tomorrow's GNSO Council Meeting - motions to be voted on
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Wed Oct 5 23:11:11 CEST 2011
Tomorrow's GNSO Council call contains a full agenda and quite a few motions that the GNSO Council will vote on.
So I encourage the entire NCSG membership to please take a look at the agenda and especially the motions that NCSG GNSO Councilors will vote on. I'm sure our Representatives would very much appreciate some feedback from the entire NCSG membership on the underlying issues.
Also, anyone who like to listen to the live audio cast of the GNSO Council meeting, can do so here: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Discusion Agenda:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+06+October+2011
Motions to be Voted on:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
Thanks,
Robin
-------
Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 6 October 2011.
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council.http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf
For convenience:
* An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
* An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
Meeting Time 15:00 UTC
Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times
(08:00 Los Angeles, 11:00 Washington DC, 16:00 London, 17:00 Brussels,
Friday 7 October
00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
GNSO Council meeting audiocast
http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
• 22 September minutes --approved on October 2011.
Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)
Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting.
Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder)
• GNSO activities: 6 (10 - PEDNR, PDP-WT, OSC, GCOT, CSG removed – IRTP-C added).
• Other activities: 10 (9 - Thick Whois added)
• Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - RAA removed – RC-IOC added).
• Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2-- no change).
Item 3: Whois Survey Drafting Team (10 minutes)
A motion is being submitted to approve the formation of a Whois Survey Drafting Team.
Motion deferred from 22 September Council meeting
Refer to motion: 1. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
3.1 Reading of the motion (Wendy Seltzer)
3. 2 Discussion
3. 3 Vote
Item 4: Registration abuse (RAP) (15 minutes)
At its July 21 meeting, the Council was presented with a motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAP WG. This motion was discussed at the meeting and should now be considered by Council.
It should be noted that the motion made before the Council today has been slightly reworked as compared to the motion shown at the July 21 meeting (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2011).
Motiondeferred from 22 September Council meeting.
Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
4.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
4.2 Discussion
4.3 Vote
Item 5: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (10 minutes)
A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity.
Motion deferred from 22 September Council meeting
Refer to motion: 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
5.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz)
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Vote
Item 6: Amendments to RAA (10 minutes)
In its ongoing work on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and more specifically to identify potential amendments to the RAA, the Council is considering a motion to approve an amended process to develop a new form of RAA termed "process B".
Refer to motion 4
[https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
]
6.1 Reading of the motion (Kristina Rosette)
6.2 Discussion
6.3 Vote
Item 7: Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) (10 minutes)
As part of the GNSO improvements, the PPSC's PDP WT has produced a final report on how the GNSO's policy develop process should be handled.
Refer to PDP-WT Final Report
This report has been put out for public comment and is now being presented to the Council for approval.
Refer to motion 5 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
7.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman)
7.2 Discussion
7.3 Vote
Item 8: June 20 Board resolution on new gTLDs (15 minutes)
As part of its resolutions on the new gTLD program, the ICANN Board passed a resolved clause during its June 20 meeting in Singapore which contained the following excerpt (Resolved 1.b):
Refer to Board June 20 2011 motion on new gTLDs:
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm
Incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest.
The GNSO Council discussed this at its July 21 meeting. A letter was sent by Kurt Pritz to Heather Dryden & Stéphane van Gelder to provide some guidance: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-dryden-11aug11-en.pdf
On September 18, the GAC sent a letter to the GNSO Council providing the following advice on this topic with regard to a possible UDRPand the IOC and RedCross/Red Crescent names.
During the Council's Sept 22 meeting, the following points were highlighted:
• A request to Staff to confer with ICANN General Counsel on the status of the advice that the GNSO receives from the GAC?
• This is a proposed topics to discuss with the GAC at the joint GAC- Council meeting in Dakar.
• Identify questions or requests for clarification and communicate these to the GAC well in advance of the joint meeting so as to have a meaningful and constructive discussion.
8.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam)
8.2 Discussion
8.3 Next steps
Item 9: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team - Final Charter (CCWG-DT)
Cross Community Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf
9.1 Council approval for consideration of the motion submitted to the Council on 29 September 2011
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12100.html
Refer to motion 6 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+2011
9.2 Reading of the motion ( Margie Milam)
9.3 Discussion
9.4 Vote
Item 10: Review of proposed agenda for Dakar meeting (20 minutes)
10.1 Discussion item on the GNSO's proposed agenda for the Dakar meeting week, including key points and meetings with other stakeholders and groups.
10.1 1 Review of draft agenda (Jeff Neuman)
10.1.2 Discussion
10.1.3 Next steps
10.2 Interaction with ccNSO
Action item from the Singapore ICANN meeting, deferred from the July 21 meeting: the ccNSO and the GNSO agreed to try and work together more closely on some projects of common interest. Two were discussed: the work the ccNSO is currently doing on ICANN's strategic plan and budget, and the work the GNSO is currently doing on CWGs.
This is a discussion item to ascertain how to push these two initiatives forward.
10.2.1 Discussion
10.2.1 Next steps
10.3 Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
At its Singapore meeting, the Council decided to review the way its Open Meetings are organized. This is a discussion item to review the work of the team so far and identify any changes that might be made in time for the GNSO Council's next Open Meeting, in Dakar on October 26.
10.3.1 Update (Jeff Neuman)
10.3.2 Discussion
10.3.3 Next steps
Item 11:Best practices discussion paper (10 minutes)
Following a Council request, Staff has prepared a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices for registrars and registries. The best practices are to help address the abusive registrations of domain names.
Staff suggests that the Council open a public comment period. A workshop could also be held on this topic during the Dakar ICANN meeting week.
11.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings)
11.2 Discussion
11.3 Next steps
Item 12. Any Other Business (5 minutes)
Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House;
2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House;
3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”);
4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation;
5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and
6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.
Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
4.4.1 Applicability
Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
d. Fill a Council position open for election.
4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00
Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00
Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 13:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00
Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00
Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00
Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00
Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00
Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00
Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00
Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day
Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 02:00 next day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Motions 06 October 2011
Added by admin, last edited by de saint gery on Oct 04, 2011 (view change)
1 Draft Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) - deferred from 22 September Council meeting
Made by: Wendy Seltzer
Seconded by: John Berard
Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,
and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+-+Home ),
and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ),
and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 );
Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;
Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs;
Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;
Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;
Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;
Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey “Working Group”, preferring the term “Working Group” to “Drafting Team” in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf
Resolved,
The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.
The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf
In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations - deferred from 22 September Council meeting
Made by: Zahid Jamil
Seconded by:
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report;
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;
Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);
Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco.
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council’s and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.
RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation.
RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.
RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.
RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the 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. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.
RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests 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.
RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time.
RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system - deferred from 22 September Council meeting
Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by: Carlos Aguirre
Amended by Tim Ruiz
WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and
WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity;
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following possible policy revisions and/or additions:
1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number.
Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address.
2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.
3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention
(example: lawenforcement at example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours.
4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement ("Final Report") to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.
Made by: Kristina Rosette
Seconded by: Debbie Hughes
Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy 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 the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable;
Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;
Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending 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 did not pass;
Whereas, a previous GNSO Council motion to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B 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 did not pass at the GNSO Council’s April 7, 2011 meeting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve a further amended version of the process specified as Process B 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.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B 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. As amended herein, Process B entails:
1. The GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Office of the General Counsel review the prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report and identify any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. The GNSO Council requests that the Office of the General Counsel complete and publish on the ICANN website the outcome of such review and identification not later than seventy-five (75) days after the date of this resolution.
2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report.
3. Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).
4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, bimonthly written reports on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall identify such topics, if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments").
5. The Negotiating Group shall review public comments received and continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March 4, 2013.
6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments.
7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA.
8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Motion to Adopt the Policy Development Process Work Team Updated Final Report
Made by: Jeff Neuman
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
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 Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT), which was chartered to develop a new policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN’s policy development needs;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council decided to terminate the PPSC on 28 April 2011 and instructed the PDP-WT to deliver its Final Report directly to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS, the PDP-WT submitted its Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pdp-wt-final-report-final-31may11-en.pdf) on 1 June 2011 to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council opened a 30-day public comment period on the Final Report (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jun11-en.htm);
WHEREAS the GNSO Council referred those comments back to the PDP-WT for consideration (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107);
WHEREAS the PDP-WT has reviewed those comments and updated the report as deemed appropriate (see [include link to public comment review tool];
WHEREAS the PDP-WT submitted its Updated Final Report (see [include link] to the GNSO Council on 27 September 2011.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the revised GNSO Policy Development Process as reflected in the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual as outlined in the PDP Updated Final Report (see [include link]).
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends that the procedures of the new Annex A shall be applicable to all requests for Issue Reports and PDPs initiated following adoption by the ICANN Board. For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. MOTION TO CREATE A GNSO DRAFTING TEAM ON CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUPS (CCWG):
Made by: Jonathan Robinson
seconded by:
Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;
Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation of a GNSO drafting team which will be responsible for developing a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs;
Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this open working group;
Resolved further, it is recognized that the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and
Resolved further, that the Charter (attached) is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT. As specified in the Charter, a status report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar year 2012.
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111005/015d5657/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list