Motions 14 March 2012

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois

deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012

Made by: Stéphane van Gelder
Seconded by: Yoav Keren
Amended by David Taylor (in bold

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

[Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means]

 THEREFORE BE IT:
Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois
(see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf)

Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval.

Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

........................................................................................................................................................

Approval of a Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group

Motion made by: Joy Liddicoat

Motion seconded by:  Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

 

Whereas on 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112);

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-05mar12-en.pdf

...................................................................................................................................................

Motion to approve  Cross Community Working Group Principles

deferred from the Council meeting on 19 January 2012

 

Made by: Jonathan Robinson

Seconded by: Jeff Neuman 

Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; 

Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups;

Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf+.+

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups;

Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.

........................................................................................................................................................;

MOTION TO  RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD A SOLUTION TO PROTECT CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL IN NEW GTLDS

Made by: Jeff Neuman

Seconded by:

 

Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized “the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution  to modify the ICANN staff’s implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 <LINK>;

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns,;

Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012;

Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications’. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team’s three recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely:

 

Recommendation 1:    Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “Modified Reserved Names,” meaning:
 

a)               The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the “IOC”), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter “RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable. 

 

b)               Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. 

 

c)               If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review:

 

  1.                                             i.                        And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable.

 

  1.                                           ii.                        If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by:

 

  1. 1.      Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or

 

  1. 2.      If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must:
                        
    1. a.      claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and
    2. b.      explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.

 

  1. 3.      A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination.

 

  1. 4.      The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications.

Recommendation 2:    Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible

 

            The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC “names should be protected in multiple languages---all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet…The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive.”  Although the Drafting Team agrees with the notion that the lists provided by the IOC and RCRC were illustrative, protecting the terms in every language on the Internet is not a standard that the Drafting Team believes is feasible to achieve.  While it is true that the list of languages can be expanded, we recognize that in order to perform a String Similarity Review (as recommended above), a definitive objective list of languages must be created.  It is the Drafting Team’s understanding that representatives from the IOC and RCRC are working on the creation of that definitive list and should be able to present that to the Drafting Team by no later than the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica.  If such a list can be produced, the Drafting Team may recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in the Applicant Guidebook. 

 

            In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.

 

Recommendation 3:    Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may be reviewed after the first round.

                                   

            In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds.  Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that like all other aspects of the new gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the ICANN community should it desire to do so.

Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 meeting in Costa Rica as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications.

...........................................................................;;;;;;

Amended version

MOTION TO  RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD A SOLUTION TO PROTECT CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL IN NEW GTLDS

 

Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized “the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution  to modify the ICANN staff’s implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 <LINK>;

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns;

Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012;

Whereas, the GNSO is mindful that implementation of the Board’s resolution is needed to be available before the end of the Application Window;

Whereas, the GNSO intends that these recommendations be solely limited to the IOC and RCRC;

Whereas, the GNSO recognizes that there might be a policy impact of the protection for the IOC/RCRC for future rounds and at the second level;  and

Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications’. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team’s three recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely:

 

Recommendation 1:    Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “Modified Reserved Names,” meaning:
 

a)               The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the “IOC”), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter “RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable. 

 

b)               Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. 

 

c)               If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review:

 

  1.                                             i.                        And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable.

 

  1.                                           ii.                        If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by:

 

  1. 1.      Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or

 

  1. 2.      If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must:
                        
    1. a.      claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and
    2. b.      explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.

 

  1. 3.      A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination.

 

  1. 4.      The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications.

Recommendation 2:    Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible

 

            The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC “names should be protected in multiple languages---all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet…The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive.”  The Drafting Team recommends that at the top level for this initial round, the list of languages currently provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient.

 

 

            In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.

 

Recommendation 3:    Protections should apply for all future rounds, but may be reviewed after the first round.

                                   

            In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds.  Although, the Drafting Team has not spent a lot of time discussing this topic, it does agree with the notion that it is making this recommendation as one intended to apply in all future rounds, but also recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be reviewed. 

Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 meeting in Costa Rica as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications.

  • No labels