1. Motion proposing an Issues Report on aspects of Registry-Regisrar Agreements
Motion: Mike Rodenbaugh
Second: Greg Ruth
Whereas:
1. ICANN's mission is to ensure the security and stability of the DNS, and to develop policy reasonably related to that mission.
2. Various forms of DNS abuse, in isolation and/or in the aggregate, cause a less secure and stable DNS.
3. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements and appended registry-registrar agreements contain a provision such as Section 3.6.5 of the.info Registry Agreement, Appendix 8 : 3.6.5. (Registrars) acknowledge and agree that Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by Afilias or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute.
4. Afilias, the dotInfo Registry Operator, per its recent RSEP request, has sought to clarify and implement its specific abusive registration policy with respect to this provision. This request has been approved by ICANN.
5. Some of ICANN's gTLD registry agreements, notably the Verisign contracts for .com and .net, have no such provision. Other gTLD registry agreements do contain such provision, but the registry operators have not developed or have inconsistently developed abusive registration policies.
The GNSO Council resolves to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff with respect to the following:
1. To identify and describe the various provisions in existing and previous gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements which relate to contracting parties' ability to take action in response to abuse.
2. To identify and describe various provisions in a representative sampling of gTLD registration agreements which relate to contracting parties' and/or registrants rights and obligations with respect to abuse.
3. To identify and describe any previous discussion in ICANN fora which substantively pertains to provisions of this nature in any of these agreements.
4. To identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration, relating to consistency and propriety of provisions of this nature in all of these agreements.
2. Geographic Regions Motion
Whereas:
- In its meeting on 2 November 2007 the ICANN Board approved resolution 07.92 requesting “that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions”
- In an email to the GNSO Council dated 15 July 2008 Denise Michel requested the GNSO “provide input, if any, on the suggested formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate”
- In its meeting on 17 July 2008 the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team in response to the ICANN Board request on ICANN Geographic Regions The drafting team submitted its recommendations for GNSO comments to the GNSO Council on 26 July 2008
- In the 4 September Council meeting Council representatives were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable and be prepared to finalize the GNSO comments in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008
- The Council reviewed and modified the proposed GNSO comments in its meeting on 25 September 2008
Resolve:
- The GNSO Council approves the proposed GNSO comments as amended.
- The Council Chair is asked to submit the GNSO comments to the Board.
