ALAC and GAC will meet again at ICANN 58 in Copenhagen. Time of the meeting has been agreed as 17.00-18.00 on Tuesday, 14 March.
The agenda of the meeting will be agreed on a call between the leaderships of ALAC and GAC in February.
One item for the agenda was already preliminary agreed upon at the joint meeting at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad. Both sides are interested in the Council of Europe study on community TLD's,
and it is likely to be subject of more discussion at the ALAC-GAC meeting in Copenhagen.
4 Comments
Yrjo Lansipuro
As mentioned in the GAC communiqué from Hyderabad, the GAC Working Group to Examine the Protection of Geographic Names in Future Expansion of gTLDs has been discussing a new text for Best Practices on geographic names, including the proposal of creating a repository of names, reference to a due diligence process and associated procedures for applicants and other parties involved in the process. The Working Party is expected to produce a draft for discussion by the full GAC before ICANN58.
The GAC Chair, Thomas Schneider has suggested this topic for the joint ALAC/GAC meeting at ICANN58. At the ALT meeting on 9 February, interest into a joint discussion was expressed, and on 10 February, I informed the GAC Chair and the GAC Secretariat accordingly.
Yrjo Lansipuro
On 27 February, I suggested the following agenda for the ALAC/GAC meeting at ICANN58:
1) Best practices for geographic names in future rounds of new gTLDs (suggested by Thomas)
2) Council of Europe study on community applications for gTLD's (agreed after the initial presentation at the GAC/ALAC meeting in Hyderabad)
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b5a14
3) GAC draft survey on underserved regions (proposed by Maureen Hilyard)
4) At Large Review (I'm proposing so that we could present our points of view on the review to the GAC and answer possible questions.
Yrjo Lansipuro
28 March, 2017
Joint ALAC/GAC meeting at ICANN58
There was a joint ALAC/GAC meeting at ICANN58 in Copenhagen in Tuesday, March 17.
At the beginning, ALAC Chair Alan Greenberg noted that even though ALAC and GAC have not formally worked much together, they are increasingly talking to each other and perhaps influencing each other, and in any case becoming more familiar with each other.
1) Geographic names in subsequent new gTLD procedures
Olga Cavalli presented the ongoing work of the GAC WG on protection of geographic names. Its purpose is to develop rules for the subsequent new gTLD procedures so that the conflicts of the first round could be avoided. The focus is on the names with geographic significance but at present not listed as protected (such as names of mountauins, rivers etc.) A repository of such names, put in by governments and other authorities and built and maintained by ICANN, has been suggested. Applicants should consult the list and get a “non-objection” from the appropriate authorities. However, even the WG and the GAC are divided as to the practicality of these arrangements, so the WG continues its work.
The GAC Chair Tomas Schneider pointed out that the idea of the WG work is not to try to create new rights, but to serve as a display of interests and stakes that communitie may have in certain names in the very beginning of the process that helps applicants to find out potential conflicts beforehand.
2) Council of Europe study on community applications
Elvan Thaci (Council of Europe) presented the study, which consists of an analysis of how community applications fared during the previous new gTLD round and numerous recommendations for the subsequent new gTLD procedures, to facilitate the process for them. Mark Carwell noted that the study had gained visibility with ICANN and that the GAC is going to express its support for consideration of the recommendations by the PDP on subsequent procedures. He clarified that the GAC had not instituted a procedure to endorse the recommendations.
Alan Greenberg noted that ALAC of course supported the proposal that the PDP WG should seriously consider the recommendations. ALAC had not discussed them in detail, but he felt that it could strongly support may of them, if not all. ALAC will study them further so that its representatives in the PDP WG can speak it its name.
3) Underserved regions
Pua Hunter (GAC WG on Under-Served Regions) presented the work done by her WG under the Copenhagen meeting, Maureen Hilliard expressed appreciation of it and called for joint efforts to increase engagement into ICANN from underserved regions. Alan Greenberg noted that this is another area for ALAC/GAC cooperation, when more details will be available.
4) At Large Review
Alan Greenberg informed the GAC about the discussions ALAC had in Copenhagen on the review and about the probable next step in the review process.
5) WS 2 issues
Of the WS 2 issues of mutual concern, discussion focused on diversity, including whether or not skills are a diversity factor.
GAC Cope hagen communiqué:
https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee?preview=/27132037/44663677/GAC%20ICANN%2058%20Communique%20-%20Full%20-%2015mar17.pdf
Yrjo Lansipuro
Board-GAC call 27 April 2017
At ICANN 56, the GAC and the Board adopted a practice of having an intersessional call to discuss the GAC communiqué of the previous meeting. It is an opportunity for the Board and to ask and receive clarifications from the GAC, and to provide answers, as appropriate, to the questions raised in the communiqué.
The Board-GAC call about the GAC communiqué of ICANN 58 was held 27 April. Apparently there was not much to discuss, as only 45 minutes were used of the total of 90 minutes reserved.
Most of the discussion was about the conflict between the GAC and the GNSO regarding 2-characted country/territory codes at the second level.
In its Copenhagen communiqué, the GAC had noted that some governments were seriously concerned about the consequences introduced by the changes created by the Board Resolution from 8 November 2016, as it is no longer mandatory to notify governments about plans to use their country codes on the second level, let alone to seek their agreement. However, some governments didn't care about the issue. In its Consensus Advice, the GAC advised the Board to take into account the serious concerns of some governments and engage with them before ICAN 59.
In its letter to the Board on 25 April, presenting a draft response to the GAC Copenhagen communiqué, the GNSO Council stated that "there should be no opportunity to reopen" the 8 November 2016 resolution. It rejected what it called "bilateralism" ie. the necessity for the Board to negotiate directly with individual GAC members and
During the Board-GAC call, the Board promised ICANN (org) would consult with as many concerned governments as possible before ICANN 59. There is also a possibility of a group meeting at ICANN 59.