Page History

...

  Items requiring ALAC/At-Large action are in red.

X

INFORMATION & DISCUSSION – Recent meetings in Amsterdam & LA:

Meetings have recently taken place in Amsterdam & LA.  This item provides an opportunity for an update on any key themes or issues arising.

4.1 Update from VCs (Mason Cole & Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)

4.2 Discussion

4.3 Next steps (if any)Prior to a Ry/Rr briefing in Amsterdam, Council Chair and Vice Chairs met with ICANN staff, and found the process very useful. The discussions focused on Council management as well as the status of various issues and projects. The NCSG met in Los Angeles in the first ever inter-sessional House meeting along with ICANN staff. The long period between Toronto and Beijing was one of the driving rationales.The two SGs also met individually with Fadi.With the CSG, the subjects included the series of Roundtables and the IP rights strawman process.

UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal and Defensive Registrations: ICANN’s CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the Strawman Proposal  developed through the TMCH related implementation discussions, which has been posted for public comment. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30nov12-en.htm.  ICANN’s CEO additionally requested Council input on the joint proposal from the Business Constituency/Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a “limited preventative registration mechanism” which is also currently available for public comment.  A subsequent note (19 December 2012) from ICANN’s CEO clarified the desired deadline for input to be no later than 22 February 2013.

Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287) to the GNSO Council on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level, in response to a previous request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2).  The New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken. 

The Council is to continue to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN CEOs request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any additional work related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff briefing paper, on the topic of second level defensive registrations.

5.1 Update (Mason Cole)

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Next Steps

UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Board requested advice on second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms:

At its 26 November 2012 meeting, the Board requested  that the GNSO continue its work on policy recommendations on top and second-level protections for certain IGO and INGO names on an expedited basis.

In addition, the Board requested that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than 28 February 2013 if it is aware of any concern such as with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms by inclusion on a Reserved Names List in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program. The specific IGO names to be protected shall be those names or acronyms that: 1) qualify under the current existing criteria to register a domain name in the .int gTLD; and 2) have a registered .int domain OR a determination of eligibility under the .int criteria; and 3) apply to ICANN to be listed on the reserved names list for the second level prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs by no later than 28 February 2013.

6.1 Update (Thomas Rickert)

6.2 Discussion

. The discussion focused on the draft letter to be sent staff on the GNSO position, with a focus on trying to get it to accurately reflect Council (or SG) positions. I did intervened saying that it was good to get that letter out, but Council should start to discuss how to develop policy at least for the issue that even ICANN says is policy.

IUPDATE & DISCUSSION – Board requested advice on second level protections for certain IGO names and acronyms: Council got an extensive update on the PDP. A letter will be drafted in reply. I suspect the ultimate answer will be that there is no consensus from the GNSO on a rationale to stop the Board action, but there are some people who feel that taking interim action while a PDP is running is not in the Public Interest.6.3 Next steps (if any)

INFORMATION & DISCUSSION – The issue of "closed generic" TLDs: The New gTLD Program Committee recently directed the ICANN CEO to request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs,  concurrent with the opening of the public comment forum and if the GNSO wishes, to provide such guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of the public comment forum. (7 March)

7.1 Background (Staff)

7.2 Discussion

be provided by the close of the public comment forum. (7 March). It was pointed out that the issue had been discussed and was was closed with the current outcome. Many of the decisions were ultimately made by staff (ie response to question: what if Kraft applies for .food - answer was  it was ok).

 7.3 Next steps (if any)

UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Policy vs. Implementation:

...

UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study: At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. The Council should must consider whether to go ahead with the study. One question is whether the study should be done, but delayed until the Directory Services Expert Working Group does its work.

9.1 – Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman)

...