The latest GNSO meeting was held on Thursday, Nov. 20. The full agenda can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-20nov08.shtml and the MP3 recording is at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20081120.mp3.
There were a number of issues discussed of particular interest to the ALAC and At-Large.
The Registry Constituency proposed a methodology for addressing the outcome of the WHOIS studies proposal. The Council has decided to accept their basic methodology (although not necessarily their specific suggestion regarding the studies. There will be a meeting on Dec. 10th to discuss this further.
Registration Abuse Policies
A recently released Issues Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registration-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf) was presented. In summary, most registries and registrars have policies related to abuse of domain names. The distinction between abuse of the name related to the registration process and the "abuse" of the actual use is unclear. Some aspects are certainly in scope for the GNSO, but some may not be. A vote will be taken at the next meeting to decide whether to initiate a PDP at this time. My guess is that there will be no PDP at this time, but there will be further activity to understand the issues. A small drafting team is looking at options.
IDNccTLD Fast Track
The GNSO will comment on the posted implementation plan. A drafting team led by Edmon Chung is being formed.
Discussion on the implementation documents is ongoing. Once issue I raised is that the GNSO needs to better understand the "rules" about who changes can come about to the policies that it approves. Specifically, it has been made clear that the Board had two options when it was considering approval of the new gTLD plan. It could either approve all terms, or pass it back to the GNSO for change. However, it now seems that even though the Board does not have discretion to pick and choose parts of the policy, staff do have such discretion, since some parts of the implementation do not conform to the GNSO recommendations.
It has been suggested that the 4-month waiting period once the implementation plan is finalized was excessive, and it is likely that the GNSO will propose that it be shortened.
The Board requested a plan by Dec. 11. ICANN staff were requested to draft a strawman document. With some change, it will be submitted to the Board, largely as a plan on how to create the plan, and not at a static, cast-in-concrete plan.
legal counsel and staff believe that the only way that the current RAA
proposed changes can be enacted is for the GNSO to adopt them as a
consensus policy by a >66% vote. If the GNSO feels that changes must
first be made, or that additional terms must be added, it will require
a full-blown PDP, which would take months or more likely years. So essentially, there is a binary decision. Either approve the proposed RAA amendments as a package, or alternatively, decide to embark on a PDP related to specific RAA terms. Note that some RAA terms, including some of those in the RAA amendment package on the table, are likely not within scope for the GNSO.
The implementation plans will likely go ahead with minimal changes, with an implementation date of March 31, 2009.
Created by Alan Greenberg on Dec 8 9:55pm. Updated by Alan Greenberg on Dec 8 9:55pm.