Made by: Brian Winterfeldt
Seconded by:
WHEREAS:
The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized “the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)
The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDs;
The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012;
The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP) to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and
Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team’s recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011 pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations.
That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and
That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board.
Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system (DNS), such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;
Whereas, the GNSO Council approved the Charter
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) for a Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition Working Group (CTCCCWG) to produce an Advice Letter for consideration by Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to assist them in responding to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system;
Whereas, the CCI WG created a draft Advice Letter and posted it for Public Comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb12-en.htm);
Whereas, the CCI WG reviewed all Public Comments and feedback from public sessions and produced a Final Advice Letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf
) for consideration by the SOs and ACs.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council endorses there commendations for establishing the definition, measures and three-year targets for those measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system as described in the Final Advice Letter.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council approves the delivery of the Final Advice Letter to the ICANN Board.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the CTCCC WG members for their diligence and persistent efforts on this important topic and disbands the Working Group.
WHEREAS:
Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation;
The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation;
The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;
The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;
The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word “stated” and to delete the words “until further notice” as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES).
The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.
>>
An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached.
The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn.