Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-05feb14-... Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 5 February 2014 1. Main Agenda a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG01 b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG02 c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework 1. Main Agenda: a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires and issued a Communiqué on 20 November 2013 ("Buenos Aires Communiqué"). Whereas, the NGPC adopted scorecards to respond to certain items of the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué and the Durban Communiqué, which were adopted on 4 June 2013, 10 September 2013, and 28 September 2013. Whereas, the NGPC has developed another iteration of the scorecard to respond to certain remaining items of GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué and the Durban Communiqué, and new advice in the Buenos Aires Communiqué. 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 (2014.02.05.NG01), the NGPC adopts the "GAC Advice (Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires): Actions and Updates" (5 February 2014), attached as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-...) to this Resolution, in response to open items of Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC advice as presented in the scorecard. b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Whereas, on 10 October 2013 the Board Governance Committee (BGC) requested staff to draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections "setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes involving Amazon 's Applied-for String and TLDH's Applied-for String." Whereas, the NGPC is considering potential paths forward to address the perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process, including implementing a review mechanism. The review will be limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM. Whereas, the proposed review mechanism, if implemented, would constitute a change to the current String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. 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 (2014.02.05.NG02), the NGPC directs the President and CEO, or his designee, to publish for public comment the proposed review mechanism for addressing perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process. c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements Item not considered. d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework Item not considered. Published on 7 February 2014
All, I'd like to draw you attention to page 3 notably the intended actions of the NGPC under (1) and (2) below: -- To note: During the Buenos Aires meeting, the GNSO unanimously approved the recommendations in the Final Report of the IGO/INGO Protection PDP Working Group. The Final Report recommended reserving IGO names but not their acronyms. It did allow for the inclusion of acronyms in the TMCH in future rounds if they were included in the TMCH during the current round. It also requested an issue report on possible revisions to the UDRP and URS policies that would allow IGOs to take advantage of these processes. Subject to receiving direction from the Board, the NGPC will: (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as the NGPC continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs, and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting. -- Please let me know if there is anything else you believe we should or could do here. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 09 February 2014 00:20 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014 From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-05feb14-... Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 5 February 2014 1. Main Agenda a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG01 b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG02 c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework 1. Main Agenda: a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires and issued a Communiqué on 20 November 2013 ("Buenos Aires Communiqué"). Whereas, the NGPC adopted scorecards to respond to certain items of the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué and the Durban Communiqué, which were adopted on 4 June 2013, 10 September 2013, and 28 September 2013. Whereas, the NGPC has developed another iteration of the scorecard to respond to certain remaining items of GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué and the Durban Communiqué, and new advice in the Buenos Aires Communiqué. 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 (2014.02.05.NG01), the NGPC adopts the "GAC Advice (Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires): Actions and Updates" (5 February 2014), attached as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-...) to this Resolution, in response to open items of Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC advice as presented in the scorecard. b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Whereas, on 10 October 2013 the Board Governance Committee (BGC) requested staff to draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections "setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes involving Amazon 's Applied-for String and TLDH's Applied-for String." Whereas, the NGPC is considering potential paths forward to address the perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process, including implementing a review mechanism. The review will be limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM. Whereas, the proposed review mechanism, if implemented, would constitute a change to the current String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. 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 (2014.02.05.NG02), the NGPC directs the President and CEO, or his designee, to publish for public comment the proposed review mechanism for addressing perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process. c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements Item not considered. d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework Item not considered. Published on 7 February 2014
Hello Jonathan, The rationale from the Board resolution gives a little more context: Rationale for Resolutions 2014.02.07.05 – 2014.07.06 Why is the Board addressing this issue now? In response to the GAC advice on protecting the identifiers of the RCRC, IOC and IGOs in the New gTLD Program, the Board tasked the GNSO with developing policy in response to the GAC advice. In its deliberations, the GNSO Council determined that a Policy Development Process (PDP) was required to resolve the issue as to special protections of strings at the top and second levels for international organizations. In October 2012, the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on this issue. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment on 14 June 2013, followed by its Final Report on 10 November 2013. The Final Report included over twenty consensus recommendations from the WG and Minority Statements from the RCRC, IGO and INGO representatives who participated in the WG, the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee. All the WG's consensus recommendations were approved unanimously by the GNSO Council. Following the closing of the public comment period on these recommendations and adoption by the GNSO Council of a Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board, the next step as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws is consideration by the ICANN Board of the GNSO recommendations. The Bylaws require the Board to "meet to discuss" the GNSO policy recommendations "as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff Manager. In addition, Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013, its Durban Communiqué dated 18 July 2013, and its Buenos Aires Communiqué dated 20 November 2013. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed. What is the proposal being considered? Before considering the resolving the substantive issues concerning the GNSO policy recommendations, the Board is considering how it would like to proceed on this topic as a procedural matter. The GNSO unanimously adopted the policy recommendations in the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP. The policy recommendations are being transmitted to the Board for review and consideration pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws. The GAC has also issued advice to the Board on protections for IGOs in the context of the New gTLD Program - most recently in its Buenos Aires Communiqué. Because the advice relates to the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) is considering the GAC advice. The NGPC has not yet finalized is proposal to address the GAC's advice relating to protections for IGOs but is actively working on the issue. In general, the GNSO recommendations are largely consistent with the advice submitted by the GAC to the ICANN Board. However, there are specific GNSO policy recommendations that differ from the GAC's advice. At this time, the Board is considering acknowledging the policy recommendations of the GNSO in the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP, but requesting additional time to consider the recommendations given that the NGPC is actively working on addressing the GAC's advice on the same topic. The Board is considering taking a holistic approach to considering the GNSO policy recommendations and the GAC's advice by directing the NGPC to (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs, and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thank-you Bruce, That does indeed provide quite a lot more context and associated opportunity o for better understanding. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 12 February 2014 02:39 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014 Hello Jonathan, The rationale from the Board resolution gives a little more context: Rationale for Resolutions 2014.02.07.05 – 2014.07.06 Why is the Board addressing this issue now? In response to the GAC advice on protecting the identifiers of the RCRC, IOC and IGOs in the New gTLD Program, the Board tasked the GNSO with developing policy in response to the GAC advice. In its deliberations, the GNSO Council determined that a Policy Development Process (PDP) was required to resolve the issue as to special protections of strings at the top and second levels for international organizations. In October 2012, the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on this issue. The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment on 14 June 2013, followed by its Final Report on 10 November 2013. The Final Report included over twenty consensus recommendations from the WG and Minority Statements from the RCRC, IGO and INGO representatives who participated in the WG, the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee. All the WG's consensus recommendations were approved unanimously by the GNSO Council. Following the closing of the public comment period on these recommendations and adoption by the GNSO Council of a Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board, the next step as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws is consideration by the ICANN Board of the GNSO recommendations. The Bylaws require the Board to "meet to discuss" the GNSO policy recommendations "as soon as feasible, but preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Board Report from the Staff Manager. In addition, Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013, its Durban Communiqué dated 18 July 2013, and its Buenos Aires Communiqué dated 20 November 2013. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed. What is the proposal being considered? Before considering the resolving the substantive issues concerning the GNSO policy recommendations, the Board is considering how it would like to proceed on this topic as a procedural matter. The GNSO unanimously adopted the policy recommendations in the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP. The policy recommendations are being transmitted to the Board for review and consideration pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws. The GAC has also issued advice to the Board on protections for IGOs in the context of the New gTLD Program - most recently in its Buenos Aires Communiqué. Because the advice relates to the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) is considering the GAC advice. The NGPC has not yet finalized is proposal to address the GAC's advice relating to protections for IGOs but is actively working on the issue. In general, the GNSO recommendations are largely consistent with the advice submitted by the GAC to the ICANN Board. However, there are specific GNSO policy recommendations that differ from the GAC's advice. At this time, the Board is considering acknowledging the policy recommendations of the GNSO in the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP, but requesting additional time to consider the recommendations given that the NGPC is actively working on addressing the GAC's advice on the same topic. The Board is considering taking a holistic approach to considering the GNSO policy recommendations and the GAC's advice by directing the NGPC to (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs, and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (2)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Jonathan Robinson