[council] GNSO Council Resolutions - 15 December 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,

Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following two resolutions were 
passed at the Council meeting on 15 December 2011.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

1.    Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP



Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report 
to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), 
recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both

(a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any 
insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and

(b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP 
language needs to be reviewed or updated, and

Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in 
accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working 
Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) and

Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/prelim-report-current-state-udrp-27may11-en.pdf) 
and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to 
allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and 
recommendations contained therein, and

Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf) in 
which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the 
majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory 
Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be 
delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been 
in operation for at least eighteen months. . . to allow the policy process to 
be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled 
on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.”

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP and the establishment 
of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group 
concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, 
which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to 
consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the 
Current State of the UDRP.

RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current 
state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new 
gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to 
the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation 
of the first new gTLD.


2.    Motion for JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) response to August 
2011 Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

WHEREAS, the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual 
charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: 
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: 
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 
identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO;



WHEREAS, the subject of Single Character IDN TLDs was discussed at the GNSO IDN 
WG, the GNSO Reserved Names WG and incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD 
Recommendations, and consistently resulted in community consensus to allow the 
implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs;



WHEREAS, the JIG developed and published an Initial Report on Single Character 
IDN TLDs 
(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for 
public comments 
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and 
incorporated the comments 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-initial-report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf) into a 
draft Final Report 
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) for further 
public comments,



WHEREAS, the JIG conducted a public session during the Cartagena ICANN meetings 
(http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15395);



WHEREAS, the JIG incorporated comments received 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-draft-final-report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf) and 
completed a Final Report 
(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf)
 which was approved by the ccNSO 
(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-10may11-en.pdf) and GNSO 
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) councils;



WHEREAS, the ICANN Board made a resolution at their August 25, 2011 meeting 
regarding the subject: 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5; and,



WHEREAS, the JIG considered the resolution and found it to be in contradiction 
with the community consensus on the matter,



NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that, upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and 
ccNSO councils on the subject, the Council Chairs would send to the ICANN Board 
the following letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single 
Character IDN TLDs:



JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) Response to ICANN Board Resolution on 
Single Character IDN TLDs



Dear ICANN Board,



First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single 
Character IDN TLDs.  In response to the August 2011 resolution 
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5) however, we 
express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects:



    Both the ccNSO and the GNSO councils have at multiple occasions expressed a 
consensus principle that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not 
be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category.  The August 2011 Board 
resolution (by specifying that “processes for delegation of single-character 
IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and 
conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.”) perhaps inadvertently conflicted with 
this community consensus understanding and should be rectified or clarified.



    The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds 
of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG 
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm), the GNSO Reserved Names 
WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), 
incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), and of 
course the JIG report 
(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf).
  Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for 
allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first 
round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs.  The August 2011 
Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in 
the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable 
rationale.



    While the August 2011 Board resolution generally requested input from a 
collection of ACs, there is a lack of progressive direction towards the 
implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs.  Furthermore, while input from ACs 
is always welcome, given the multitude of public comment periods already 
conducted for the subject, including participation from SSAC members, with 
consistent consensus response, such consultation with ACs should not become an 
arbitrary hurdle for the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs, 
especially for the New gTLD process.



Single Character IDN TLDs is not simply a “good to have” feature, but a 
necessary requirement for some of the IDN communities in order to allow broadly 
attractive and competitive gTLDs.  As an example, for Chinese IDN TLDs, the 
prohibition of Single Character IDN TLDs would effectively devoid the community 
of single-syllable-single-word TLDs, which is otherwise acceptable for English 
and other alphabetic based language TLDs (e.g. “.word” would be an acceptable 
ASCII single-syllable-single-word TLD, yet a similar 
single-syllable-single-word TLD “.字” would not be acceptable for Chinese), 
creating an unjustified situation of inequity, and significantly hindering the 
adoption of IDN.



The JIG, through the ccNSO and GNSO councils therefore sincerely urges the 
Board to:



    Implement the community consensus of allowing Single Character IDN TLDs 
without restricting such implementation to being after the first round of the 
new gTLD process, and to decouple the requirement that IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD 
mechanisms wait for the other;



    If necessary, form an implementation team to assist staff in immediately 
implementing Single Character IDN TLDs for scripts and languages where the 
input of a Single Character requires multiple keystrokes (e.g. ideographical 
scripts, and avoiding the potential technical concern of keyboard layouts 
identified in the JIG report), and for the team to further guide implementation 
for other scripts as well as coordinate input from the ACs; and,



    Update or amend the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook for such implementation 
before the application period for the first round is over.



The JIG and the significantly affected language communities are prepared to 
support ICANN staff and Board in the swift implementation of Single Character 
IDN TLDs without compromising the security and stability of the Internet.  The 
JIG further believes that minor adjustments to the Applicant Guidebook would 
suffice and is ready to work with staff closely to complete its implementation.



We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.



Sincerely,



ccNSO Council (approval: [LINK])

GNSO Council (approval: [LINK])

JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group



Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org