Dear Councilors, As discussed last week, if you would like to help out with the GNSO Response to the Communique, please let us know. I know that some people volunteered in the chat during the wrap up, and I believe ICANN staff was able to collect those names. In an effort to avoid any delays, it would be great for us to starts as soon as possible. To that end, I wanted to draw your attention to the following points: 1. GAC Consensus Advice: There is only one new item under GAC Advice and this pertains to the reservation of IGO Acronyms at the second level. As you are aware, these acronyms (eg., WHO, WIPO, UN, AU, etc.) have been reserved at the second level for all of the new gTLDs introduced in the 2012 round. GAC has advised the Board that it would like those reservations to stay “pending the conclusion of the IGO curative work track currently underway.” * Why is this an issue now: i. First, the GNSO during its PDP on IGOs/INGOs in November 2013<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> unanimously adopted a resolution that with the exception of the IOC/Red Cross names (and their respective acronyms), all Second Level Acronyms must no longer be considered withheld from registration, but that they be subject to a post registration notification service. ii. The ICANN Board adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-04-30-en#2.a> the GNSO recommendation on 30 April 2014 to the extent that it provided for a post registration notification service, but requested additional time to consider the acronym reservation because it was inconsistent with GAC Advice. Over the past 7 years, the ICANN Board has attempted to reconcile GAC Advice and the GNSO Recommendations on the Acronym issue. iii. Apparently there was an e-mail from the ICANN Board to the GAC on 2 June 2021 whereby the Board has stated that they believe all IGO Acronym issues have been addressed by a new post registration notification system set up by ICANN. NOTE: I cannot find a public copy of this e-mail. * The GNSO needs to decide whether or not to weigh in on this matter considering the 2013 approval of the IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations. 1. Issues of Importance: We do not need to respond to these, but I wanted to make sure you saw: * Subsequent Rounds: GAC is soliciting volunteers to serve on ODP – Not sure what this is in response for since ODPs only have 1 liaison and its from the GNSO. * Accuracy: GAC supports the prompt launch of the accuracy scoping exercise of the GNSO and requests to be part of it. * CCT Review Team Recommendations: As stated in an earlier e-mail, I proposed an interim session between the GNSO and the GAC on what steps have been taken by the GNSO to address the recommendations which were passed from the ICANN Board to the GNSO. This would include the applicable SubPro approved recommendations. Of course there is a lot more in the Communique, but I wanted to pick these items out as they directly involve GNSO activity / or are directed at the GNSO. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D76682.3B33C870] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine via council Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:35 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] ICANN71 GAC Communique Dear all, The ICANN71 GAC Communique has been published: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann71-gac-communique Kind regards, Nathalie
