[bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: GNSO Council Resolutions 6 October 2011

[Benedetta Rossi <secretariat-bc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear BC Members,

Ahead of the official minutes please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO 
Council meeting on 6 October 2011.


1.    Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) Whereas 
there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current 
set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and 
proposed Whois service policy requirements,and there have been questions as to 
the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC 
Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+-+Home
 ),and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the 
Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO 
community (see: history of Whois policy activity: 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ),and new architectures and 
tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: 
development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and 
initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 );Whereas on 07 
May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of 
technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and 
organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy 
tools;Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois 
Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and 
ACs;Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected 
SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the 
Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the 
Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;Whereas on 19 May 2011, 
the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community 
volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a 
survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;Whereas in July 2011, 
several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey 
“Working Group”, preferring the term “Working Group” to “Drafting Team” in this 
case; 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdfResolved,The
 GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested 
volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring 
the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final 
Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.The GNSO Council 
further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as 
defined 
here:http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf In
 accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce 
a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. 
Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this 
survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report 
describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO 
Council by October 2012. 2.    Motion to Address the Remaining Registration 
Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations - deferred from 22 September 
Council meetingWhereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group 
submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);Whereas 
the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to 
form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard 
to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working 
Group Final Report;Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation 
Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 
November 2010 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);Whereas
 the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at 
the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of 
RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);Whereas the GNSO Council requested 
feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 
and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 
February 2011 
(http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In 
addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in 
San Francisco.Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP 
recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN 
meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).NOW
 THEREFORE BE IT:RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance 
Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and 
determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO 
Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report 
on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at 
least an annual basis' (see 
(http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).RESOLVED, 
the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in 
relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no 
further work on this recommendation is needed.  RESOLVED, the GNSO Council 
determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder 
Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 
before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff.  The GNSO Council hereby 
requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and 
data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help 
inform the GNSO Council’s and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue 
Report should be requested.  A small group of volunteers consisting of 
registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG 
members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar 
Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the 
GNSO Council accordingly.RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation 
#1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider 
including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to 
develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not 
appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should 
inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what 
next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this 
recommendation.RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: 
Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges 
receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until 
it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, 
which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address 
the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to 
develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO 
Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper 
may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: 
Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.RESOLVED, in 
regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain 
Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard 
and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. 
If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the 
SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the 
GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In 
addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration 
scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since 
this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.RESOLVED, in response to the 
recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council 
acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN 
Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track 
violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG 
Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements 
that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration 
of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP 
WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the 
ICANN Compliance Department.RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on 
Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate 
whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created 
for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be 
structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse.RESOLVED, in 
response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive 
Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since 
the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council 
defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this 
time.RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain 
Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this 
recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for 
at this time. 3.    Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal 
activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that 
involves the domain name system WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has 
consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement 
agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the 
information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain 
name system; andWHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law 
enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in 
addressing online crime; andWHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law 
enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal 
activity;RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the following 
possible policy revisions and/or additions:1. ICANN-accredited registrars must 
provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical 
address for the purpose of receiving legal service.  This record must include a 
valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax 
number.Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, 
and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days 
of a change of address.2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN 
staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s 
respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the 
appropriate equivalents of those positions.  These data may be made available 
upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a 
manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and 
representatives of law enforcement agencies.  Registrars will notify ICANN of 
any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.3.  Law enforcement 
agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by 
the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their 
recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for 
expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and 
verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon  that 
agency’s first contact with a registrar.4. Freedom of Expression impact 
analysis.4.  Motion to create a  GNSO Drafting Team on Cross Community Working 
Groups (CCWG):Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in 
cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other 
ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);Whereas, the 
GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the 
role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects 
that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned 
to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; Whereas, there is a desire to form a GNSO 
drafting team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, 
functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups, in 
accordance with the Draft Charter (attached) presented to the GNSO Council. NOW 
THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the formation 
of a GNSO drafting team   which will be responsible for developing a proposed 
framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other SO/ACs along 
with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely 
reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs; 
Resolved further, that Jonathan Robinson shall serve as the GNSO Council 
Liaison for this open working group; Resolved further, it is recognized that 
the Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG-DT) has already met 
informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort.  Until such 
time as the DT can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO 
Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and Resolved 
further, that the Charter 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/charter-ccwg-30sep11-en.pdf
is hereby approved for the CCWG-DT.   As specified in the Charter, a status 
report is to be delivered at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011, and a 
final report to be produced by the CCWG-DT on or before the end of calendar 
year 2012. 

Kind Regards,

Benedetta Rossi
BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgsecretariat-bc@xxxxxxxxxxx