Consent Agenda: Confirming of Council liaison appointments
At the Council’s Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen in March 2017, it was noted that several Cross Community Working Groups, GNSO Working Groups and Implementation Review Teams no longer had Council liaisons, due either to a Councilor’s resignation or the ending of a Councilor’s term on the Council. In response to a Call for Volunteers, the following Councilors volunteered to serve as Council liaisons to the respective groups noted against their names:
Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT): Susan Kawaguchi
Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Registration Data IRT: Rubens Kuhl
GNSO Rights & Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team: Ed Morris
Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance: Julf Helsingius
Adoption of the GNSO Review of the GAC Copenhagen Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board - Withdrawn
Submitted by: Stephanie Perrin
Seconded: Michele Neylon
Whereas,
- The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
- The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
- The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
- The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.
Resolved,
- The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Copenhagen GAC Communiqué (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-25apr17-en) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Copenhagen GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
- The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names - Deferred to electronic vote
Submitted by: James Bladel
Seconded: Rubens Kuhl, Michele Neylon
WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf);
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf);
WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal”, and “Red Lion & Sun” (referred to as “Scope 1 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.a);
WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as “Scope 2 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group);
WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the “Scope 2 Identifiers” of the Movement;
WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted:
(1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement’s identifiers in the domain name system (DNS);
(2) The GAC’s rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the Movement and its respective components is grounded in the protections of the designations “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Lion and Sun”, and “Red Crystal” under international treaty law and under multiple national laws;
(3) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf );
(4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and
(5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite and specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%20-%20Singapore%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1397225538000&api=v2); and
WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf), to consider amending the GNSO’s approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report):
RESOLVED,
1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report:
2. The full names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level;
3. In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and
4. In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as the GAC’s public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs.
5. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 for public comment, for a period of [30] days commencing from the date of the first meeting of the reconvened PDP Working Group.
6. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment.
7. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion.
Adoption of the GNSO Council Comment on FY18 Budget and Operating Plan
Submitted by: James Bladel
Seconded: Michele Neylon and Donna Austin
Whereas,
1. Following initial community review, a revised proposed Budget and Operating Plan for FY2018 was published for public comments on 13 March 2017 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en).
2. At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the GNSO Council agreed to form a small team of volunteers to draft comments on the revised Budget for Council consideration (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en).
3. At the Council’s request, ICANN’s Finance Team conducted a webinar on 4 April 2017 covering those aspects of the proposed Budget of interest to the GNSO community (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-gnso-update-04apr17-en.pdf).
4. A draft of the proposed Council comments was circulated to the GNSO Council on 10 April (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-April/019868.html).
5. The GNSO is a Decisional Participant within the new Empowered Community, and the GNSO Council recognizes (a) that the Empowered Community’s powers as contained in the revised ICANN Bylaws includes the ability to veto budgets adopted by the ICANN Board; and (b) the importance of fully understanding the funding and expenses of ICANN’s operations.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council approves the FY18 Draft Budget comments prepared on behalf of the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-comments-plan-budget-20apr17-]en.pdf), and instructs ICANN staff to formally submit the approved comment to the Public Comment Forum.
2. The GNSO Council thanks the volunteers who prepared the comments and ICANN staff who provided invaluable assistance to the volunteers in the drafting of the comments.
Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Registration Directory Service (formerly WHOIS) Review Team
Submitted by: Johan Helsingius (revised version sent in on 19th April 2017)
Seconded: James Bladel, Michele Neylon
Whereas,
1. On 22 February 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a Volunteer Review Team Member on the RDS-RT (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-22-en).
2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the review team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members. Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team.
3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ‘to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting’.
4. The SSC reviewed the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/gYfDAw) taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 19 April 2017 which confirmed the ranking of the 1-7 candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the 1-4 candidates would be considered primary candidates with a guaranteed seat for the RDS-RT, instead of only 1-3, recognizing the importance and relevance of the topics under consideration for the GNSO community as well as noting that a number of SO/ACs will not be making nominations for this specific review team .
5. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann Stephanie Perrin and Volker Greimann as its primary four candidates for the RDS-RT. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Marc Anderson, Stefania Milan and Timothy Chen to be considered for inclusion in the RDS-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.
2. The GNSO Council expects the GNSO Chair to communicate to the SO-AC Chairs the importance of considering the four candidates as primary as well as respecting the ranking of the additional candidates in the discussion with the other SO-AC Chairs concerning potential additions to the RDS-RT, unless for reasons of diversity/skills it becomes necessary to deviate from the indicated ranking. In such a case, the GNSO Chair is expected to communicate the rationale for such a deviation back to the GNSO Council.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the RDS-RT.
4. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the RDS-RT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the RDS-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the RDS-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
5. The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the RDS-RT and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any) for this RDS-RT, thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the RDS-RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise.
