I have just been informed that with regards to
the agenda item 4 for the GNSO Council Meeting which will take place in just over an hour today that the Board has requested more time because "
[t]he Board would like to propose a small tweak to the language [to the clarifying statements for Recommendations 9.1, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13, 30.1, 30.16 and 31.17 (all regarding the enforceability of PICs and RVCs)
to ensure that it is crystal clear". Therefore the update to that agenda item is as follows:
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - SubPro Small Team Clarifying Statement - Hence the recommendations where there is an expectation that the GNSO Council can resolve ICANN Board concerns via a Clarifying Statement are now
- Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds - Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7
- The SubPro Final Report recommendation envisions that “the next application procedure should be processed in the form of a round” and “Application procedures must take place at predictable, regularly occurring intervals without indeterminable periods of review”. However, the GNSO Council confirms its willingness to engage with the ICANN Board to explore a shared vision for the long-term evolution of the program, which could be materially different than what is envisioned for the next round of the New gTLD Program in the Topic 3 recommendations.
- Topic 6: Registry Service Provider Pre-Evaluation - Recommendation 6.8
- The GNSO Council confirms its understanding of the Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines that state that, “the IRT is convened to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy to ensure that the implementation conforms to the intent of the policy recommendations.” The Council therefore recognizes that ICANN org will be responsible for establishing the fees charged for the RSP pre-evaluation program, in consultation with the IRT, as is consistent with the roles and responsibilities captured in the IRT Principles & Guidelines. The language used in Recommendation 6.8 is not intended to alter the respective roles and responsibilities of staff and the IRT.
- Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments - Recommendation
s 9.1, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15Recommendations 9.1, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13 - The GNSO Council confirms that in respect to any new Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), PICs/RVCs entered into must be contractually enforceable, and in respect of RVCs, enforceability is determined by both ICANN org and the applicant. And further, the Council observes that among the purposes of PICs / RVCs is to address public comments, in addressing strings deemed highly sensitive or related to regulated industries, objections, whether formal or informal, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, and/or other comments from the GAC.- Recommendation 9.15: The GNSO Council confirms that this recommendation does not require any implementation nor creates any dependencies for the Next Round of the New gTLD Program.
- Topic 26: Security and Stability - Recommendation 26.9
- The GNSO Council confirms that the “any level” language referenced in the recommendation should be interpreted to only be in respect of domain names that are allocated by the registry operator.
- Topic 29: Name Collision - Recommendation 29.1
- The GNSO Council believes that Recommendation 29.1 can be adopted by the Board on the understanding that it does not need to be acted on until such time any next steps for mitigating name collision risks are better understood out of the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 2.
Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning - Recommendation 30.7Please see the Council’s clarifying statement for Recommendations 9.1, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13.
Topic 31: Objections - Recommendations 31.16, 31.17Please see the Council’s clarifying statement for Recommendations 9.1, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13.
- Topic 34: Community Applications - Recommendation 34.12
- The GNSO Council confirms its recommendation that terms included in the contract between ICANN org and the CPE Provider regarding the CPE process must be subject to public comment. This recommendation however is not intended to require ICANN org to disclose any confidential terms of the agreement between ICANN org and the CPE Provider.
- Topic 35: Auctions - Recommendations 35.3, 35.5
- The GNSO Council confirms that the references to private auctions in Recommendations 35.3 and 35.5 merely acknowledge the existence of private auctions in 2012 and should NOT be seen as an endorsement or prohibition of their continued practice in future rounds of the New gTLD Program. The Council notes that there were extensive discussions on the use of private auctions in the SubPro working group. To the extent that draft recommendations were developed as to private auctions, these did not receive consensus support in the working group but did receive strong support with significant opposition.
- Council will vote on the clarifying statement to be submitted to the ICANN Board.
Justine Chew
ALAC Liaison to the GNSO