[alac] GNSO Council call notes

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A couple of notes from today's GNSO Council call:

- ACTION ITEM: Prioritize UDRP issues within next 30 days.

- WIPO2 update: Tonkin has contacted Twomey.  There will be
  approximately 6 members from GAC on WIPO2 working group; president
  has asked GNSO to nominate 6 people to join the working group.
  Tonkin recommends one nomination from each of the constituencies.
  Neumann (registries) asks about purpose of group -- implement,
  recommend whether to implement; has heared strong opposition even
  from IP owners.  Scope of group?  Amadeu: Not working group to
  implement, but to raise issues -- implementable or not?  If yes,
  how?  If no, why not?  Implications?  Reception within ICANN
  process of external advice.  Stubbs: Be sure not to make policy at
  this point.  Study *possible* impact.  Milton: Procedural
  concerns; ad hoc procedures; policy-development has to happen
  within GNSO.  Group should be relabeled as "study group". Suggests
  to delegate one member to represent council's broad consensus.
  Tonkin: Part of exercise to explain council's position to GAC, and
  how council arrived at that position.  Better to set 6 members.
  Neumann: Implementation of wipo2 only possible through GNSO
  consensus process.  Members sent to committee must reinforce that.
  Maybe nobody has explained need for consensus to GAC.  Policy
  won't take effect without consensus process.  Redemption grace
  period -- voluntary implementation.  Don't expect that with
  respect to wipo2.  Council members v. constituency members?
  Tonkin: No restriction.  Council nominates 6 people.  Delegate to
  constituencies to nominate their preferred person.  Amadeu:
  Possible outcome of president's group is to defer complicated
  questions raised by WIPO2 to relevant bodies outside ICANN before
  this goes into policy-development process.  Don't send just one
  person; lots of pressure behind wipo2.  Send people with strong
  legal background on trademarks, udrp, internet law.  Marilyn: New
  challenge; have to create new process.  Make sure that there is
  good and agreed to understanding about scope of group.  Tonkin
  will seek clarification from Twomey; from what he hears, group is
  similar to WHOIS steering group.  Pre-filter to eventual
  policy-development process.  No deadline from Twomey.

  Resolution: Ask constituencies to nominate one person each for
  group.  Milton seconds.  Unanimously accepted.

- UDRP discussion.  Tonkin suggests steering committee like what's
  being done with respect to WHOIS.  Marilyn: Recommends quick
  process of prioritization.  Then move ahead with PDP that focuses
  on priority items.  Sheppard: Practical suggestion.  Initially
  engage on enforcement recommendation; look at prioritization
  separately.  Amadeu: Comments on one issue (don't understand him).
  Takes exception to staff's recommendation not to deal with
  substantial issues on mission and core value grounds.  Does not
  accept characterization in report.  Neumann: Clarification -- just
  ask that final five recommendations be sent to group?  Tonkin: No.
  Neumann: Before you do anything, need to determine whether in
  scope?  Definitive answers.  Amadeu: That's done in staff report.
  Neumann: More guidance needed.  Tonkin: First let constituencies
  do prioritization.  Start with 3 or 5 issues.  Neumann: Just
  submit comments?  Tonkin: Could be a way.  Have top 5 issues
  listed, tabluate.  My comments: Remarks on scope; prefer
  discussion for prioritization over exchange of written rules.
  Tonkin: Could use ALAC outreach to individual users; asks what we
  are doing (answer: Not much, lack of time, have people with
  expertise, interested in being involved, will do more in future).
  Milton: Scope -- changing ICANN-declared policy is being declared
  out of scope.  20% of udrp decisions cover common law marks -- why
  is clarification out of scope?  Same with respect to confusing
  similarity.  Decision databases -- not a policy issue.  Public
  availability of filings not a priority.  Doesn't hear lots of
  agitation.  Not a major issue on the original UDRP working group.
  Amending filings is major issue.  Appeals important; more
  substantive than anything else.  Review of accreditation of
  providers is missing from list. Provider could become openly
  corrupt, no defined procedure for deaccrediting them.  Deterrents
  to reverse domain name hijacking? ...  Tonkin, summary: People not
  comfortable with prioritization done by ICANN staff.
  Prioritization process.  Identify priorities, then discuss scope
  issues with general counsel.
  
  Resolution: GNSO Council requests constituencies to review list of
  issues in staff manager's report to identify top 5 issues from the
  report.  Report back in 30 days time.  Constituency positions will
  be collated by secretariat.  Unanimous.

- WHOIS Steering Group update.  Tonkin chaired meeting last week.
  Minutes posted.  Steering group went through similar process to
  what was just described; top 5 issues.  Top: Issue 5 (awareness);
  data mining; have requested formal review and report back.  Will
  collate those.  High-level group chaired by Twomey has requested
  that consituencies review current CRISP requirements document.
  Identification of "critical" data elements for each constituency.
  
- Council structure.  Number of representatives.  Council review.
  Marilyn repeatedly calls for *self*-assessment of the council as
  opposed to outside review; points to bottom-up structure of ICANN;
  participation of council in establishing criteria for review.
  Resolution adopted.

- Budget committee report.  Council thanks Cochetti for chairing
  budget committee.

- Other business: Practical problems introducing new TLDs (the
  crappy heuristics problem).  Neumann: Outreach!  Tonkin: Reminds
  him of y2k.  Suspects similar problems with recently-added ccTLDs.
  Big issue of outreach.  Need simple problem statement.  ICANN
  advisory?  RFC?  Harris: Latin American ISPs are going to meet.
  Can discuss there.  (Further discussion on what to do.)

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>