Page History
...
In November 2013, the GNSO Council adopted a consensus recommendation for an Issue Report from the Policy Development Process Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG). The Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms was published in preliminary form and offered for public comment.
The Final Issue Report [LINK] was updated following staff review of public comments, delivered to the Council on 25 May 2014 and published on 26 May 2014. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP), limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.
...
Here the Council will vote on whether or not to initiate a PDP as recommended in the Final Issue Report.
4.1 – Presentation of the Final Issue Report (Mary Wong)
4.2 – Present the motion (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong)
4.2 3 – Discussion
4.3 4 – Vote (Threshold; one third of each house or two thirds of one house)
Item 5: MOTION – Approval of a Charter for a PDP Working Group for the IGO & INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP(10 mins)
...
5.1 – Present the motion (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong)
5.2 – Discussion
5.3 – Vote (threshold one third of each house or two thirds of one house)
Item 6: MOTION – Close the work on WHOIS Studies and discuss any appropriate next steps (10 mins)
...
Here the GNSO Council will consider formally closing the work on WHOIS studies and deliberate any next steps.
66.1 – Present the motion - Staff Update (Mary Wong)
6.2 – Present the motion (Volker Greimann)
6.3 – Discussion
6.3 4 – Vote (Threshold; Simple majority)
Item 7: DISCUSSION – Internet Governance Issues (15 mins)
The transition of the IANA function from the US government oversight is now firmly on the GNSO’s agenda and the Council must determine its role and function with respect to this. A proposal was made in Singapore for the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) to work on transition from NTIA and a very early stage initial draft of a potential charter for such a CWG was circulated. This has been modified a little since and is available here.
The existing CWG on internet governance has since commenced work on its own charter and indications are that such a charter will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. In addition, indications are that the ccNSO may be interested in jointly initiating a new CWG on the NTIA transition together with the GNSO and that other AC/SO parts of ICANN will participate in such a CWG. Given the scope and impact of the IANA transition, it is likely that such a CWG will need to reach out beyond the ICANN community for participation and input.
...
- Public comment on the Strategic Plan?
- Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts Procedure Review
- A GNSO Council Liaison for the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team?
Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
...
