Alan Greenberg is the GNSO Liaison for 2011-2012.
GNSO Council Meeting - 12 April 2012
Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm
Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+12+April+2012
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3
Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-council-12apr12-en.pdf
Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-12apr12-en.pdf (not yet posted)
Overview: Substantive issues on interest to At-Large included the Thick Whois PDP, a request for an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of International Governmental Organizations, the .com contract renewal, a report from ICANN Compliance, and an update on the RAA Final Issue Report and the status of RAA Negotiations.
Thick Whois PDP: At its March 14th meeting, the GNSO Council voted to initiate a PDP on the issue of requiring all registries to implement a Thick Whois (currently all registries and planned registries do use thick Whois with the exception of those operated by Verisign). The intent of the motion was to defer any further work (ie taking a drafting team with developing a PDP charter) until after the .com contract is revised. The rationales included the possibility that Thick Whois might be included in the contact, Council and Staff workload, and the concept that there should not be a PDP to address an issue with one registry operator. On the last item, I pointed out that the Domain Tasting PDP was essentially that, and the Registries had no problem at that time. Staff indicated that resources were available at this time to undertake the PDP. Of particular interest was the comment that although the Registry SG was in favour of the deferral, Verisign was not and would prefer to have the PDP start immediately. After significant revision, the motion defers any further work on the PDP until the first Council meeting after Nov. 30th. The .com contract negotiation was no longer referenced in the motion, although it was implied by the deferral date. The motion passed unanimously. Conceivably, the Council could defer again in December, but I do not think that is too likely (but certainly possible, all the more so if staff resources are tight at that time).
Request for an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of International Governmental Organizations: There were two competing motions on this issue, one from A NomCom appointee and once from the NCSG. Ultimately they were came to an agreement and a single motion was voted on requesting an Issue Report on:
- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and
- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level.
I had two comments on this. First, I felt that the word "definition" was too prescriptive, since one of the likely outcomes would be to put that responsibility on the GAC. My other concern was that starting this initiative in parallel with the current one to look at Red Cross/IOC protections at the second level for the first round would be duplicating work, and putting an unreasonable load on the people, many of which would be involved in both groups. There was agreement with changing the word Definition by the motion presenter, but intimately it fell through the cracks (the problem with a Liaison not having the right to move such a change. The motion passed.
Report from ICANN Compliance: This was a report from Maguy Serad on existing systems, improvements and changes made since the reporting group report, improvements and changes foreseen in the near future and gaps. The report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf. The presentation can be heard on the MP3, starting at 1 hour and 12 minutes and running for about 14 minutes.
.com Contract Renewal: This was a short discussion raised by Jeff Neuman who felt that the inclusion of the reference to the Thick Whois PDP in the preamble to the .com agreement Public Comment was taken out of context. I tended to agree with him, but there was no general wish in the GNSO Council to make a comment on it.
Update on the RAA Final Issue Report and the status of RAA Negotiations: This was a presentation scheduled for Costa Rica but the Council had run out of time. It starts at 1 hour and 42 minutes into the MP3 and goes for about 16 minutes (somewhat garbled at the end). The report documents are RAA Drafting Team Negotiation Summary-GNSO Final.pdf and [raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en[1].pdf,|^raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en1.pdf]
GNSO Council Meeting - 19 January 2012
Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm
Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012RAA Drafting Team Negotiation Summary-GNSO Final.pdf
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120119-en.mp3
Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-council-19jan12-en.pdf
Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-19jan12-en.pdf
Overview: Once again, a very heavy agenda, and although some items significantly exceeding their alloted time, the meeting overall completed a few minutes early. Substantive issues on interest to At-Large included the Whois Review Team Report, two UDRP motions, Cross Constituency Working Groups, a discussion of outreach and time allocation in Costa Rica. Note that Transcripts are now available for GNSO Council meetings in addition to MP3 recordings.
Whois Review Team Report: An interesting presentation. Although Review Team members could not present due to limited access, the Chair, Emily Taylor was present. The presentation is at http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-policy-draft-report-19jan12-en.pdf. I would strongly suggest that the ALAC get such a briefing at its February meeting (prior to Costa Rica). As a measure of the level of detail and interest, the agenda item had 10 minutes allocated and 34 used.
IRTP-B PDP - Rec 8: The recommendation related to standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages. Staff have provided a proposed implementation. The IPC submitted a comment on it and staff have agreed that it was sufficiently substantive as to warrant a review of the proposed implementation. Accordingly the motion to approve was deferred.
IRTP-B PDP - Rec 9, part 2: This recommendation requested a new provision on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked. Staff prepared a proposed implementation plan and it was unanimously approved.
Cross Constituency Working Group Principles: As has been discussed on At-Large and ALAC lists, many GNSO Council members believe that future Cross Constituency Working Groups (CCWGs) should operate under set rules. In preparation for entering into discussions with other SOs and ACs, the GNSO charged a Drafting Team with developing a set of principles that the GNSO believed were important. The DT (in which I participated at the express wish of the GNSO) fulfilled its mandate and the principles were brought to the Council for discussion and possible approval. Note that if approved, they would simply be a starting point for discussion with other groups and not an end point. One point in particular, wheher multiples charters should be allowed at the start of a WG, has generated significant discussion. Due to the Chair of the DT not being present, and the NCSG being in the midst of a discussion of the issue, the issue was not voted on at this meeting. It will be brought back to the GNSO for face-to-face discussion during the weekend preceding the Costa Rica meeting, and voted on at the Wednesday GNSO Council meeting.
Outreach: The GNSO Improvements Report as approved by the Board Governance Committee required additional outreach to get more people involved in the GNSO. The GNSO charged a working group with coming up with a plan, and after long discussions, it did so. The recommendations were voted on by the GNSO Council on 17 November 2011 and the motion was defeated. This meeting discussion is the follow-on. There was a very lively discussion, regarding what should be done next (if anything). Opinions were very mixed. It was suggested that at the very least, the GNSO needed to formally decide to not do any further outreach as a Council, as it was a SG/Constituency responsibility. The discussion was deferred until a face-to-face discussion in Costa Rica.
AOB: The outline of the agenda for Costa Rica was presented. There was a strong comment made that the weekend had become far to heavily loaded with reports, and insufficient time was devoted to policy discussion and preparation for meetings later in the week. In Dakar that had resulted (to some extent) in the GNSO Council going into several meetings with other groups without sufficient preparation. A personal comment (not made at the meeting (this meeting's deferral of two issues until Costa Rica shows the value of face-to-face discussion and that time needs to be used wisely - a message that At-Large also needs to take to heart).
GNSO Council Meeting - 15 December 2011 - to be posted
GNSO Council Meeting - 17 November 2011
Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-17nov11-en.htm
Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November+2011
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111117-en.mp3
Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-17nov11-en.pdf
Overview: Once again, a very heavy agenda, which due to either skill or luck, was completed within moments of the 2 hour limit.Substantive issues on interest to At-Large included a discussion of outreach, the UDRP and IP rights protection issues and the Dakar Board resolutions related to the RAA
Outreach: One of the issues included in the GNSO improvements following their last review was a need for more pro-active outreach to get more people involved. The work effort presented was the result of nearly two years of periodic discussion. The proposed motion was, in my mind, rather innocuous, calling for the chartering of a group to do further work. It resulted in significant discussion with surprising opposition, not so much because of what it said, but what could be read into it. Of particular worry to some was the implication that outreach would be "centralized" instead of being the responsibility of the SG/Constituencies.The motion ultimately failed. Although virtually all parties felt that outreach was important, many felt that the motion and charter needed to be refined. Presumably a revised version may be moved in a future meeting, but that is not 100% clear.
UDRP: There have been proposals to review the UDRP, one of the oldest consensus policies that has never been reviewed of modified substantially. Those supporting an immediate review believe there are problems that should be looked at now. Those against it feel that with the new rights protection mechanisms being developed for new gTLDs, all of them should be reviewed at the same time (requiring a delay to gain some experience with the new ones).
The first motion was in line with those who want an immediate review and called for a targeted review of the UDRP with specific goals. The motion was rejected. The second motion called for an Issue Report to be requested on all of the rights protection mechanisms to be delivered 18 months after the launch of the first new gTLD (I was the one that proposed this middle-ground during the Dakar meeting). There was a proposed amendment because there was a concern that 18 months could pass, but with little use of the new mechanisms.A deferral of vote was requested and as per standard GNSO Council procedures, it was deferred (only one such deferral is allowed). With work done to refine the wording prior to the next meeting, I expect the motion to pass at that time.
RAA: In Dakar, the Board noted that Registrars and ICANN staff had announced that they would enter into discussions (with abundant feedback to the community) on a number of RAA revisions deemed to be high priority in the RAA Drafting Team report, and requested an Issue Report "to address remaining items suited for a PDP" - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7. This is the first time that the Board has ever exercised its right to request an Issue Report. Work is underway on the Issue Report and ICANN staff presented their current thoughts on it. They are viewing it very narrowly as referring to the items in the DT report that have not otherwise been addressed.
The Board rationale for the motion starts with the sentence "The Board wishes to convey its sense of urgency on this issue." With respect to the Law Enforcement aspects, the GAC Communique used the expression "extreme urgency".
It is expect that the Preliminary Issue Report will be released VERY soon, and will have a comment period ending in late December or early January.
I would strongly suggest that the ALAC put together a group to review that report and be prepared to comment on the Preliminary Issue Report. Of particular import are the issues that At-Large felt strongly about that were not included in the prioritized list of outcomes.
ICANN Meeting - Dakar, Senegal - 22-28 October 2011
To be posted shortly.
GNSO Council Meeting - 26 October 2011
Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26oct11-en.htm
Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+2011
Transcripts: http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-council-public-1-26oct11-en.pdf, http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-council-public-2-26oct11-en.pdf, http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-council-public-new-26oct11-en.pdf
MP3: Available through the Dakar Meeting Schedule
Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-26octct11-en.pdf
Detailed report to be posted shortly.
GNSO Council Meeting - 22 September 2011
Agenda: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-22sep11-en.htm
Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+September+2011
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110922-en.mp3
Minutes: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-22sep11-en.pdf
Overview: The agenda was quite heavy with perhaps a record number of motions. The meeting ended up being very effective, with all issues addressed and the meeting ending on time. Substantive issues on interest to At-Large included a proposal that originated in the IRTP-B PDP to investigate requiring thick WHOIS from all registries, the JAS New gTLD Applicant Support Report and a proposal from the Registrar SG to change the RAA in line with a number of issues requested by Law Enforcement.
Thick Whois: All registries under the new gTLD program will require thick WHOIS (where the registry keep all of the data instead of most data residing at the Registrar). Most existing gTLDs also use think WHOIS, with the exception of the registries operated by Verisign. The IRTP-B PDP recommended that a PDP be initiated to require that thick WHOIS be used for these registries as well. The proposal is somewhat controversial because ther eis some objection to staging a full-blown PDP because of one organization's practices. However, it is felt by others that this is the only mechanism that could achieve the desired result. A motion was passed to request that ICANN staff create an Issue Report on requiring Thick WHOIS for all registries.An Issue Report is the first step in launching a Policy development Process (PDP).
IRTP-C: This is the third stage of the process to investigate a large number of issues related to Inter Registrar Transfer Processes (IRTP). IRTP-C involved three issues:
- Issues surrounding "change of control" - essentially the processes by which the registrant of record for a domain is changed. Although not an IRTP function (which is strictly the change of Registrar), change of registrant is often done in the same time-frame.
- Issues related to time-limiting a FORM of Authorization (FOA), the mechanism used to to effect IRTP transfers. If the FOA is not exercised immediately (for instance if the name is locked), it may be used at some undefined later time possibly resulting in a fraudulent transfer.
- IANA Registrar IDs: ICANN Registrars are assigned IANA IDs, but these IDs are not used for transfers, rather registry proprietary IDS are used, resulting in a number of potential and actual problems.
There are domain hijacking implications with the first two subjects.
The GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP and A Working Group will be convened. Once the solicitation is done, it should be widely distributed in At-Large. Although the issues are highly technical, involvement by At-Large would be beneficial.
JAS: The GNSO approved the transmission of the JAS Report to the Board. Due to the short time since the report had been issues, SG had not thoroughly studied the report and the motion gives the GNSO the right to forward comments on the report at a later time. This is essentially the same action that the ALAC took in forwarding the JAS 2nd milestone report to the Board.
Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI): This is an activity in response to the December 2010 Board motion 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. A WG is now formally created. Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf. This is intended to be a joint WG, but should no other SO.AC approve the charter, it will be a GNSO WG.Presumably, the ALAC will be invited to co-sponsor.
RAA Amendments for Law Enforcement: The RrSG have been discussion a number of possible RAA amendments. One set concerns registrars identifying themselves clearly and unequivocally. Although it is not entirely clear that a full-blown PDP is required, when a alternative faster-path alternative was proposed, there was much suspicion and worry. As a result, the RrSG decided to used the standard PDP process. This is unfortunate as it will take significantly longer. An Issue Report has been requested, which is the first step in a possible PDP.
WHOIS Tools Survey: There have been extensive discussions surrounding WHOIS tools and services. A WHOIS Survey WG is being convened to design a survey to further understand the needs.
November 2009
May 2009
March 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
Archive - June 2007
Test change
Change Test - CLO
Little of great public merit has happened since San Juan meeting.
There is an ongoing discussion of roles of the Chair and vice chair which may be of interest to the ALAC once completed. The Domain Tasting working group is just starting.
