Page History
ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-04C)
| Date Issued | Document | Reference ID | Current Phase | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-04C) | AL-ALAC-ST-0421-02-01-EN (R-04C) |
|
| Understand
DESCRIPTION
Should a jurisdictionally competent dispute resolution procedure determination or ruling of unenforceability (on whatever grounds) be served on ICANN, the ICANN Board must take action to remedy such unenforceability, by preserving, where feasible, the original intention of the affected PIC or RVC through negotiation with all impacted contracted parties or other actions. Such actions could, if necessary, include Bylaw amendments.
DEPENDENCIES
Progress pending the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report.
STATUS UPDATES
| Date | Phase | Type | Status Updates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closed | Phase Change | This Advice Item is now Closed |
| Phase 2 | Board Update | A letter (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-zuck-22may23-en.pdf) was sent to the RSSAC regarding the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Advice to the ICANN Board on the Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations. Following the adoption of the Resolution and with the considerations described below, the Board believes that there is no further action required to address those aspects of the ALAC’s Advice relating to the Board’s decision on the Final Report, as these have already been taken One World, One Internet icann.org into account during its deliberations. Therefore, the Board regards these Advice items to have been fully considered. |
| Phase 2 | Phase Update | The ICANN Board and Org are currently reviewing and considering this advice. In December 2022, ICANN org delivered the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Assessment to the Board, which identified the ALAC's advice as an item that may need a decision or action be taken before the next round is to proceed. On 16 March 2023, the Board adopted 98 recommendations contained in the New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Policy Development Process Final Report (Final Report). The Board's 16 March 2023 resolution acknowledged the ALAC's contributions on the Final Report, which was used to inform the Board's deliberations on the Final Report recommendations. The Board continues to review and consider the ALAC advice to determine whether there are actionable items that may require Board action now that the Board has taken action on a substantial number of SubPro policy recommendations. The Board anticipates that this exercise will be completed in the first half of 2023 and that a response to the advice would come before the Board takes action on the remaining SubPro policy recommendations. |
| Phase 2 | Phase Update | As noted at the joint Board-ALAC session at ICANN75, the Board greatly appreciates the ALAC's responses to the Board's questions. The Board continues to review and consider the ALAC advice, to determine whether, in addition to informing the Board’s deliberations, there are actionable items that may require Board action before (or after) the Board takes action on the SubPro policy recommendations. The Board anticipates that this exercise will be completed in the first half of 2023 and that a response to the advice would come at the time of action on the SubPro Final Report – or shortly thereafter. |
| Phase 2 | AP Feedback | The ALAC is open to the Board’s proposed approach for an applicant / Registry that wishes to apply for an RVC must also demonstrate an objective evaluation methodology for such RVC - to be applicable to RVCs only - and we are prepared to discuss this approach further. We suggest that such an approach would also benefit from the use of the Board’s Global Public Interest Framework on Commitment a.iv, Core value b.ii, and Core value b.vi, and with reference to GAC Consensus Advice. We further suggest that such an approach must also be subject to community input. Notwithstanding, there remains a crucial need for more particularized reporting by ICANN Contractual Compliance in respect of thresholds which are derived and used to assess compliance or non-compliance of an RVC for action to be taken by ICANN. |
| Phase 2 | Clarifying Question | The Board would like to discuss with the ALAC a possible different approach to the enforcement of PICs/RVCs which places more responsibility on an applicant / Registry to develop RVCs which incorporate an objective evaluation methodology. |
| Phase 2 | Phase Change | Now Phase 2 |
| Phase 1 | Phase Update | Acknowledgment sent to ALAC. |
| Phase 1 | Phase Update | ALAC published AL-ALAC-ST-0421-02-01-EN: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures: https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/13823. |
