Motion on New gTLD Implementation is to hasten the opening of the initial application round;

Whereas, one public comment period on the first Draft Application Guidebook closed less than 72 hours ago and generated hundreds of pages of submissions by a large number of individual and entities;

Whereas, it appears that many participants in the public comment period expressed opinions regarding the timing of the introduction of new gTLDs;

Whereas, the recent closing of the public comment period and the volume of comments have prevented GNSO Councilors who intend to read all of the submitted public comments from doing so;

Resolved, a vote on the Motion on New gTLD Implementation is deferred until the GNSO Council's next scheduled meeting so that GNSO Councilors who intend to read all of the public comments submitted on or before the December 15 comment period close may have time to do so.

Motion 2 (conditional on Motion 1 Alternate A failing) (withdrawn)

Made by: Kristina Rosette
Seconded by: Philip Shepphard

Whereas, a motion has been proposed to modify Implementation Guideline E by directing ICANN to initiate the four-month Communications Period simultaneously with the publication of the Second Draft Applicant Guidebook and to open the initial application round not earlier than four months after ICANN starts the Communications Period and not earlier than 30 days after ICANN posts the final Request for Proposal (the "Motion on New gTLD Implementation");

Whereas, one public comment period on the first Draft Application Guidebook closed less than 72 hours ago and generated hundreds of pages of submissions by a large number of individual and entities;

Whereas, it appears that many participants in the public comment period expressed opinions regarding the timing of the introduction of new gTLDs;

Whereas, participants in that public comment period are entitled to know if the GNSO Councilors read their comments before voting on the Motion on New gTLD Implementation;

Resolved, before voting on the Motion on New gTLD Implementation, all GNSO Councilors will be polled as to whether they have read all public comment on the first Draft Application Guidebook that was submitted on or before the December 15 comment period close.

Motion 3 (tabled until 8 January meeting)

Made by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded: Adrian Kinderis

Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009,

Resolve1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or
ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before
the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and
2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do
not have an enforceable commitment to do the following as gTLDs must
do:i) follow minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards;
ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.

Motions on RAA (Tabled until meeting of 8 January)

Alternate 1

First Motion

Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:- ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to
amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
- The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally
thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
Resolve:The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to
the Board that they be adopted.
Second motion:

Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:- The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by
the ICANN community be adopted;
- There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be
required;
- The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about
future changes to the RAA;
Resolve:The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by
which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and
amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work
with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional
amendments in the future.

Alternate 2 proposed by Alan Greenberg (withdrawn)

Motion 1

Made by:
Sconded:

Whereas:

  • ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
  • The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
  • It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel.

Resolve:The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy.

Motion 2 (contingent on passge of motion 1)

Whereas:

  • The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy;
  • There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are required;

Resolve:The GNSO Council will create a Drafting Team to create a charter for a WG (modified by Avri for process reasons) to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal of how the GNSO Council can proceed.

Motions on Registration Abuse Policy

First Motion

Made By: Avri Doria
Seconded: Mike Rodenbaugh

Whereas:

The GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated,

Resolved:

That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically:9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings
A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings,
taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse
provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice
and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse.
9.2 Identify specific policy issues
Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant.
9.3 Need for further research
As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed – e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required?
The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009 at which time the councl will take the by-laws required PDP vote.

Second Motion (tabled until 29 January 2009 meeting)

Made By: Avri Doria
Seconded:

Whereas:An Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies has been produced and the by-laws (X.6.3b) require a vote on the formation of a Policy Development Process,
Resolved:That a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy be initiated.
Contingent Motion A

Made By:
Seconded:

Whereas:The motion to initiate a PDP at this time failed and a Working group has been formed to further investigate the issue presented in the Issues report
Resolved:The GNSO Council will reconsider initiating a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy once the Working has produced its report and it has been subject to constituency and public review.
Contingent Motion B

Made By:
Seconded:

Whereas:The motion to initiate a PDP passed and a Working group has been formed to further investigate the
issue presented in the Issues report
ResolvedThat the GNSO Council vote on the appointment of a Task Force as required by the bylaws (X.6.4) at its next councl meeting on 8 January 2009.

Motions on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

Alternate 1 - approved

Made by: Avri Doria

Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Motion - GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report

Whereas:On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf
On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08)
Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report,
Resolve:The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until 29 Jan 2009 to allow for the needed clarification to be obtained about Issues Report items defined below;
ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification no later then 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report:*  

    • In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding “how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP”, the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, “On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, ‘IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements’.” * Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? * What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C?
    • In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends “. . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . .” * How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?
    • Section 3.7.5 of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, “At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier).” * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn’t registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not?
    • Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, “In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement.” * Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn’t registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not?

Alternate 2 - Contingent (not necessary)

Made by: Avri Doria
Seconded:

Whereas:An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council.
Resolve:The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January.
Gomes Alternative Motion - GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report

12 Dec 08 (Amended 14 Dec 08) (withdrawan)

Motion by: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf
On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08)
Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report,
Resolve:The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below but not later than the Council meeting on 29 January 2009:ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification NLT 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report:*  

    •  
      • In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding “how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP”, the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, “On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, ‘IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements’.” * Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? * What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C?
      • In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends “. . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . .” * How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? * What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation?
      • Section 3.7.5 of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, “At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier).” * Is this requirement being enforced?If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn’t registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal?If not, why not?
      • Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, “In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement.” * Is this requirement being enforced?If not, why not? * Under this policy, wouldn’t registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement?If not, why not?

__

Motion on Travel Policy

Proposed Philip Sheppard
Seconded Stephane Van Gelder

Whereas:

Council welcomes the fact that ICANN have allocated some funds for GNSO travel.

1. Council regrets that the current proposal imposes administrative difficulty and may thus
reduce the total budget available.

2. Council calls upon ICANN staff to nominate by 15 January 2009 a fixed sum for fiscal year
2009 that will be granted to each of the constituencies currently recognised under the
ICANN by-laws of 29 May 2008. Such sum should exclude any budget to cover the costs of nom
com delegates or GNSO chair travel.

3. Council requests Constituencies to publish the names of all those who receive travel
support together with a list of the relevant meeting(s) for which the support was given and
which were attended by the support recipient.

  • No labels
For comments, suggestions, or technical support concerning this space, please email: ICANN Policy Department
© 2015 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers