Hello All, Below are the resolutions from the new gTLD program committee meetings held on 12/14 Oct 2014. In summary: - the Board has directed the staff to organize a review by International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) with a three-member panel of the following two string confusion decisions: VeriSign Inc. (Objector) v. United TLD Holdco Ltd. (Applicant) .CAM Commercial Connect LLC (Objector) v. Amazon EU S.�� r.l. (Applicant) .ͨ - provide temporary protections for the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies while the GAC, GNSO, Board, and ICANN community continue to actively work on resolving the differences in the advice from the GAC and the GNSO policy recommendations on the scope of protections for the RCRC names. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10-... 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Minutes Resolved (2014.10.12.NG01), the Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approves the minutes of its 8 September 2014 meeting. 2. Main Agenda: a. GAC Advice in Beijing Communiqu�� regarding Category 2 Safeguards �C Exclusive Registry Access No resolution taken. b. Perceived Inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations Whereas, on 10 October 2013 the Board Governance Committee (BGC) requested that staff draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections (SCOs) "setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this [Reconsideration] Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes involving Amazon's Applied �C for String and TLDH's Applied-for String." Whereas, the NGPC considered potential paths forward to address perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program SCO process, including possibly implementing a new review mechanism. Whereas, on 5 February 2014, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) directed the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, to initiate a public comment period on framework principles of a potential review mechanism to address perceived inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations (the "proposed review mechanism"). The proposed review mechanism, if adopted, would have been limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM, and would have constituted a change to the Objection process set forth in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Whereas, the NGPC has carefully considered the report that the BGC asked staff to draft in response to Reconsideration Request 13-9, the received public comments to the proposed review mechanism, other comments provided to the NGPC for consideration, as well as the processes set out in the Applicant Guidebook. Whereas, as set out in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN has reserved the right to individually consider any application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would be in the best interest of the Internet community. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.10.12.NG02), the NGPC has identified the following String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations as not being in the best interest of the New gTLD Program and the Internet community: SCO Expert Determinations for Review VeriSign Inc. (Objector) v. United TLD Holdco Ltd. (Applicant) .CAM Commercial Connect LLC (Objector) v. Amazon EU S.�� r.l. (Applicant) .ͨ Resolved (2014.10.12.NG03), the NGPC directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), take all steps necessary to establish processes and procedures, in accordance with this resolution and related rationale, pursuant to which the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) shall establish a three-member panel to re-evaluate the materials presented, and the Expert Determinations, in the two objection proceedings set out in the chart above under the "SCO Expert Determinations for Review" column and render a Final Expert Determination on these two proceedings. In doing so, the NGPC recommends that the three-member panel also review as background the "Related SCO Expert Determinations" referenced in the above chart. c. Reconsideration Request 14-37, I-Registry Ltd. Whereas, iRegistry Ltd. ("Requester") filed Reconsideration Request 14-37 asking the New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC") to reverse Resolutions 2014.07.30.NG01 �C 2014.07.30.NG04 (the "Resolution") "or at least amend[]" the Resolution, and to then put the decision as to how to address name collisions "on hold" until the issues the Requester raises have "been solved." Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 14-37. Whereas, the BGC recommended that the Request be denied because the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and the NGPC agrees. Resolved (2014.10.12.NG04), the NGPC adopts the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 14-37, which can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendation-i-registry-04sep1... [PDF, 150 KB]. d. GAC Advice regarding Protections for the Red Cross and Red Crescent �C Singapore Communiqu�� Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore and issued a Communiqu�� [PDF., 449 KB] on 27 March 2014 ("Singapore Communiqu��"). Whereas, in the Singapore Communiqu�� the GAC clarified its previous advice to the ICANN Board to permanently protect from unauthorized use the terms associated with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and advised that the protections should also include "the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin," and the "full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in the six (6) United Nations Languages." The GAC Advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2014-03-27-RCRC. Whereas, the GNSO has developed policy recommendations to the Board concerning the Red Cross and Red Crescent names that are the subject of the GAC's Singapore Communiqu��. The scope of protections in the GNSO policy recommendations differ from the GAC's advice, and the GAC, GNSO, Board, and ICANN community continue to actively work on resolving the differences. Whereas, the NGPC is responsible for considering the GAC advice pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.10.12.NG05), the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is directed to provide temporary protections for the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, as identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2014-03-27-RCRC while the GAC, GNSO, Board, and ICANN community continue to actively work on resolving the differences in the advice from the GAC and the GNSO policy recommendations on the scope of protections for the RCRC names. e. Any Other Business No resolution taken.