Page History
...
Item 3: Consent Agenda (15 minutes)
- Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique
- Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase 1.
- Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.[3] Approval of the suggested amendments suggested amendments to the GNSO’s Fellowship Selection criteria.
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (20 minutes)
...
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (5 minutes)
Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-April/022561.html). Note: Removed from the Consent Agenda (by Councilor request).
4.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)
4.2 – Council discussion
4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE – IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms (20 minutes)
The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG worked to resolve a final recommendation relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity and registrants’ rights to file court proceedings. The WG reached agreement on a single recommendation amongst several options for their final recommendation on this area, as well as for all other recommendations. The WG Chair proposed his determination of consensus levels for all recommendations, which the WG has affirmed. On 27 June 2018, the GNSO Council passed a resolution, thanking the PDP WG for its efforts and requesting that it submit its Final Report in time for the 19 July 2018 Council meeting.
After having agreed on consensus levels for its final recommendations, the WG considered the text of its Final Report. On 9 July 2018, the PDP WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration, which contains five consensus recommendations, along with three Working Group member minority statements, documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report.
On its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group, where it noted that it would consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of the appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.
On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
A motion to consider the Final Report was originally submitted on the 24 October 2018 Council meeting agenda but was withdrawn due to concerns around both the process followed by the PDP, as well as the substance of the PDP WG’s recommendations. Council leadership and staff have developed a summary document (Summary Paper and Slide Deck) that lists issues raised by Councilors, options available, and potential considerations. During the November meeting, the Council considered a set of available options and briefly discussed possible next steps.
On 20 December 2018, Council leadership circulated a proposal for next steps. Council leadership has since sent a reply to the GAC, in response to a letter received during ICANN63. On the 24 January 2018 Council meeting, the Council discussed the proposal prepared by Council leadership. On 14 February 2019, the Council further discussed next steps and agreed to consult with the Governmental Advisory Committee, both before and at ICANN64. The GNSO Council and GAC had productive discussions, where the Council discussed procedural options that it is considering. The GAC’s Kobe Communique noted the GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action.”
Based on the Council discussions and consultation with the GAC, the Council believes that it has thoroughly considered the available options.
Here, the Council will vote to approve the set of actions as detailed in the relevant motion.
5.1 – Presentation of motion (Council Leadership)
5.2 – Council discussion
5.3 – Council vote (see directly below for additional detail)
GNSO voting threshold, per the ICANN Bylaws:
(viii) Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
(ix) Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
(x) Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded.
(xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.
Board Approval process:
Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.
...
On its 19 July Council meeting, the Council resolved to accept the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group, where it noted that it would consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of the appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers.
On 9 October 2018, the Council held a question and answer webinar to review the recommendations and to ask itself a series of questions, 1) Does the Council believe that the PDP has addressed the issues that it was chartered to address (i.e. What questions/topics was the Working Group chartered to consider, did it consider those charter topics/questions, and did it do so in a legitimate way)?; 2) Has the PDP followed due process?; and 3) Did the PDP Working Group address GAC advice on the topic?
A motion to consider the Final Report was originally submitted on the 24 October 2018 Council meeting agenda but was withdrawn due to concerns around both the process followed by the PDP, as well as the substance of the PDP WG’s recommendations. Council leadership and staff have developed a summary document (Summary Paper and Slide Deck) that lists issues raised by Councilors, options available, and potential considerations. During the November meeting, the Council considered a set of available options and briefly discussed possible next steps.
On 20 December 2018, Council leadership circulated a proposal for next steps. Council leadership has since sent a reply to the GAC, in response to a letter received during ICANN63. On the 24 January 2018 Council meeting, the Council discussed the proposal prepared by Council leadership. On 14 February 2019, the Council further discussed next steps and agreed to consult with the Governmental Advisory Committee, both before and at ICANN64. The GNSO Council and GAC had productive discussions, where the Council discussed procedural options that it is considering. The GAC’s Kobe Communique noted the GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action.”
Based on the Council discussions and consultation with the GAC, the Council believes that it has thoroughly considered the available options.
Here, the Council will vote to approve the set of actions as detailed in the relevant motion.
4.1 – Presentation of motion (Council Leadership)
4.2 – Council discussion
...
Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.
Item 56: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Managing IDN Variants TLDs (15 minutes)
...
Here, the Council will receive an update and consult with Sarmad Hussain, managing director of ICANN’s IDN Program, to better understand its responsibilities as dispensed by the ICANN Board.
56.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)
56.2 – Update and council discussion (Sarmad Hussain, ICANN staff)
56.3 – Next steps
Item 67: COUNCIL UPDATE – Status of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 1 Informal Implementation Review Team (15 minutes)
...
Here, the Council will receive a status update on the progress of the informal implementation efforts.
67.1 – Update (Russ Weinstein, ICANN staff)
67.2 – Council discussion
67.3 – Next steps
Item 78: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Updated Timeline for the PDP on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDS (15 minutes)
...
Here, the Council will receive an update on the progress of the PDP from the Council liaison and discuss possible next steps.
78.1 – Introduction of topic (Paul McGrady, GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP)
78.2 – Council discussion
78.3 – Next steps
Item 89: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)
89.1 - Reminder for funded travelers to book their travel for ICANN65
89.2 - GNSO Council - Input to Establish IRP Standing Panel
...
