|
2005
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
2006
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | September | October | November | December
2007
January | February | March | April | May | June | August | September | October | November | December
2008
January | March | April | May | June | July | August | September
20080925-1
Motion proposing an Issues Report on aspects of Registry-Registrar Agreements
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 RSTEP 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 within 30 days 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 request an opinion of ICANN Staff as to which aspects of registration abuse policies as discussed above may be within the scope of GNSO policy development.
20080904-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 7 August 2008
20080904-2
Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP)
Motion proposed by Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes
Whereas:
On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;
and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008;
and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed;
and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons (5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP
Resolved:
1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads:
A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period
Be amended to read:
The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name.
2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:
A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs).
Be amended to read:
A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.
3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads:
No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.
Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.
4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads:
A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.
20080904-3
Whois Hypotheses
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes, seconded by Robin Gross. Friendly amendment by Mike Rodenbaugh accepted.
Whereas:
*On 31 October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )
*Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted
*Suggestions for WHOIS studies were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ )
ICANN staff prepared the report titled 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25 February 2008
On 28 March 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a group of volunteers (Whois Study Group) to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted, on 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (Whois Hypotheses WG) to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits and to deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council () The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26 August 2008
(https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report).
Resolve:
The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the Whois Hypotheses WG Council representatives including liaisons are asked to:
1) forward the report to their respective constituencies ASAP for discussion and comment as applicable;
2) be prepared in the Council meeting on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion; and
3) in the Council meeting on 16 October 2008 to start development of a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies, that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance to justify having ICANN staff prepare cost estimates.
ICANN Policy Staff are asked to forward the report ASAP directly to the GAC and ALAC for comment before the 16 October Council meeting if possible.
20080904-4
Motion regarding GNSO Comments re. Geographic Regions Community-Wide WG
Motion proposed by Olga Cavalli seconded by Chuck Gomes
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 August 2008
Resolve:
The GNSO Council expresses sincere appreciation and thanks to the following members of the drafting team: Olga Cavalli (NomCom appointee & chair), Clint Crosby (IPC), Glen de Saint Gery (ICANN Staff), Chuck Gomes (RyC), Tony Harris (ISPCPC), Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Staff), Marika Konings (ICANN Staff), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Tim Ruiz (RC), Philip Sheppard (CBUC), and Ken Stubbs (RyC)
Council representatives are 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.
20080904-5
Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo
Motion proposed by Avri Doria seconded by Tony Harris
Whereas:
On 14 August 2008 ICANN Staff provided a Travel Policy that covered participants from the GNSO, and On 21 August 2008, Doug Brent, ICANN COO, provided a FAQ which explained and amplified that travel policy, and On 20 August 2008, Avri Doria, Chair GNSO Council, suggested a process for producing the list of travelers as required by the travel policy, which was clarified on 20 August 2008and on 21 August 2008, and On 26-27 August 2008, all Constituencies submitted a recommendation containing 0-3 names of GNSO Constituency Participants as suggested, and On 28 August 2008, a special meeting of the GNSO council was held, at which at least one council member from each constituency was in attendance, and That the participants of this meeting reached a rough consensus, with one dissenting participant, on a proposed resolution on supporting travel to Cairo according to the ICANN Travel Policy for volunteers, and In recognition of the general agreement that the methods used for this resolution are a one time solution for Cairo and that further discussion will need to be held on the Travel Policy itself as well as its implementation in the GNSO once the reorganization of the GNSO and its council is underway.
Resolved:
1. The names in the following list will be provided to ICANN Travel Staff as required by the policy on 4 September 2008:
Name Constituency/NCA Reason Class of travel Bing, Jon NCA NCA Economy Cavalli, Olga NCA NCA Economy Doria, Avri NCA Council chair Business Gross, Robin NCUC Constituency 1st choice Economy Harris, Tony ISPC Constituency 1st choice Economy Hoover, Carolyn RyC Constituency 1st choice Economy Jamil,Zahid BC Financial Need Economy Klein, Norbert NCUC Financial Need Economy Rossette, Kristina IPC Financial Need Expenses Only Rodenbaugh, Mike BC Constituency 1st choice Economy Sheppard, Philip BC Complies with ICANN policy Economy Walton, Clarke RrC Constituency 1st choice Economy
2. That the level of participation that is defined in the Travel policy can be met by participation in all of the sessions to be scheduled by the GNSO, including the weekend sessions to be held on 1-2 November, and that exceptions can be made for travelers whose employment requirements make it difficult to arrive on time for meetings on 1 November 2008.
3. That the two GNSO council members, Ute Decker and Greg Ruth, who are also members of the Nominating Committee will receive transportation for the meeting and expenses starting Thursday of ICANN week as members of the Nomcom and that the balance of their expenses will be covered, as the per-diem rate defined by the Travel Policy, from the DNSO/GNSO funds. The GNSO Secretariat is authorized to cover those expenses from the old DNSO/GNO budget.
20080807-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 17 July 2008
20080807-2
The GNSO Council unanimously confirmed the appointment of Paul Diaz as chair for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP working group.
20080717-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 29 May 2008.
20080717-2
Whereas
On 25 June 2008 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part A to be referred to as IRTP PDP Jun08 and, decided to create an PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP and, has reviewed the charter found at IRTP PDP-A WG Charter
Resolved
The GSNO Council approves the charter and associated time lines and appoints Mike Rodenbaugh as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP PDP Jun08 WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
20080625-1
Whereas,
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,
The PDP regarding Clarification of Reasons for Denial has reached the deliberation stage, following the issue if a Final Report dated 9 April 2008, and a drafting group was launched by the Council on 17 April 2008 to propose new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed (numbers 5, 7, 8 and 9 in the IRTP),
The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report dated 4 June 2008, proposing new texts for denial reasons number 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within the proposed PDP for Issue Set C as per the Council resolution of 8 May 2008, in order to assure consistency with related aspects to be covered by that PDP,
The proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 are drafted as follows:
Denial reason 8 "The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry Whois record for the domain name"
Denial reason 9 "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the Registrar of Record, has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy"
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To consider denial reasons number 5 and 7 within the context of the foreseen PDP for Issue Set C, while withdrawing them from the current PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial,
To request that ICANN web staff post the proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to Council with a summary of the comments received, for the Council's consideration and decisions as to recommending a change of these IRTP provisions in line with the proposed texts.
20080625-2
Whereas,
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,
The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,
An issues report GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" was issued on 23 May 2008,
The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and
The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO
Resolved:
The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report on Part A.
20080625-2a
Whereas:
The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Issues Report - Part A
The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the bylaws,
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to address the three issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.
That a charter will be drafted for this working in 14 days and that this charter will contain the required work items, milestones especially those related to bylaws mandated constituency reviews and public comment periods, and guidelines for WG procedures. This charter will be discussed and decided upon at the next GNSO council meeting following the release of the charter.
20080625-3
Whereas:
On 27 March 2008 the Council resolved to form a group of volunteers to review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS'; develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008
On 16 April the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN Board recommendations for future studies of WHOIS
On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report to the Council offering two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS should be conducted
There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted.
Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, it should be useful to
1) understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested,
2) determine which of those hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful direction with regard to Whois policy, and
3) to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative view points with regard to Whois policy.
Resolved:
To reconvene another group of volunteers, which may include members of the earlier group and/or new volunteers to:
Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and that request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses.
Deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the Council within 6 weeks.
The Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing.
20080625-4
Whereas,
The PDP WG has been formed on Fast Flux, and
The Fast Flux PDP charter requires the election of chair or co-chairs and the appointment of a council liaison, and
Mike O'Connor has been suggested by a joint meeting of the GNSO council and the Fast Flux WG, and Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered to serve as council liaison to the working group
Resolved:
Mike O'Connor is elected as chair of the PDP WG on Fast Flux and Mike Rodenbaugh is appointed GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG on Fast Flux.
20080625-5
Whereas,
On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front Running to the GNSO council, and
On 8 May 2008 council created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research effort and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and
On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response to the question asked during the 8 May Council meeting, and whereas this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and
Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for the AGP will affect front running,
Resolved:
The council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as current research efforts are completed.
20080529-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 8 May 2008.
20080529-2
Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;
Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting:
In this context, the term “fast flux” refers to rapid and repeated changes to A and/or NS resource records in a DNS zone, which have the effect of rapidly changing the location (IP address) to which the domain name of an Internet host (A) or name server (NS) resolves.
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.
Charter
The Working Group initially shall consider the following questions:
Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux?
Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.
The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. The Working Group report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the WG or policy recommendation for constituency and community comment and review and for council deliberation
Working Group Processes:
While the development of guidelines for Working operations, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:
The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.
In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree
Strong support but significant opposition
Minority viewpoint
If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :
Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.
If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the Council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the Council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.
The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO Council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.
The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A fast flux mailing list has been created <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org> public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/
If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.
The Council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.
All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO Council every 6 months for renewal.
Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)
With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated
Constituency statements due 30 days after template is released.
20080508-1
The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 27 March 2008 and 17 April 2008.
20080508-2
The GNSO Council resolved to create a drafting team to look at questions such as:
- How is the problem defined?
- How prevalent is the problem?
- Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
- Are there rules within the RAA that can be used?
The goal is to bring a recommendation to the Council on whether to request an Issues Report or more extensive research effort and to define the terms of the report.
This team should bring its report in time for deliberations in Paris by 7 June 2008 or sooner if possible.
Team is open to constituency members. Liaisons are invited to participate.
20080508-3
Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;
Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:
Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal
activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,
Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;
Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;
Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to
reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report.
Version Français
Versión Español
Русский
العربية
20080508-4
Whereas:
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO,
An IRTP working group examined possible areas for improving the existing policy and delivered its outcome in August 2007 in a report posted at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf and this report provided a list of potential issues to address for improvement of the transfer policy,
In September 2007 a working group was tasked by the GNSO Council to assign priorities to the remaining issues in the report (i.e., those not addressed in the PDP underway regarding four reasons for denial of a registrar transfer) resulting in the prioritized issue list contained in that group’s report at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf,
In its meeting on 17 January 2008 the GNSO Council requested a small group of volunteers arrange the prioritized issue list into suggested PDPs,
The small group delivered its recommended PDPs on19 March 2008 in its report at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf,
Resolve that five PDPs be initiated in the order suggested by the small group and shown here:
PDP ID |
PDP Category Name
|
Policy Issue #’s
|
A |
New IRTP Issues |
1, 3, 12 |
B |
Undoing Registrar Transfers |
2, 7, 9 |
C |
IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements |
5, 6, 15*, 18 |
D |
IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements |
4, 8, 16, 19 |
E |
Penalties for IRTP Violations |
10 |
* First part of issue only
Resolve that the recommendations of the small group be approved to not initiate PDPs at this time for issues 11, 13, 14, the second part of 15, and 17.
Resolve that the Council asks the staff to produce an Issues report of the Items listed under A - New IRTP Issues.
Resolve Council will review the progress of these PDPs every 60 days with the goal of moving the process along as quickly as possible.
20080417-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 March 2008
20080417-2
The GNSO Council approved the creation of a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers.
Drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council.
20080417-3
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);
Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;
The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:
1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.
2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;
a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,
b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on
the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.
20080327-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 31 January 2008
20080327-2
The GNSO Council resolved to confirm the election results of Rita Rodin in ICANN Board seat number 14.
20080327-3
Whereas:
On 31 October 2007 the Council passed a motion to “. . . initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council” (resolution 20071031-3)
On 6 December 2007 the Council initiated the formation of a group of volunteers to develop a proposed “format to solicit what studies should be undertaken”
On 20 December 2007 the Council reviewed and discussed the WHOIS template developed by the group and approved it with one additional column under potential sources of data, asking proposers to comment on the challenges of sourcing that data
From 8 January through 15 February 2008 a public comment period was held soliciting suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS that community stakeholders recommend be conducted
A report titled ‘Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS’ and dated 25 February 2008 summarized the study suggestions and comments received during the public comment period
1. Review and discuss the ‘Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS’
2. Develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council
3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008.
20080327-4
Whereas
Council members are from time to time disenfranchised from voting by the current ICANN by-laws, Council requests the Board to adopt the following change to the bylaws drafted by the ICANN general council's office to permit absentee voting in certain specific circumstances.
Add to: ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE X: Section 3. 8
c. Absentee voting. Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on whether to initiate a PDP, forward a policy recommendation to the Board, or fill a position open for election may vote by absentee ballot. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e-mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours after the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that 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 days.
20080306-1
Amendment on the language in 1a of the included draft motion
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund TO A REGISTRAR for any domain names deleted during the
AGP that exceed (i) 10% of THAT REGISTRAR'S net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted
during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
20080306-2
Amendment which removed the original #2 from the draft motion
The above restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
20080306-3
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with
respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");
Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion attached to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to
update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses.
The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008.
2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via
submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008.
3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended
Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council to vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008.
4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope
that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008.
20080306-4
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the
Domain Tasting PDP (the “Design Team”), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were
well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the “Reports on Domain Tasting”);
Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz
registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;
The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:
1.The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP (“Applicable gTLD Operator”).
Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that
exceed (i) 10% of that registrars net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or
(ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of
extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar’s control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
c.In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.
2.Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;
a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
i.How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
ii .Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,
b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any
ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.
20080306-5
Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;
Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:
Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,
Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.
20080306-6
The GNSO Council resolved to send the draft of the GNSO Comments on the IDNC Initial Report presented by Edmon Chung to the IDNC as the GNSO response.
20080306-7
The GNSO Council resolved to extend the deadline for the submission of constituency statements on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP to Friday 14 March 2008.
20080131-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 3 January 2008
20080117-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 December 2007
20080117-2
Avri Doria was elected as GNSO Council Chair for the period, 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2009.
20080103-1
Approval of GNSO Council minutes 31 October 2007
Approval of GNSO Council minutes 6 December 2007
20080103-2
Whereas a GNSO drafting team proposed a message relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs
Whereas Chuck Gomes proposed an alternate Message to Draft 0.3 distributed by Avri relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs
Council resolved that:
Chuck Gomes will spend 2 days processing any editorial changes suggested on the Council mailing list. On 6 January 2008 a final version will be posted on the mailing list. If there are no substantive objections to the wording, the message will then be forwarded to the Board by the Chair.
20080103-3
Whereas the GNSO council remains concerned about funding the council members to attend future ICANN meetings
Resolved that the letter drafted in be sent to the CEO of ICANN and to the COO of ICANN.
20071220-1
Approval of GNSO Council minutes 20 November 2007.
20071206-1
The GNSO Council moved a motion to approve the Nominating Committee job description as agreed upon by the Council and set forth in the document.
20071206-2
The GNSO Council submits a formal request to the ICANN Board for increased GNSO participation on the IDNC working group as stated in the charter that was approved by the ICANN Board.
20071206- 3
The GNSO Council approves two candidates to join the IDNC working group, namely, Edmon Chung (gTLD Registry constituency) and Charles Sha'ban (Intellectual Property constituency) with alternates Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee appointee) and Cary Karp (gTLD Registry constituency).
20071120-1
Whereas, the Council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure;"
and
Whereas, the Council believes that further work on the draft Intergovernmental (IGO) Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue;
and
Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency is drafting and expects to distribute not later than 28 November a revised proposed draft dispute resolution procedure,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council postpones until its 20 December 2007 meeting the vote on whether to initiate a policy development process.
20071120-2
Whereas the Issues Report on Inter-Registrar Transfers has been released and discussed
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by the Staff.
20071031- 4
Whereas Dr Liz Williams, as Senior Policy Counselor for ICANN, has been the ICANN Staff Manager assigned to support the GNSO's Policy Development Process (PDP) on new gTLDs, since December 2005.
Whereas this PDP trialled a number of new approaches in GNSO policy development, including the use of inter-sessional face-to-face meetings, calls for formal papers with the ability for the authors to present those papers and have dialog with the committee, and the use of working groups to analyse topics such as IDNs, reserved names, and protecting the rights of others. The success of the working groups became the foundation of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group recommendations on using working groups as the main approach for policy development.
Whereas Liz worked tirelessly to secure support for many of these initiatives, and pull together a huge amount of public input, meeting transcripts, and GNSO constituency contributions into a final set of principles, recommendations, and guidelines, along with a large range of supporting material that will assist the ICANN staff in implementing the policy.
Whereas Liz completed the final report on the policy for new gTLDs in August 2007, finished her term of office with ICANN in September 2007.
It is resolved that the GNSO expresses its sincere gratitude for her service to the ICANN community and wishes her every success in her next endeavours.
20071031-3
WHEREAS;
1. The GNSO Council has recently received the Whois Working Group Final Report
and;
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community,
and;
3. The GNSO Council observes that the Working Group failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the Working Group,
and;
4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this Policy Development Process since it was originally chartered, and;
5. A comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and;
6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anti-crime and law enforcement and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer
protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO.
THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the GNSO Council;
1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years, and;
2. Formally ends the Policy Development Process on gTLD Whois without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN’s Board of Directors, and;
3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions:
1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements
2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008;
3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and
4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council .
4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion.
20071031-2
Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws, resolves as follows:
1. To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the ICANN staff manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days of this resolution.
2. To request that ICANN Staff take all Constituency Statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days of this
resolution.
3. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the Bylaws, in creating a Final Report for Council.
20071031-1
Whereas the Issues Report on Domain Tasting has been released and discussed
and
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting,
the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,
The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names
registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period.
20071011-3
The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Domain Name Tasting issue until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles.
20071011-2
The GNSO Council resolved to postpone the decision to initiate a policy development process (PDP) on the Intergovernmental Organization Dispute Resolution Process (IGO-DRP) until the open meeting on 31 October in Los Angeles
20071011-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 30 August 2007
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 6 September 2007
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 20 September 2007
20070920-1
i) Whereas the GNSO Working Group on Inter-registrar Domain Transfers Policy Review (Transfers WG) has completed its work, and;
ii) Whereas, the Transfers WG has provided a series of reports to the GNSO Council for its consideration,
Be it resolved that;
i) The GNSO Council will issue the working group report entitled "Advisory Concerning Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" for constituency and community review and comment for a period of no less than 14 days, and;
i.a) pursuant to this comment period, all material commentary will be summarized and reviewed by Council
i.b) pursuant to the review by Council that the current, or an amended form of this report be provided to Staff for posting to the ICANN web site as a community advisory.
ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.
iii). That the GNSO Council form a short-term planning group to analyse and prioritize the policy issues raised in the report "Communication to GNSO on Policy Issues Arising from Transfer Review" before the Council further considers a PDP on any of the work discussed in the report.
20070906-3
Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work,
Therefore:
The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report.
Further, the GNSO council:
a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group.
b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy.
c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2,
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf
and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the 'study to date' by October 4.
d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far.
See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf.
e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on “Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records” outlined in September, 2006.
See http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006.pdf
f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows:
1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process.
2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007.
Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
Section 7 d. Collection of Information.
Specifically
"1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:
(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue;
(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members;
(iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views;
(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and
(v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy."
**Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007
3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007
4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007.
5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007.
6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting.
7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting.
20070906-2
Whereas the GA list sent a request to the GNSO council for approval of its new list rules,
and whereas
"the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists,"
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#X
and the GA list is one such open forum,
Resolved:
The GNSO chair will send a message to the GA List stating the following:
The GNSO council acknowledges the GA List's charter request and thanks the participants for consulting with the GNSO council on this issue.
Given the Council's by-law responsibilities for the moderation of the GA list, the Council encourages the GA
List's movement toward self moderation and supports the GA List in implementing the mailing list rules
(found at http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm)
indicated in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with the following exception in section 2:
The Announce list is and should remain solely for the sole use of the GNSO Secretariat for notifying the subscribers of GNSO and other ICANN informational items.
With regard to the organizational sections of the charter, specifically sections 6, 8, and 9, the GNSO council accepts that members participating on the list are free to determine their own organizational structure, with the following exceptions in section 8 on elections:
An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing Chair and the Chair of the GNSO.
The GNSO council, and its chair, cannot accept any responsibility for the internal governance of an organizational movement on the GA List at this time and restricts the council's actions to issues concerning the moderation of the GA List as determined by the by-laws.
Please note that the members of the GA list can only speak for the GA list and not for ICANN, the GNSO, its Council or its constituencies.
20070906-1
The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.
20070830-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007
20070809- 5
The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws or if not advise what by-law change(s) would be needed to enable it. In considering this request the Council asks the ICANN General Counsel to consider implications of recusal when using a proxy.
20070809-4
The GNSO Council redirects the small ad hoc group on domain name tasting to complete its work and deliver its report to the Council by 4 October 2007 for consideration at the GNSO Council meeting on 11 October 2007. In extending the mandate the Council would like to specify that 'small' in this instance, is defined as, at most 2 representatives from among each of the constituencies, the Nominating Committee appointees and the Advisory Committees.
20070809-3
The GNSO Council directs the WHOIS working group to close on 20 August 2007 and Council expects to receive the group's Final Report on 23 August 2007 for discussion at a GNSO Council meeting on 30 August 2007.
20070809-2
The GNSO Council supports by a supermajority vote the recommendations, as a whole, as set out in the Final Report of the Policies for Contractual Conditions Existing Registries, PDP Feb 06 going forward to the ICANN Board.
20070809-1
Approval of the
GNSO Council minutes of 7 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 27 June 2007
GNSO Council minutes 12 July 2007
20070627-4
Motion of Thanks to Bruce Tonkin
Whereas Bruce Tonkin served as DNSO Names Council chair beginning on August 29, 2002 and continued as GNSO Council chair until 7 June 2007,
Whereas on 8 June 2007, Bruce Tonkin’s second term as chair of the GNSO Council came to a close as he took his seat on the ICANN Board to which the Council elected him,
Whereas Bruce maintained neutrality as chair while still representing the Registrars Constituency,
Whereas Bruce demonstrated a calm demeanor in successfully keeping the Council on track during long deliberations on extremely divisive issues,
Whereas Bruce combined his leadership abilities, technical expertise, industry experience and relationship skills with extremely long hours of hard work to leave an imprint on the GNSO that will be missed greatly,
Whereas Bruce provided exemplary service in his role as chair of the Introduction of New gTLDs PDP Committee that has been working for the past one and one half years demonstrating a way in which the GNSO can effectively tackle a very large challenge involving many complex competing interests and many policy issues,
Whereas Bruce’s accomplishments are exemplified by the respect he generated not only in the GNSO but in the ICANN community as a whole,
Therefore, the GNSO Council expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Bruce for his outstanding service to the GNSO and for his willingness to continue to serve the community as an ICANN Director.
20070627-3
The GNSO Council thanks the Staff for the Issues Report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations.
The council accepts the recommendation that a PDP not be initiated at this time, and that the staff continue as proposed in the issues report on page 16.
The council requests that the staff report back to the council within 3 months. The council will reconsider creating a PDP at that time.
20070627-2
The GNSO Council resolves:
1) To acknowledge the Issues Report on Domain Tasting;
2) To create a small, ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain tasting, including but not limited to examination of questions posed on page 30 of the issues report, and to draft terms of reference for a possible GNSO policy development process in a timely way;
3) To direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP;
4) To consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting, and to consider whether to launch a policy development process on domain tasting at the September 2007 GNSO Council meeting.
20070627-1
The GNSO Council voted Chuck Gomes as vice chair.
20070607-2
The GNSO Council ratified the results of the GNSO Council chair election and congratulated Avri Doria as the new GNSO Council chair.
20070607-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 24 May 2007
20070524-3
Whereas the GNSO Council requested at its meeting on 12 April 2006 that the Intellectual Property Interests constituency following consultations make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether or not a policy development process is required.
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention
(http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
20070524-2
The GNSO Council agrees to create a position of Vice-chair to act as Chair in situations when the Chair is temporarily unavailable to do so and to assist the chair when needed.
20070524-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 28 March 2007 and 12 April 2007
20070412-4
The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council,
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007.
Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of RN-WG
Original RN-WG Statement of Work will apply as applicable with the following added.
General Tasks
1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon
2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories:
a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report
b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Geographical and geopolitical names
ii. Controversial names
c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG
i. Three character names at the third level
ii. Registry specific names at the second level
iii. Other reserved names at the second level
3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs
4. Review IDN-WG Report
5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories
6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated
7. Create an annex as feasible (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically
8. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams
Tasks regarding Recommendations
1. ICANN/IANA reserved names
a. Attempt to complete the work needed to make a final recommendation regarding whether or not the existing ASCII reserved name requirement should be continued at all levels of domain names registered by a registry.
a.b. State Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. If unable to complete the work described in item a above, maintain Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly
iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN names
1. Provide examples
2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
b.c. Finalize guidelines for additional work if needed
2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language
i. Provide examples as possible
ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
3. Single & two-character reserved names
a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to non-roman scripts
b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number.
c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels
g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels
4. Tagged names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’
ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level
iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’
iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide
v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
5. NIC, Whois and www
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
6. Geographical & geopolitical names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names
b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names
c. Consult with the GAC as possible
d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty
e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only
f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names
i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
7. Third level names
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope
8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable)
a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report
b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made
c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work
9. Other names at the second level
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope
10. Controversial names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names
b. Consult with the GAC as possible
c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names
g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
Schedule
1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April
2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May
20070412-3
The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.
20070412-2
Council resolved that the WHOIS Charter of work
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
be accepted by the Council with the changes as specified above.
see revised charter as approved
http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group-charter-16apr07.pdf]
20070412-1
The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast.
20070328-2
The GNSO Council resolves:
1) To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note we have received and discussed their report, and thank the task force for their work
2) To create a working group of affected stakeholders:
- including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community participants,
- whose work is to be completed within 120 days
- that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved to address these issues, namely:
a. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not fulfilled.
b. how legitimate interests will access registration data no longer published via Whois,
c. whether a distinction should be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name.
20070328-1
Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007
20070315-4
The Council endorsed the observer rules for working groups.
"Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with unregulated mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, organisation (if associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.
Where a person joins an already established working group, this will be on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been dealt with by the working group.
20070315-3
The Council extended the timeline for the working group on the Protection of the Rights of Others from the end of April to May 17, in order for the report to be considered at the GNSO Council meeting on 24 May 2007.
20070315-2
The GNSO Council approved the revised charter for the working group on "Protecting the rights of others
Background
There is a new gTLD committee of the GNSO that is developing policy recommendations with respect to the introduction of new gTLDs. In addition to policy recommendations, the committee is also considering guidelines that may assist the ICANN staff in preparing an application process, and also creating a framework agreement for registry operators.
The current registrar accreditation agreement requires that Registered Name Holders represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name, nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used, infringes the legal rights of any third party. ICANN also has a Consensus Policy called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that is intended for resolving disputes between the registrant and any third party over the registration and use of an Internet domain name.
In past new gTLD rounds, applicants for new gTLDs have been required to implement measures that discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights; reserve specific names to prevent inappropriate name registrations; minimize abusive registrations; comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation; and provide protections (other than exceptions that may be applicable during the start-up period) for famous name and trademark owners. There have been a range of approaches used which vary in terms of both cost to registrants and third parties affected by registration, and effectiveness.
As part of the new gTLD committee's deliberations, there has been some discussion about what additional protections beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms should be in place to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names.
Purpose:
The purpose of the working group is to:
(1) Document the additional protections implemented by existing gTLD operators beyond the current terms in the registration agreement and existing dispute resolution mechanisms to the protect the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. The documentation should identify the problems that the protections were intended to solve. The working group should establish definitions of terms used in this document to ensure a common understanding amongst members of the working group. These definitions would only be in the context of the document, and without prejudice to the meaning of these terms in other legal contexts.
(2) Determine whether to recommend to Council a best practices approach to providing any additional protections beyond the current registration agreement and UDRP policy for the legal rights of others during the domain name registration process, particularly during the initial start up of a new gTLD where there is contention for what Registrants perceive as the "best" names. A best practices document could be incorporated into the material for the application process for new gTLD applicants. The GNSO could elect in future to use the policy development process (PDP) to create a Consensus Policy in this area.
Suggested Outline of Working Group Work Plan
I. Analyze Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms
A. Identify relevant existing TLDs (not limited to gTLDs)
B. Identify both issues that existing preventive mechanisms are designed to solve and new issues that may have developed
C. Describe existing rights protection mechanisms
1. Eligibility
2. Rights bases or requirements
3. Submission process and costs of submission
4. Review of applications
5. Challenge mechanism and cost of mechanism
D. Issues arising out of or related to the existing rights protection mechanisms
1. Eligibility
2. Rights bases or requirements
3. Review of applications
4. Allocation
E. Analyze Quantitative Effectiveness - relation between preventing the dispute and resolving the dispute
1. Define quantitative effectiveness in light of the issues identified in I.B.
2. Number of preventive registrations, number of preventive registrations vs. overall number of registrations; proportion of registrations that are purely defensive
3. Number of challenges overall and in relation to number of registrations; challenger success rate
4. Evaluate quantitative success in light of the issues identified in I.B.
F. Analyze Qualitative Effectiveness
1. Define qualitative success and set forth criteria for any evaluation in light of issues identified in I.B.
2. Nature of use of names registered during start up period
3. Whether rights protection mechanism process protects rights in a cost-effective manner in light of issues identified in I.B.
4. Evaluate qualitative effectivess in light of issues identified in I.B.
G. Impact on registries and registrars
1. Resource allocation
a) Development of rights protection mechanism
b) Implementation of rights protection mechanism
2. Other considerations
H. Impact on other affect parties
II. Identify Commonalities and Variances among existing rights protection mechanisms, including the evaluation by affected parties.
A. Eligibility Commonalities and Variances
B. Procedural Commonalities and Variances
1. Submission
2. Review
3. Challenge
C. Level of Satisfaction
1. Prior Rights Owners
2. Registrars
3. Registries
4. Other Categories
III. Scalability of rights protection mechanisms
A. Feasibility
Conclusions derived from I and II above -- effectiveness; impact on registrars, registries, and other affected parties; concerns of IP owner and holders of other rights
B. Implementation Considerations
IV. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Mechanisms
A. Alternatives
B. Evaluation
Suggested Working Group Membership
The following list sets out initial ideas for experts that would provide useful contributions. The list is neither binding nor enumerative.
* Owners of globally famous brands from different regions.
* INTA Internet Committee member
* Rights protection mechanism dispute panelist
* Non-profit educational or charitable organization representative
* Registrars with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
* Registries with experience in preventive rights protection mechanisms
* Representative from EURid or PWC, EURid validation agent
* Commercial financial institution representative (because of concerns over consumer protection and concerns related to fishing and identity theft)
* IPC designee
* NCUC designee
* ISP designee
* BC designee
* WIPO representative (given WIPO's expertise in evaluating existing rights protection mechanisms)
1. Voting:
In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensus approach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor hold one vote. Liaisons are non voting.
2. Membership
The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSO Constituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.
Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act.
Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the next three-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishments describe in the next section (Working Timeline).
The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and the Working Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair and co-chair(s).
3. Working Timeline
The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and to achieve the following targets:
1. Progress report at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings (16 March 2007).
2. Final report at least one week prior to the April 2007 GNSO Council meeting.
Timeline:
The working group should conclude its work in time to provide a report for the GNSO Council meeting in April 2007
20070315-1
Approval of GNSO Council minutes 1 February 2007
20070201-4
Council thanked Marilyn Cade, from the Commercial and Business Users Constituency whose term expired, for her outstanding service on the Council.
20070201-3
Council endorses the proposed election procedure and timelines for the ICANN Board seat # 13.
Call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council:
3 weeks for Nominations:
Opens on Monday 19 February 2007 closes on Monday 12 March 2007
Two weeks to verify and interview candidates
Monday 12 March 2007 to Sunday 25 March 2007
Start voting - first round
Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007
Start voting - second round
Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April
Start voting - third round
Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April
Announce results 24 April, or before if the voting is successfully completed.
Proposed dates for GNSO Council meeting to confirm results:
Thursday 26 April OR Thursday 3 May in time for the GNSO to give due notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual Meeting 2006, which would be 8 May 2007.
In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws
From Article VI, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI
3. In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region.
[Note the other ICANN Board seat holder elected by the GNSO is Rita Rodin]
Templates will be available for Nomination and Seconding of candidates
All nominations must be seconded by another GNSO Council member.
Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm
Section 3. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF DIRECTORS
ICANN Directors shall be:
Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and a demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making;
Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet community, and committed to the success of ICANN;
Persons who will produce the broadest cultural and geographic diversity on the Board consistent with meeting the other criteria set forth in this Section;
Persons who, in the aggregate, have personal familiarity with the operation of gTLD registries and registrars; with ccTLD registries; with IP address registries; with Internet technical standards and protocols; with policy-development procedures, legal traditions, and the public interest; and with the broad range of business, individual, academic, and non-commercial users of the Internet;
Persons who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and
Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English.
Section 4. ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
1. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no official of a national government or a multinational entity established by treaty or other agreement between national governments may serve as a Director. As used herein, the term "official" means a person (i) who holds an elective governmental office or (ii) who is employed by such government or multinational entity and whose primary function with such government or entity is to develop or influence governmental or public policies.
2. No person who serves in any capacity (including as a liaison) on any Supporting Organization Council shall simultaneously serve as a Director or liaison to the Board. If such a person accepts a nomination to be
considered for selection by the Supporting Organization Council to be a Director, the person shall not, following such nomination, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, the Supporting Organization Council
relating to the selection of Directors by the Council, until the Council has selected the full complement of Directors it is responsible for selecting. In the event that a person serving in any capacity on a Supporting Organization Council accepts a nomination to be considered for selection as a Director, the constituency group or other group or entity that selected the person may select a replacement for purposes of the Council's selection process.
3. Persons serving in any capacity on the Nominating Committee shall be ineligible for selection to positions on the Board as provided by Article VII, Section 8.
Section 5. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION
In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, the selection of Directors by the Nominating Committee and each Supporting Organization shall comply with all applicable diversity provisions of these Bylaws or of any Memorandum of Understanding referred to in these Bylaws concerning the Supporting Organization. One intent of these diversity provisions is to ensure that at all times each Geographic Region shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board (not including the President). As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a "Geographic Region": Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa; and North America. The specific countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the Board, and this Section shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time (but at least every three years) to determine whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the Internet.
Only GNSO Council members may nominate and vote for candidates, although GNSO Council members should consult with their constituencies with regard to suitable candidates
Accepting Nominations:
The GNSO Secretariat will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance.
The GNSO Secretariat shall convey the nomination and the acceptance thereof to the GNSO Council list.
B. VOTING PROCEDURE
The voting will be "convention style" voting. This consists of sequential rounds of voting until a single candidate receives a majority of the votes on the GNSO Council.
(see: Appendix A Convention Style Voting
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm)
(There will be a total of 27 votes cast and a majority is 14 or more.)
C. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE ROUNDS OF CONVENTION STYLE VOTING
Start voting - first round
Monday 2 April 2007 - Monday 9 April 2007
Start voting - second round
Monday 9 April 2007 - Monday 16 April
Start voting - third round
Monday 16 April 2007 - Monday 23 April
D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:
All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC),
Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. | 
