Fwd: [] GNSO Council resolutions 13 January
Avri Doria
avri at LTU.SE
Fri Jan 14 21:07:11 CET 2011
hi,
Thought people might be interested. You will notice that we failed badly in our motion on the JAS charter extension and ended up with the CPH motion.
< From a personal point of view,
I am very sad about this and wrote about it in my blog. But I will also be doing all I can to figure out how to put together a fund raising plan for new gTLD applicants from developing economies, even if the GNSO Council says that this should not be done.>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 14 January 2011 10:40:11 EST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 13 January
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Before the official minutes, the following motions were passed by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 13 January 2011.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
> Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants (JAS) Motion
>
> Whereas:
> The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
>
> The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and
>
> In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.12.10 which reiterated its 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:
>
> the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.
>
>
> Resolved:
>
> 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following limited objectives:
>
> a) Propose criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should seek out expert advice in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.
>
> b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be offered;
>
> c) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from registry service providers.
>
> d) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from other top-level domain consultants, translators, and technicians, in the application for, and administration of, a new top-level domain
>
> e) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.
>
>
> 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.
>
> 3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
>
> 4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.
>
> Motion to Approve the Recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
>
> "WHEREAS, a motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvement to the Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement has been submitted and seconded;
>
> (8 December motions https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?8_december_motions)
>
> WHEREAS, that motion called for the GNSO Council to accept the final report to approve the form of the Registrant Rights andResponsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the final report, to recommend that staff commence the consultation process withRegistrars to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the Web sites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA, and to recommend that staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the final report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report;
>
> WHEREAS, some GNSO Councillors have expressed the view that further work is necessary on the portion of that motion relating to
> the process specified as Process A in the final report to develop a new form of RAA;
>
> WHEREAS, the GNSO Council does not wish for such work to delay progress on the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter referenced above;
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement be amended as set out below:
>
> WHEREAS, on 4 March, 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 registrar accreditation agreement (RAA) developed as
> a result of a consultative process initiated by ICANN;
>
> WHEREAS, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of theAt-Large community to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA. Specifically, to draft a charter identifying Registrant Rights and Responsibilities;
>
> WHEREAS, on 18 October 2010 the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team published its final report describing specific recommendations and proposals for improvements to the RAA;
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en.pdf)
>
> WHEREAS, the GNSO Council has reviewed the final report and desires to approve some of the recommendations and proposals contained therein;
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the final report for improvements to the RAA;
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en.pdf)
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the final responsibilities charters as described in Annex D of the final report;
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that the staff commence the consultation process with registrars in the RAA to finalize the registrant rights and responsibilities charter for posting on the Web sites on specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA.
>
>
> Motion on the implementation of the Fast Flux recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council on 3 September 2009
>
> Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 13 August 2009;
>
> Whereas the Fast Flux PDP Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy, but did develop several other recommendations that were adopted by the Council on 3 September 2009 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm);
>
> Whereas the GNSO Council intended to create a drafting team to develop a plan with a set of priorities and schedule to address the adopted recommendations for review and consideration by the GNSO Council;
>
> Whereas due to workload and other priorities such a drafting team was never created;
>
> Whereas the Council tasked the Council leadership at the wrap up meeting at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena to put forward proposals to suggest which projects should be continued and discontinued;
>
> Whereas the Council leadership has reviewed the Fast Flux Recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council, also in light of the recent recommendations made by the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group;
>
> Whereas the Council leadership has recommended the approach outlined below to the GNSO Council for consideration as an acceptable way of implementing the adopted recommendations and therewith closing the project;
>
> RESOLVED,
>
> The Council accepts the approach identified below for the adopted recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-03sep09.htm) and instructs the ICANN Staff to implement these recommendations as set forth below:
>
> a) Adopted recommendation Fast-Flux Working Group (FFWG) #1: To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux
> • Proposed implementation: This recommendation is encompassed by the Registration Abuse Policies WG (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 which recommends the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names.
>
> b) Adopted FFWG recommendation #2: The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux;
> • Implementation completed as it was addressed by the RAP WG in its final report (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf)
>
> c) Adopted FFWG recommendation #3: To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions;
>
> · The RAPWG Final Report and the Fast-Flux Working Group Final Report indicated that fast-flux is generally a domain use issue and not a domain registration issue, and as such falls outside the purview of the GNSO and ICANN. Therefore no further action is recommended*.
>
> d) Adopted recommendation #4: To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a “best practices facilitator" within the community;
> • Proposed Implementation: Integrate this recommendation into the RAP WG Recommendation on “Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices” which recommends that the “GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices.”
>
> e) Adopted FFWG recommendation 5: To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts;
> • Proposed Implementation:
>
> It is assumed that if the Registration Abuse Policies WG’s (RAPWG) Malicious Use of Domain Names Recommendation #1 is adopted by the Council, that the subsequent effort will be open to participation by stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community.
>
>
> f) Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
> • Proposed Implementation: No action needed at this point, but should be included if any future PDPs are initiated on this subject.
>
> g) Adopted FFWG recommendation #6: To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.
> • Proposed Implementation: The Council deems this work to be completed in conjunction with the above-proposed implementation proposals.
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER
>
> The Council now considers the work of the Fast Flux WG complete. As such, the "Fast Flux Council Follow-up" action item is deemed closed and will be deleted from the Pending Project List.
>
> Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
>
> WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan;
> (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
> for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008
> (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182)
> (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm);
>
> WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
>
> WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
>
> WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
>
> WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010
> http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf
> and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 1 January 2011 ;
>
> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
>
> RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110114/8b469d6b/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list