Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
  1. MOTION on Uniformity of Reporting – Completion of ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan

Made by: Klaus Stoll

Seconded by: John Berard

Whereas,

  1. The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports' and as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes';
  2. The GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at that stage;
  3. The ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf);
  4. The GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and the RAPWG Alumni submitted their proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30jul12-en.pdf); ;
  5. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports;
  6. ICANN Staff submitted the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council on 2 April 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf);
  7. The GNSO Council reviewed the Final Issue Report and resolved on 16 May 2013 to not initiate a Policy Development Process at that stage but to await the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan;
  8. On 25 June 2014 and 24 July 2014, the GNSO Council received a briefing by ICANN Contractual Compliance on the results of its three-year plan, the transformation of metrics collection and reporting of the contractual compliance function, and continuous improvement plans (see http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/presentation-gnso-council-compliance-25jun14-en.pdf).

 

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Contractual Compliance for its presentation of their three-year plan and its continued collaboration with the GNSO in future policy development efforts.
  2. The GNSO Council considers the issues identified in the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report have now been addressed and consider this issue closed.

2.MOTION for the Proposed Modification of the GNSO’s Consensus Recommendations Relating to Recommended Second Level Protections for IGO Acronyms and certain Red Cross Identifiers

Made by: Thomas Rickert withdrew the motion at the GNSO Council meeting 4 September 2014.
Seconded by:

WHEREAS:

 

  1. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) to evaluate the need for protections for International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) at the top and second level in all gTLDs;

  2. On 10 November 2013 the PDP Working Group (IGO-INGO PDP WG) delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council that included twenty-five consensus recommendations of the WG;

  3. On 20 November 2013 the GNSO Council unanimously adopted all twenty-five consensus recommendations of the IGO-INGO PDP WG and forwarded them to the ICANN Board in January 2014 with a recommendation for their adoption;

  4. On 7 February 2014 the ICANN Board: (i) acknowledged receipt of the GNSO Council’s recommendations; (ii) requested further time to consider them; and (iii) directed the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to develop a proposal for subsequent Board consideration that would take into account the GNSO’s recommendations and GAC advice received on the topic;

  5. In March 2014 the NGPC sent a proposal to the GAC for its consideration and notified the GNSO Council accordingly;

  6. On 30 April 2014 the Board resolved to adopt those of the GNSO’s recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice, and to facilitate dialogue between the affected parties to reconcile the remaining differences, as further detailed in Annex A and Annex B of the Board’s resolution;

  7. The GNSO’s recommendations and GAC advice are largely consistent except in relation to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and the full names and acronyms of 189 Red Cross national societies and the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, for which the GNSO had recommended a 90-day period of protection by way of a claim notification service through the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH);

  8. The GAC had requested, in its July 2013 Durban, November 2013 Buenos Aires and March 2014 Singapore Communiques, that protection for IGO acronyms be at low or no cost to the organizations, and include binding third party review in the event of a second level dispute with a registrant, and that the same complementary cost-neutral mechanism be used for the acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC/CICR) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/FICR);

  9. In its March 2014 Singapore Communique, the GAC had also clarified that its request for permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the international Red Cross and Red Crescent movement included the 189 Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies and the full names of International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies;

  10. On 16 June 2014 the NGPC sent a letter to the GNSO Council requesting that the GNSO consider modifying its recommendations relating to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and national society names of the Red Cross in accordance with Section 16 of the GNSO’s PDP Manual;

  11. Section 16 of the GNSO’s PDP Manual foresees that approved GNSO Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council at any time prior to final approval by the ICANN Board; and

  12. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the NGPC’s request as well as section 16 of the GNSO’s PDP Manual;

RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council hereby reconvenes the IGO-INGO PDP WG and re-confirms Thomas Rickert as its Chair;

  2. The GNSO Council requests the reconvened IGO-INGO PDP WG to consider the feasibility and practicability of the proposed amendment/modification of the GNSO’s recommendations pertaining to the duration and mechanism of protection for IGO acronyms and certain additional identifiers of Red Cross national societies;

  3. The GNSO Council requests that the IGO-INGO PDP WG provide the Council with its recommendation in relation to the proposed amendment/modification within forty-five (45) days of the reconvening of the WG;

  4. The GNSO Council requests that, within seven (7) calendar days of this resolution, ICANN staff publish the proposed amendment/modification for public comment for a period of not less than thirty (30) days; and

  5. Following receipt of the IGO-INGO PDP WG’s response and the closure of the public comment period, the GNSO Council will consider all responses received in determining whether or not to adopt the proposed amendment/modification and notify the NGPC of its decision accordingly.

 

3. Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions

 Made by: Avri Doria

Seconded by: Amr Elsadr

Whereas,

  1. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN “convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role” with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management.

  2. On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) “responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions.”

  3. It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components.

  4. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, a drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.

  5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, GNSO, SSACC and ALAC (see [include link to proposed charter]).

Resolved,

  1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter [include link] and appoints Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG.

  2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 September taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
  • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter;
  • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
  • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.

    3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for observers to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.

    4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG.

4 Motion: Appointment of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Made by: David Cake
Amended by Jonathan Robinson (amendment in BOLD)

Seconded by: James Bladel

Whereas:

  1. As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities, the option of appointing a GNSO liaison to the GAC has been proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore.

  2. As such, the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO policy development activities proposed to implement this option as a one-year pilot program in FY15 (starting 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015).

  3. This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY 15, by both the GNSO Council and the GAC, to determine whether or not to continue in either in the same form or with possible adjustments based on the feedback received.

  4. Following a call for candidates (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16435.html), five applications were received
    all of which were evaluated by the GNSO Council Leadership based on the criteria outlined in the call for candidates.

  5. Mason Cole was unanimously selected by the GNSO Council Leadership as the preferred candidate.

 

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Mason Cole to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until 30 June 2015.

  2. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinatewith Mason Cole as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on next steps and the successful implementation of this new role.

5 Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Made by: Jonathan Robinson - withdrawn 3 September 2014
Seconded by: Amr Elsadr

Whereas:

  1. As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities, the option of appointing a GNSO Liaison to the GAC has been proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore.

  2. As such, the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO policy development activities proposed to implement this option as a one-year pilot program in FY15 (1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015).

  3. This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY 15, by both the GNSO Council and the GAC, to determine whether or not to continue in either in the same form or with possible adjustments based on the feedback received.

  4. Following a call for candidates (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16435.html), five applications were received, all of which were evaluated by the GNSO Council Leadership based on the criteria outlined in the call for candidates.

  5. Mason Cole was unanimously selected by the GNSO Council Leadership as the preferred candidate.

Resolved:

  1. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Mason Cole to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until 30 June 2015.

  2. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinate with Mason Cole as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on next steps and the successful implementation of this new role.  

 

  • ラベルがありません
For comments, suggestions, or technical support concerning this space, please email: ICANN Policy Department
© 2015 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers