GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes
| 26 March 2009
Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 15 Council Members Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies Roll Call. Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes: Chuck Gomes, seconded by Olga Cavalli, moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 29 January 2009 Denise Michel clarified that the ICANN Board was seeking further guidance on how to involve users in a productive way, without confusing user groups, that does not result in overlapping structures or duplicating ICANN constituencies that are participating in the GNSO election of ICANN Board members and consensus policy work. Avri Doria withdrew her motion as there was no consensus in the Council for endorsing the report. The motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, and seconded by Chuck Gomes was briefly discussed. Item 6 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items Avri Doria reminded Council that the ICANN Board had not yet acted on the resolution approved by Council on 4 March 2009: It is resolved (2009.03.06.09), that the Board thanks the ALAC for its advice, and thanks the GNSO for its recommendation on the proposed RAA amendments, particularly thanks the members of the GNSO Council who worked this week to finalize their resolution. It is resolved (2009.03.06.10), that the Board agrees with the substance of the amendments, and directs staff to immediately publish them for public comments for a period of no less than 30 days, and commits to act on approval of the amendments at the earliest opportunity." Council supported taking preparatory action before the Board approved the amendments and were informed that the ALAC and NCUC were ready to form a drafting team and proposals were put forward to form one single group or two different groups. A proposal was made that the Registrars be requested to provide a list of existing rights. Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Alan Greenberg reported that the group, supported by the Staff came to the consensus that a Policy Development Process (PDP) should be initiated and that if further studies were needed, these could be done as part of the PDP process and not as a separate process. The motion before Council is based on the recommendations in the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery with one change, that the concept of transferring a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) mentioned in the Issues Report, might better fit into the following Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C. The motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery was deferred to the next Council meeting on 16 April 2009. Liz Gasster commented that the topic was a place holder for further Council discussion. Avri Doria explained that there is a set of policies that define a body of requirements and a technical approach. An analysis is needed of the various requirements that currently exist for the WHOIS service including IDNs and then these should be examined by such bodies as the Council, the Security and Stability Advisory Committeee (SSAC) and other parts of the community. Only when the set of requirements is drawn up can the question be asked if the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Protocol, for example, would be the right tool. Avri Doria proposed undertaking the first step of writing a request to the Staff for requirement gathering and submitting that request to the Council for review. Item 9: New Bylaw discussion Margie Milam reported that ICANN Staff has been working on a set of recommended draft bylaw revisions, specifically to Article 10: Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) that are an essential part of the GNSO restructuring process. These revisions have been drafted from the perspective that the GNSO procedures need to be flexible and some topics have been moved out of the bylaws into the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures. Council discussion emphasised the necessity for the bylaws to reflect that different stakeholder groups will have different challenges to geographical diversity. General concern was expressed at the very tight timeline and the inability to work within the timeframe. Item 10: Status Updates http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#07 Kristina Rosette reported that the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), consisting of 17 geographically diverse participants, but unfortunately no one from the African region, held its initial procedural and administrative teleconference on 25 March 2009. An IRT announcement is expected to be posted on the ICANN web site. 10 . 1 Board Update 10. 2 ccNSO Liaison update Action Item: 10. 6. 1. 2. Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) Council approved the moves. Kristina Rosette noted that the IPC has a structural problem with identifying persons for travel support by April 6, 2009 because their bylaws were amended so that instead of having elections for two seats in November 2008 those elections will happen within 30 days of when the new Council is seated, which means that the IPC has not yet held elections. Denise Michel informed Council that Kevin Wilson was responsible for travel funding and should be approached about extending the deadline for submitting the names of the ICANN sponsored travelers. Council was reminded to submit comments to the Travel Support public comment forum open till the 24 April 2009. 10. 6. 2. 2. Response to IDN ccTLD Fast Track Avri Doria proposed that the Council review the document in a 48 hour window in which time comments should be incorporated and the response will be submitted to the public comment forum before the closure on 6 April 2009 10. 6. 3. 1 Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) Policy Development Process (PDP) work team (WT) see: Calendar |