This report covers GNSO activities at the Mexico City meeting, and a short note about the upcoming GNSO meeting later this week. The formal minutes from Mexico City are not yet out - once they are, if it appears that I have left anything important out here, I will update the report and send out a notice.

Due to the At-Large Summit, I did not spend nearly as much time with the GNSO as would be normal at an ICANN meeting.

The major issues with an impact on the ALAC/At-Large were as follows:

  • The groups working on the detailed implementation of GNSO restructuring, the Policy & Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) are well underway, and each has struck a number of Working Teams to do the actual work. I sit on the PPSC (Vanda is on the OSC) and on the Working Team that will be developing the new Policy development Process (PDP-WT). Cheryl is on the WT developing the rules for Working Groups. Both WT are open if others want to participate, but be warned that the workload is likely to be heavy.
  • The revised guidebook on new gTLDs was discussed extensively. One of the focal points was the lack of any movement on Intellectual Property issues. As currently drafted, trademarks would be protected soley through the objection process, and this was felt (by many) to be a far to expensive and cumbersome process). It was clear that ICANN has gotten the message that there must be some changes here, or the business and IP communities would look for ways outside of ICANN to address there needs. As you likely know, a working group has been created to look at the issue of trade mark protection in relation to new gTLDs - the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) and to report back with a final report in time for discussion and approval at the Sydney ICANN meeting. A draft report is scheduled to be available on April 24.
  • There were interesting discussions with the GAC on the issue of geographic names, not only at the top level, but at the 2nd level as well (an area currently not protected at all. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
  • Council unanimously approved the motion on WHOIS studies to be forwarded to ICANN staff. The final motion was changed to take into account the ALAC input which was submitted somewhat late. The motion was approved unanimously, despite the RaR and NCUC initially taking the position that no studies should be done.
  • Earlier this year, the GNSO has considered a motion to approve the oft-discussed package of RAA amendments. It passed with a majority, but not with the > 66% required to allow the Board to put the amendments in place. It did not appear that there would be any way to reconcile those who felt that the amendments, although incomplete, were an important advance, and those who felt that the process was so flawed as to make the results totally unacceptable. Going into the meeting, it seemed that, with the help of a stronger motion requiring immediate work on a Registrant Rights Charter and on explicitly stating that future changes would be worked on in a timely manner with the registrars negotiating in good faith, it would be possible to get a 66& vote approved. In a rather surprising turn of events, a compromise motion was developed and the RAA amendment package was approved unanimously. Unfortunately, the Board decided that another 30 day comment period was required prior to their approving the amendments. PLEASE NOTE that the ALAC is explicitly mentioned in the text regarding the Registrant Rights Charter and At-Large people will play a large role in its creation. We have long talked about this. We now need to start working.
  • There were a number of formal and informal meetings to discuss the formation and charter of the new Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group. No definitive progress was made.

There will be a GNSO meeting on Thursday, March 26. One of the issues to be discussed will be the initiation of a PDP on the issue of Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery. If the motion passes, I would expect a PDP Working group to be created within the next few weeks. Since this issue came from At-Large, it is important that we be active participants in the PDP WG.

  • No labels