Schedule: GNSO
Saturday, 20 June 2009
What it is | The Generic Names Supporting Organisation's (GNSO) face to face meetings are open sessions.
Who should attend? | Anyone interested in the GNSO's policy work is free to attend.
Saturday Agenda items
Several sessions are still in planning for Saturday and Sunday
Include are the following:
- Various PPSC and OSC work teams
- Various PDP WG
- Various Council DT
Also included will be session with appropriate invited speakers including.
- Progress on resolution of overarching issues on new gTLDs
- Esp IRT Report
- Geographical names at the first and second levels
- Other ongoing gTLD activitie
Sunday, 21 June 2009
What it is | The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. The GNSO Council requested an issues report in preparation for an IRTP Part B PDP on 16 April 2009. The issues covered in the Issues Report on IRTP Part B are:
Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed;
Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC).
Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: 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.
The issues report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009. The objective of this session is to have a first exchange of views on the issues raised in this report with the broader community
Why it's Important | The input received during this meeting will be provided to the relevant working group, once a PDP has been initiated, to inform their deliberations.
Who should attend? | Anyone interested in the review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.
What it is | The Generic Names Supporting Organisation's (GNSO) face to face meetings are open sessions.
Who should attend? | Anyone interested in the GNSO's policy work is free to attend.
What it is | The Generic Names Supporting Organisation's (GNSO) face to face meetings are open sessions.
Who should attend? | Anyone interested in the GNSO's policy work is free to attend.
What it is | Joint GAC and GNSO meeting.
Why it's important | The GNSO and the GAC will discuss issues related to the introduction of new gTLDs.
Who should attend? | Anyone with an interest in this topic.
Monday, 22 June 2009
What it is | Open meetings for members of ICANN to observe. There will be time reserved in the meeting for Q&A with members of the community, in order to inform the community of our ongoing work.
Who should attend? | It will be open to members of the ICANN community to observe.
SESSION SUMMARY
Representatives of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees met and discussed institutional improvements. A summary is provided below:
Frustration and exhaustion
There is a huge volume of work and everyone struggles to get through it and so stay up to date on issues.
There is a lack of visibility of the impact that volunteer input has on decision making, particularly for Board decisions.
Also:
- The purpose, roles and responsibilities of volunteers, staff and Board are not clear.
- Levels of trust are low.
- The Board operates at too operational a level
- The current processes are not scalable, particularly as the organization continues to grow and internationalize.
Possible solutions to these issues were raised:
- Prioritization of the workload
- Better scoping of issues at the start of policy processes. This should involve all SOs and ACs.
- Improving accessibility to issues by providing summaries
- Working together to clarify purpose, roles and responsibilities
- Leaders acknowledging that building trust is part of their role
- Taking time to analyse the root cause of the frustration
- Improve contact between groups, perhaps through issue-focussed meetings
There was recognition that there is much good work being done by staff and volunteers and that there has been significant improvement over the last few years. The frustration expressed can also be seen as a positive energy for change (although a complete evolution and reform process was not seen as the best solution).
There are existing processes in which some of these issues may be tackled. The strategic planning process (http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/); review of the policy development process (https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team); and the improving institutional confidence consultation (http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/).
What it is | The joint meeting of ICANN’s Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, known as the ACSO session, was developed by the chairs of the different groups in 2008 to fill a gap at ICANN meetings that they felt existed.
In particular, the chairs:
- Wanted to find a formula for open communication that was more than a repeat of existing open microphone sessions
- Wanted to create a forum that could break through the silos of discussion and communication in which ACs and SOs often operate
- Wanted the opportunity to discuss topics of mutual interest and importance, and to have those topics suggested by ACSO members
To this end, it was agreed that:
- It is better to hear things "from the horse's mouth" i.e. direct communication is always going to be more effective than indirect communication
- Some existing meetings between individual ACs and SOs could benefit from being expanded to other groups within ICANN. By enlarging the conversation, not only would time and effort be saved but other groups would be in a better position to understand and reflect upon different AC and SO perspectives
- It was important to have a physical demonstration of the whole community coming together to exchange views and information
- That a joint "ACSO session" be its own standalone meeting and not replace other sessions, with the possible reduction in bilateral sessions between particular ACs and SOs
Why it's Important | Representatives from right across the organization meet to discuss a pressing topic and increase understanding of different perspectives across the community.
Who should attend? | Everyone that can.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
What it is | The gTLD Registries Constituency is a constituency within the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) and its primary role is to represent the interests of gTLD Registries that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD Registry Services.
Why it's important | The in-person meetings held in conjunction with the ICANN meetings provide an opportunity for productive and constructive discussions on issues that involve ICANN consensus policies that relate to interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or Domain Name System (DNS).
Why should attend? | Any one with a vested interest in these issues is encouraged to attend the open session of the gTLD Registries Constituency meeting while in Sydney.
What it is | The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organisations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO).
What it is | The members are registrars accredited by and under contract to ICANN. Registrars provide the interface between registrants and registries in getting domain names.
