Page History

...

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-09dec19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Motion - EPDP Phase 1 GNSO Council Supplemental Recommendation

Submitted by Rafik Dammak

Seconded by

Whereas,

1. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (Temporary Specification) pursuant to the procedures in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement concerning the establishment of temporary policies;
2. Following the adoption of the Temporary Specification, and per the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement, aConsensus Policy development process as set forth in ICANN's Bylaws needs to be initiated immediately and completed within a one-year time period from the effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification;
3. The Generic NamesSupporting Organization (GNSO) Council approved the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Initiation Request (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-initiation-request-19jul18-en.pdf) and the EPDP Team Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf) on 19 July 2018;
4. The EPDP followed the prescribed EPDP procedures as stated in the Bylaws and delivered its Phase 1 Final Report on 20 February 2019;
5. The EPDP Team reached consensus on all but two Recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter;
6. TheGNSO Council reviewed and discussed the Recommendations of the EPDP Team and approved all Recommendations on 4 March 2019 by a GNSO Supermajority vote (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20190304-1);
7. The ICANN Board did not adopt Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, and Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field and provided its rationale in the Board resolution (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.b) as well as a formal Board Statement incorporating the rationale for discussion, as specified in Annex A-1, Section 6 of the ICANNBylaws (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-15may19-en.pdf);
8. The ICANN Bylaws foresee that in case of non-adoption, “the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement”. The GNSO Council discussed this topic during its Council meetings on 28 May 2019, 26 June 2019, 18 July 2019, 22 August 2019, 24 October 2019 and 6 November 2019, with the ICANN Board during its joint sessions at ICANN65 and ICANN66, as well as in an exchange of letters (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-icann-board-09sep19-en.pdf and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-drazek-14oct19-en.pdf);
9. The GNSO Council also solicited and considered the input from the EPDP Team (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-May/001941.html, https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/karklins-to-drazek-09jun19-en.pdf and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-October/002737.html). 

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council has concluded that concerning Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, this is firmly within the scope of the EPDP Team to address as part of its phase 2 deliberations as the original language was already flagged as a placeholder pending further consideration during phase 2. As such, the Council will not take further action in the context of Annex A-1 Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws and accept the Board’s non-adoption
2. In relation to Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field, the GNSO Council adopts the following Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice which stated that: “b) If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents.” (emphasis added) but hereby providing additional implementation guidance: similar to what was recommended in Recommendation 29 in the context of the deletion of administrative contact, prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information.
3. The GNSO Council Chair is requested to communicate this Supplemental Recommendation to the ICANN Board.