Page History
...
Submitted by Heather Forrest
Seconded by by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
WHEREAS:
1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1);
...
2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf);
...
3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf);
...
4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to “create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future”;
...
5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for ICANN’s 2012 New gTLD Program round (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.pdf),
...
and
6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, as required by the GNSO’s Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for its approval on
...
16 September 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf)
RESOLVED:
...
1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group.
...
2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximised.
3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable.
...
4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for
...
21 December 2017
...
, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61.
Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Third Review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency (ATRT3)
Submitted by: Susan Kawaguchi
Seconded: James Bladel
Whereas,
1. On 31 January 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a volunteer Review Team member on the ATRT3 (see see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-31-en).
2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the Review Team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members, plus an ICANN Board an ICANN Board member (designated by the ICANN Boardthe ICANN Board). Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team.
...
4. The SSC reviewed the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see see https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/ATRT3) taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 13 September 2017 (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-September/020381.html) which which confirmed the ranking of the 1-7 candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the 1-3 candidates would be considered primary candidates with a guaranteed seat for the ATRT3.
5. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Brian Cute (RySG), Wolfgang Kleinwächter (NCSG), Stéphane Van Gelder (RySG) as its primary three candidates for the ATRT3. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Tatiana Tropina (NCSG), Michael Karanicolas (NCSG), Adetola Sogbesan (BC), Erica Varlese (RySG) to be considered for inclusion in the ATRT3 by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available that need to be filled.
...
Submitted by: Heather Forrest
Seconded by: James Bladel
Whereas,
11. The GNSO and ccNSO chartered the Cross-community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs (CWG UCTN) in March, 2014 (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf). The formation of a cross-community working group to evaluate the feasibility of developing an overarching framework on the use of country and territory names as TLDs was the principal recommendation of a preceding ccNSO Study Group (Final Report of 8 September 2013: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-08sep12-en.pdf).
...
3. In addition to comments submitted by individual GNSO stakeholders, the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group, Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency submitted comments supporting Recommendations 1, 2 and 4, as follows:
1. Close this CWG in accordance with and as foreseen in the charter.
2. Recommend that the ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
4. Recommend that future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
4.Notably, no objections were raised in any submission during the public comment period to the above Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.
5. A range of support was expressed for each of the alternative wordings of Recommendation 3, with all GNSO commenters expressing support for Alternative A, as follows:
Alternative A
Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of work that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws.
6. On 24 June 2015, the GNSO adopted the Resolution on the Request for a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds. (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201506) The Preliminary Issue Report, which identified the “requirements around geographic names” as meriting discussion, was adopted by the GNSO Council on 17 December 2015 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201512). The Preliminary Issue Report notably recommended that: “A potential PDP-WG on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures could consider collaborating with other parts of the ICANN community, such as the GAC or ccNSO in particular, in determining if strings described above should be allowed and if so, what requirements would be needed to govern that process. The PDP-WG should also consider the work of the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs before reaching any conclusions.” (Preliminary Issue Report at page 59, https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf)
7. The GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (“Subsequent Procedures PDP”) was chartered on 21 January 2016 to, inter alia: “Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate.” (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21jan16-en.pdf) This issue formed part of Work Track 2, covering legal issues.
8. Following two cross-community sessions led by the leadership of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG at ICANN59 in Johannesburg on the topic of the use of geographic names, the formation of a new Work Track 5 was proposed to better facilitate broad community participation in the discussion of policy on geographic name use.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council adopts Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 of the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs.
2. The GNSO Council adopts the underlying objective of Recommendation 3, and in particular supports Recommendation 3 Alternative A, recognizing that the use of geographic names as gTLDs is clearly within the GNSO’s mandate as per ICANN’s Bylaws, and also recognizing that this is a matter of interest for the ICANN community as a whole.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the Subsequent Procedures PDP to consider the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs, and to ensure continued collaboration with other parts of the ICANN community in addressing issues relating to the use of geographic names.
4. The GNSO Council recognizes the significant contribution of the CWG UCTN to the ongoing development of policy on the use of geographic names in the DNS, and thanks the members of the CWG UCTN for their Final Report, which clearly documents the history and context of policy-making in relation to geographic names.
5. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate these resolutions to the ccNSO Council, as co-chartering organization of the CWG UCTN, as soon as possible.
