Page History

1. Motion       Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recommendation

Made by Jeff Neuman

Seconded by Volker Greimann

...

WHEREAS:

1. The ICANN Bylaws currently state:  There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive

...

1. policies relating to generic top-level domains;

...

1. The Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP"; and

...

1. The GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed.

  RESOLVED:

RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to:

...

1. Add a second sentence to Article X, Section 1 such that Section 1 would now read:
   "There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and

...

1. recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.  The GNSO is also responsible for providing advice to the ICANN Board on the implementation of policies relating to generic top-level domains.";

...

1. Include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO advice.  Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it

...

1. decided not to follow GNSO advice, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution.  If no such solution can be found, the

...

1. ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO advice was not followed.

...

1. And;

FURTHER RESOLVED that :

1. That the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed.

2. Motion to adopt the Charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group

Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

Seconded by: Zahid Jamil

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council decided at its wrap-up session at the ICANN meeting in Beijing to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a Working Group to address the issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy & implementation that affect the GNSO.
2. The drafting team was formed and has now submitted a proposed charter for the Policy & Implementation Working Group to the GNSO Council.
3. The GNSO Council has reviewed the proposed charter.

   http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf

    

RESOLVED:

1. The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Jeff Neuman as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Policy & Implementation Working Group.
2. The GNSO Council further directs that the call for volunteers to form the Policy & Implementation Working Group be initiated no later than 7 days after the approval of this motion.
   Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter

http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf

3. Motion on the Adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations

Made by: Jeff Neumann

Seconded by: Yoav Keren and Zahid Jamil

WHEREAS

 1. On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 5 July 2013;

3. The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to addressing the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings;

4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Now therefore be it resolved,

 1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations as detailed in the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf

 2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to the members of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group.