/
Agenda 17 April 2008

Agenda 17 April 2008

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Mar 31, 2011Version comment

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 17 April 2008
----

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the GNSO Council

Coordinated Universal Time12:00 UTC - see below for local times (05:00 Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne)

Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting
Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins.

Dial-in numbers sent individually to Council members.

Item 0: Roll call of Council members

23 votes present

Item 1: Update any statements of interest

Item 2: Review/amend agenda (5 mins)

  • Tabled item 12 until 8 May on request of Patrick Jones
  • move itesm 4-7 to end of agenda to allow for early departures

Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutes of March 6, 2008 (5 mins)

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04907.html

Item 8: Discussion on how to complete deliberations on IRTP PDP – Denial Definitions (15 mins)
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf

Approved: Create a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4
provisions for reason for denial. Drafting is open to participants from all constituencies, nomcom appointees and liaisons.

Need to add a time line that allows for this to be voted on in Paris and which allows for a public comment period.

Item 9: Proposed IRTP PDP recommendations (15 mins)
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf

Item 10: Domain Tasting PDP discussion/vote (15 mins)
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tasting-04apr08.pdf
Motion by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Bilal Beiram and Kristina Rosette (passes by supermajority)

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.

Amendment proposed by Adrian Kinderis, seconded by Tim Ruiz (motion to amend failed)

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 resolved on 31 October 2007 to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period;

Whereas, the Board resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP;

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 Staff continue the budgetary process towards approval with the inclusion of fees for all domains added, including domains added during AGP as directed in the Board resolution of 23 January 2008;

2. An allowance for a reasonable number of deletes as quantified in 4.a.i below be included against which the fees would not apply;

3. Upon approval of the budget including said fees and reasonable allowance, the deletes activity within the AGP shall be monitored by the GNSO.
Specifically:

a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO within three months as to how effectively and to what extent the fees have reduced AGP delete activity;

 b. Whether or not further policy work should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the monitoring stage.

4. Upon conclusion of the monitoring stage, if Staff reports and the GNSO confirms that the fees have not been sufficiently effective in reducing AGP delete activity, the Staff will immediately begin implementation of the following recommendation as Consensus Policy;

  a. 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:

     i. 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.

     ii. 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. iii. 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.

  b. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;

     i. 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;

        1. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and

        2. 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,

     ii. 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.

Item 11: Fast Flux Issues Report discussion (15 mins)
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf

Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh. These motions will be discussed at the 17 April meeting with a vote scheduled for 8 May.

MOTION 1
Moved: Mike Rodenbaugh
Seconded:

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:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/

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,
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-
25mar08.pdf, 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.;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To initiate a Policy Development Process to consider whether and how ICANN
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.

(This will require a 33% vote)

MOTION 2
Moved: Mike Rodenbaugh
Seconded:

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy
development to address fast flux hosting;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Task Force 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 Task Force 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?
...How are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities?
...How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities?
...How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
...How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
...What 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?

The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report
discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by
the Task Force members. The Task Force report also shall outline potential
next steps for Council deliberation.

(This will require a 50% vote)

Item 12: Single character 2 letter domain names (10 mins) - tabled until 8 May http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-synthesis-on-sldns-27feb08.pdf

Item 13: ALAC Letter to Board on "front-running" and Board referral to GNSO council (10 mins)

Discussion under 11 Other business: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htmBoard's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action."

13.1 D o we need an issues report?
13.2 Discussion of SSAC note from Steve Crocker
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04920.html

Item 4: Update from Denise Michel on Board activities (10 mins)

Item 5: Update from Edmon Chung on IDNC (10 mins)

Item 6: GNSO Improvements - update (10 mins)

Item 7: New gTLD - follow up (10 mins)

Item 14: Action Items (5 mins)
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf

Item 15: AOB (5 mins)

(05:00 Los Angeles, 08:00 Washington DC, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne)

Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere

Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA (PST) UTC-8-0DST 05:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 05:00
Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 09:00
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-3+0DST 09:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 13:00
Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
Amman, Jordan UTC+2+1DST 15:00
Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 19:00
Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 20:00
Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 20:00
Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+1DST 22:00

The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)

For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com

^ Next Meeting 17 April

Topics planned for meeting

  • Opening (10 Min) * role call * SOI update * Agenda update
  • Board report - Denise Michel (10 Min)
  • IDNC report - Edmon (10 Min)
  • GNSO Improvements - update (10 Min)
  • New gTLD - followup (10 Mn)
  • Discussion on how to complete deliberations on IRTP PDP – Denial Definitions (15 min)
  • Proposed IRTP PDP recommendations (15 min)
  • Domain Tasting PDP discussion/vote (15 Min)
  • Fast Flux Issues Report discussion (15 Min)
  • Single character 2 letter domain names (10 min)
  • ALAC Letter to Board on "front-running" and Board referral to GNSO council (10)ALAC Letter
    Board Prelim Minutes* do we need an issues report?
    * discussion of SSAC note from Steve Crocker
    I think we will also want to add New gTLDs to the list in follow-up to the L.A. meeting.

Chuck

contributed by cgomes on Apr 4 1:40pm

Yes, new gTLDs was on there, but i removed it for 2 reasons,

  1. we were going to have a face to face meeting on that topic just 5 days before the next meeting. it there are any further follow up activities, i think they will be broader then a conversation in the meeting and would need more preparation time with constituencies and the like.
  2. at approximately a minimum of 20 minutes per substantive topic we can only handle so many topics in a meeting. and I don't think that this can be fixed by trimming 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there.

You may be right and we may need to have more discussion on this topic, but if we do, I beleive we will need to schedule a meeting just for that purpose.

contributed by avri doria on Apr 5 7:29am