Page History

...

1. accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
2. does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
3. preserves registrants' rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
4. recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

      6. The GNSO Council had engaged with the GAC on several occasions during its deliberations on the PDP Final Report, including at the joint GAC-GNSO meeting at ICANN65 in Kobe, Japan, where the GNSO Council had sought the GAC’s feedback on the GAC's willingness to participate in a targeted effort focusing on the issue of curative rights for IGOs and possibly drawing on the community's recent experiences with the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification and Work Track 5 of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

       7. At ICANN65 in Marrakech, members of the GNSO Council met with certain members of the GAC and IGOs, where there appeared to be agreement from the GAC/IGOs to support the chartering of this separate work. On 20 August, the GAC sent a letter to the ICANN Board, affirming, “its willingness to participate in such chartering effort.” Dialogue between the GNSO Council, GAC, and IGOs continued at ICANN66 in Montreal, followed by further discussions within the Council.

      8. The GNSO Council, in consultation with the GAC and IGOs, has prepared the necessary amendments to the RPMs Charter, in the form of an Addendum to that Charter (“Addendum”).

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the amendments to the RPMs Charter to create an IGO Work Track, as reflected in the Addendum.
2. The GNSO shall collaborate with each GNSO Stakeholder Group, Constituency, SO and AC to expeditiously issue a call for Members and Observers to join the IGO Work Track, each in accordance with its own rules. The GNSO Council specifically notes that Members and Observers, although appointed by community groups, must nevertheless meet the Membership Criteria as defined in the Addendum.
3. In accordance with the Addendum, the GNSO Council shall conduct an Expressions of Interest process as soon as is reasonably possible, in order to identify and confirm a single, qualified Work Track Chair, consistent with the criteria as defined in the Addendum.
4. The GNSO Council directs the Work Track Chair and Members to conduct its work in as efficient and effective a manner as possible; and as such, monthly written updates shall be submitted to the GNSO Council by the IGO Work Track Chair and/or Council liaison to the Work Track. These updates must include a report as to the progress of the Work Track according to the timeline and milestones identified in its Work Plan.
5. The GNSO Council further directs the Work Track Chair and Members to develop a Work Plan and timeline for its work as a matter of priority and as its first order of business. To facilitate this effort, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to prepare a draft Work Plan and timeline for the Work Track, based on the model adopted for the Expedited Policy Development Process on gTLD Registration Data. The GNSO Council requests that the Work Track Chair submit a proposed Work Plan and timeline to the GNSO Council within four (4) weeks of the first meeting of the Work Track.
6. To facilitate communications between the GNSO and the GAC on this topic, the GNSO Council directs the GNSO liaison to the GAC to provide regular progress reports to the GAC, in accordance with the GAC’s internal rules and processes.
7. The GNSO Council thanks the members of the GNSO Council, as well as those from the GAC and IGOs, for their contributions in developing the Addendum.

...