Motions 4 September 2008

Motion on the IRTP Denial Definitions PDP

Moved: Avri Doria
Seconded: 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 text reads:

• A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration periodBe 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 intiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in the intial 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.

Draft Motion regarding GNSO Comments re. Geographic Regions Community-Wide WG

Moved: Olga Cavalli

Seconded: 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 July 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.

  ---

  Motion on GNSO "Improvements" (tabled on 25 Jun 08, modified for 17 July, to be modified for 04 Sept or the mtg after)

Motion:
Second:

Whereas,

The ICANN Board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN Staff to "draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO", and

That such a plan was developed by the Planning Team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation, and

That the ICANN board in resolution 2008.06.26.13, endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group, and

That the ICANN board in resolution ..... (if indeed the decide something)

Resolved:

The GNSO Council approves the Framework defined in GNSO Improvements – Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO Improvements
Planning Team as documented in

and request that
constituencies and nomcom appointees begin the task of naming representatives to serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top Level Plan by --insert date here--

^^

Draft Motion re Whois Hypotheses (Revised 2 Sep 08)

Moved: Chuck Gomes

Seconded: Robin Gross

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 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf )
• 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 (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml )
• 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.

  ---

  Motion on Travel Arrangements for Cairo

Motion: Avri Doria

Second: 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:

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/GNSO budget.

Request for Issues Report re Registration Abuse Policies

Motion: Mike Rodenbaugh
Second: Greg Ruth

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 RSEP 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 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 identify and describe potential options for further Council consideration, relating to consistency and propriety of provisions of this nature in all of these agreements.